Jump to content
vic

20 mph

Recommended Posts

Warrington Road in Penketh is indeed a dual carriageway but it is also heavily residential on both sides. I remember when it was a 40mph limit and think it was reduced to 30 in order to stop people doing 50/60!! :wink: :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Asp... but many peeple still do not realise and slip up unintentionally by doing more than 30 especially if they join it from one of the many side roads.

 

It's clearly not really working though is it or they wouldn't still be catching so many at 35/40+ on the bend or even higher on the straight going up towards the island. :wink:

 

PS... no I have haven't by the way as I know the road well :wink::P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good idea but what actually determines 'in stone' what constitites a residential street/estate ?

 

Ah that's the million dollar question dizzy, and despite 44 pages of a thread which has been running for a year and a half, neither Rod nor anyone from the 20s mental group are prepared to designate what they feel is residential.

 

And why? Quite simple really - see the latest post from Rod - he claims to have support for his cause, but he doesn't, he has support in the area many have stated here, truly residential streets, mainly I imagine in the minds of most people, cul-de-sacs and side roads, not the likes of Long Lane or Lovely Lane.

 

But as long as 20s mentalers ignore requests for specfics, the more chance there is of the wrong streets being included in this arbitary blitz when the council roll it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warrington Road in Penketh is indeed a dual carriageway but it is also heavily residential on both sides. I remember when it was a 40mph limit and think it was reduced to 30 in order to stop people doing 50/60!! :wink: :wink:

 

 

Therein lies the problem. they will waste money sticking 20 signs up all over the borough, but won't stick 30 signs up along dual carriage ways to remind people that it is a 30 zone. If they did, drivers would probably take a bit more notice of the speed that they were travelling at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Asp... but many peeple still do not realise and slip up unintentionally by doing more than 30 especially if they join it from one of the many side roads.

 

It's clearly not really working though is it or they wouldn't still be catching so many at 35/40+ on the bend or even higher on the straight going up towards the island. :wink:

 

PS... no I have haven't by the way as I know the road well :wink::P

 

I would say it is working if people are only doing 35/40 on a road they were doing 45/50 on before, which was my point. If people had been keeping to the previous 40mph limit they wouldn't have had to reduce it to 30. :wink: :wink: :wink:

 

Give me a wave next time you're (not) speeding past the Wing Fat :D :grin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh it's not working if they are still doing 35/40 cos that's 5/10 mph OVER the speed limit. :unsure:

 

Are you saying that when all the roads in Warrington come down to 20 mph then doing 25/30 on them will be acceptable too ?

 

I shall wave to you next time, what days do you work in there Captain Birdseye :lol::P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if you think about it people are now driving at less than what the limit used to be so a result surely :D :grin: :D

 

Closed on Mondays :wink: :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And no I'm not advocating a blanket 20 mph. Common sense has to prevail, not much of which is being shown by the bansturbators :roll: :roll: :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone considered implementing a national speed limit of 20mph on residential estates.

If we can have a national speed limit of 60mp which relies on how many lamp posts are on a road, surely we can have one for residential roads without the expense of erecting all the signs?

I mean how many 60 mph signs do you see?

Just a thought.

 

Hi Gary

 

A good question. The problem is how do you indicate to the driver that the speed limit is 20mph and must not be exceeded. We rely on the existence of lamposts to define a 30mph limit. That is why on roads which are unrestricted and have street lighting you often see the unrestricted sign as a repeater. It does not show a 60mph repeater sign because the speed limit for various vehicles differs. For HGV's it would be 40mph and for towed caravans 50mph.

 

This is also why Traffic Authorities are very reluctant to put up 30mph repeater signs to remind drivers of a 30 limit. The more they were to be used then the more drivers would think that anywhere witout a repeater sign may not be 30mph.

 

For 20mph limits then you will always get either repeater signs so that drivers are aware or a traffic calming feature.

 

I suppose the good news is that compared to the cost of road casualties then 20mph limits are incredibly cheap. Its about £3.50 per head of population. Compare that for road casualty costs in Warrington of £37m per annum, or £185 per head per annum and you can understand why reducing speed limits, and their consequential reduction of road casualties, is seen as a major economic benefit and well worth the cost.

 

Best regards

 

 

Rod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The more they were to be used then the more drivers would think that anywhere witout a repeater sign may not be 30mph.

 

For 20mph limits then you will always get either repeater signs so that drivers are aware or a traffic calming feature.

 

 

Rod, I have to admit to being a little baffled by the above.... if councils DO put up 30mph signs then drivers may not think it is a 30 limit if there were no signs, but by putting up 20 signs it tells drivers the speed limit???? so put 30 ones up too and tell the driver the limit also!!

 

I suppose the good news is that compared to the cost of road casualties then 20mph limits are incredibly cheap. Its about £3.50 per head of population. Compare that for road casualty costs in Warrington of £37m per annum, or £185 per head per annum and you can understand why reducing speed limits, and their consequential reduction of road casualties, is seen as a major economic benefit and well worth the cost.

 

Maybe in your eyes Rod, but where does the £37m figure come from?

 

Is it a compilation of figures, statistics, and a few best guesses thrown in for good measure? because £37m is a heck of a lot of local crashes in areas of 30/20 limits.... or are you failing to tell us that it is the TOTAL of all crashes (including the loxcal motorway network and 70 limited dual carriageways?)regardless of speeds and for some at least, the 20 limits will make no difference at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baz

 

Regarding 30mph limits and repeater signs I am just reflecting what are the current signage requirements. These are that you do not need 30mph repeater signs because anywhere with street lighting is defined as having a 30mph speed limit unless otherwise indicated. So if you see street lights and don't see 20 or 40 or 50 or derestricted signs then a 30mph limit applies.

 

Hence not seeing any 30mph speed limit repeaters can never be an excuse for not obeying a 30mph limit.

 

These cannot be changed locally because they are defined nationally.

 

Regarding the casualty costs, these are for all casualties within the authority and do include all roads including motorways and dual carriageways. Hence whilst within Warrington pilots and other areas implementing 20mph speed limits there have been 20+% reductions in casualties you cannot extrapolate this to saving 20% of the £37m (ie £7.2m)each year.

 

Casualty costs are based upon DfT estimates of complete costs to the community each year. I suggest if you want more detail then a good starting place would be :-

 

http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/expert/unit3.4.1.php#021

 

Regards

 

Rod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely casualty costs for motorway accidents and the associated carriageway repairs, barrier repairs etc. etc. all form the vast majority of that £37m figure.

 

Accidents at 30mph or less will involve less damage and therefore substantially less cost so I would say that putting the figure at 20% would be a little too much poetic license.

 

Surely if you are advocating such low speed limits, you should be in possession of ALL the facts on how much this will cost (and supposedly save) rather than just throwing arbitory figures around and asking anyone questioning them to look it up for themselves....

 

Personally I think it will cost more to impliment than it will save because there will still be accidents and damage and injury at 20mph so it is all a big "dead Herring" as Baldrick once said!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baz

 

I gave you the link so that you could find out for yourself what the estimates were based upon.

 

If you read my post you will find that I said that the 20% was not applicable to the £37m.

 

There is no basis for you thinking the costs of implementation will be more than you save. WBC found an 800% First Year Rate of Return for the pilots when setting the implementation costs against the reduced cost of casualties.

 

Regards

 

Rod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baz

 

I gave you the link so that you could find out for yourself what the estimates were based upon.

 

If you read my post you will find that I said that the 20% was not applicable to the £37m.

 

There is no basis for you thinking the costs of implementation will be more than you save. WBC found an 800% First Year Rate of Return for the pilots when setting the implementation costs against the reduced cost of casualties.

 

Regards

 

Rod

So you're saying there will be a lot of layoffs in the ambulance and nursing sectors once this is implemented?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WBC found an 800% First Year Rate of Return for the pilots when setting the implementation costs against the reduced cost of casualties.

 

But Rod,

 

the cost of the pilots was significantly lower than it would have been if they had been done "Correctly" and by correctly, I mean that if the through routes such as Long Lane and Park Road had been left at 30mph, the costs for the trials would have been more expensive because they would have had to put the 20 signs at every place where a residential road left the 30 zone.

 

So in effect, the trials were a bit of a "cost con" because there was already evidence to suggest that the bus people were objecting to 20 limits on their routes, but the 20 limits were implimented anyway.... so when the trial was over and the cost was evaluated, there would have been a different result had the roads been as they are now.

 

Thus it was a con!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and just how much did a casualty cost before the 20 trial and how much are they going to cost after the town-wide implimentation?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baz

 

I gave you the link so that you could find out for yourself what the estimates were based upon.

 

Not the most informative or easy to understand link Rod ... have you got another link or as the spokesperson for the facts and the 20' P can you (or perhaps Baz) explain it to me please cos I'm tired :lol:

 

 

WBC found an 800% First Year Rate of Return for the pilots when setting the implementation costs against the reduced cost of casualties.

 

How and who exactly got the 800% 'First Year Rate of Return' Rod ? :oops:

 

How much did it cost WBC to implement, how much did they themselves get back in return and how/why?

 

wWho else saved money and how/why ? (ie in what way was money saved and from which 'area' ?)

 

Was it from reduced hospital costs, police costs, repairing roads/damage/ costs? .... bugger I've forgotten what else now... but you will understand the question I'm trying to ask and will hopefully know the answer. Breakdown please ?

 

Also... re: your stated £37million annual figure for Warrington (at £185 per ‘warrington head’ person per annum) which seems to include various factors and associated costs do you have a full breakdown of that total too please?

 

I don't get how you can say that savings will be made (reducing the costs per ‘warrington head’ per person to £3.50 per head per annum) unless you have a crystal ball and know for a fact that accident rates will definitely reduce on the wider implementation across Warrington as a whole. Although there may have been a reduction in the 'pilot areas' surely that may have been because a large number drivers simply avoided the area.

 

We/they can't avoid the whole of Warrington and all it's roads though can we... although it would be nice if we/they could...and of course if you are correct then I look forward to my £181.50 cheque in the post :wink::D

 

One thing I do agree with you on though is that there is no need for all 30’s to be signed. Gosh can you imagine the costs involved in doing that, not to mention how unsightly everywhere would look. The highway code is clear about 30 limits and ‘if you don’t see a sign..assume it’s 30 etc’… but I still think roads like Warrington Road (dual carriageway that has been reduced) over Penketh way SHOULD have some more signs so that all motorists are fully aware.

 

There should always be some exceptions to the rule if it makes a road safer and makes people more aware…… but then there are always people who will think they themselves are ‘exceptions’ and who will simply continue to ignore any signs that are staring them in the face.

 

I'm still trying to understand and still don;t think it will work... and there is still a lot be be said (after all eh?)as of course there have been no consultations yet and many people without internet news access or who don’t read the local weekly advertising rag may still very much unaware about what is on the cards.

 

PS Rod... if you ever do another promo video can you PLEASE make sure that all the kids in it are wearing cycle helmets and are not riding or playing in the middle of side roads without a care in the world. THAT WILL NEVER BE SAFE ROD AND EVEN YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT !!!!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please Please put this thread to bed !! RK is obsessed a lunatic. forumeers should desist from adding any more reasoned observations to the forum and concentrate their wrath on the idiots who volunteered to spend £150,000 over the next 3 years, at the same time sacking people and closing libraries.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please Please put this thread to bed !! RK is obsessed a lunatic. forumeers should desist from adding any more reasoned observations to the forum and concentrate their wrath on the idiots who volunteered to spend £150,000 over the next 3 years, at the same time sacking people and closing libraries.

 

Firstly, why put something to bed that stimulates such debate? by debating it and pointing out the fact that the whole scheme is a complete waste of money and constantly questioning and asking for information from its champion (Mr King) it means that new visitors to the forum can also realise what a waste it is.....

 

And it is £750,000 not £150,000!! and remember with the exception of one councillor, EVERY COUNCILLOR voted or agreed with this so at the next election; vote them out.

 

VOTE AGAINST EVERY SITTING COUNCILLOR REGARDLESS OF WHATEVER PARTY THEY STAND FOR AND SHOW THEM WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THEIR ACTIONS ON THIS AND MANY OTHER MATTERS. VOTE THEM ALL OUT UNTIL THEY UNDERSTAND

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree Baz and it is indeed an informative and eye opening topic at times.

 

It does amaze and annoy me that there are so may people that I talk to that have no idea what is proposed and what is going on. I guess these days that unless you have internet access and read the local news or local papers religiously you seem to be out of the loop completely.

 

Whilst the council clearly support it, none of their councillors ever seem to have spoken out in support off their own backs, no mention in the newsletters they often curculate through letterboxes... infact nothing at all !?!

 

Of course I do exclude Cllr Paul Kennedy from that as at least he has spoken out and continues to do so as the 'lone councillor with a voice and sense'. Had he supported it then I would still give him credit for actually speaking out and not being a silent cabbage.

 

I guess when the time comes each household in the newly proposed 20 areas will be informed and be consulted and can make their own minds up whether to object or not...(not that it will make any difference now of course). The vast majority who don't have internet access or have not followed all the anomolies along the way will no dount just take the councillors/20's P word for it all though and believe what they are told :unsure:

 

Their faults I guess though for not taking a greater interest, asking questions, or being members on here but should they really have to 'find out'.... NO they should be TOLD and advised by their representatives 8)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oooh I forgot to mention this ..... and something that I didn't know until tonight

 

As a routine part of making an car accident claim, the claimant is asked if they have received NHS hospital treatment and, if so, at which hospital.

 

I always though this was just because they were scared of people jumping on the 'had an accident no fault..... win win win' band wagon society that we are living in. Maybe it is but it does now also explain why our car insurance premiums are so huge and they wont be reduced anyway by 20mph limits (but we all know that).

 

Apparently when you have a bump or accident and you answere this routine question the insurer then passes this information on to the Compensation Recovery

Unit (CRU), which is part of the Department of Work and Pensions and it has links to all insurers.

 

The CRU will then confirm with the actual hospital you attended that treatment has been given, and it will establish whether you (or the person) was indeed treated as an inpatient or outpatient.

 

 

The costs of this treatment (even if it was just a ride in an ambulance because you screamed loud as you thought you may have whiplash in your right toe and were only given a paracetamol when you got there) is then calculated by the CRU using a simple tariff which includes

 

• if the injured person is provided with NHS ambulance services: £177 for each occasion

• flat rate for treatment without admission: £585;

• daily rate for treatment with admission: £719;

• a cap on charges in any one case of £42,999.

 

The insurer then apparently receives a time-limited certificate of NHS charges from the CRU which must be settled within 14 days of paying compensation to the crash victim. Once payment is made the money is transferred directly to the hospital and they are free to use the income for any

purpose.

 

The link I read does go on to say that....

 

In the period 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010, £182 million was paid to the NHS in cost recovery(note that this figure includes compensation for personal injuries and road crashes combined both having been applicable since 2003).

 

Payments to ambulance trusts totalled £6.5 million during the same period (Department of Health, 2010). Given the latest DfT cost allocation of£530 million for medical and ambulance services (shown in Figure 1), this suggests that the scheme may only be recovering around one-third of the total costs incurred

 

Rather a long document but at least it is easy to read and somewhat more factual that other links on here.

 

To read it all go here

 

http://www.roadsafetyfoundation.org/media/11070/saving%20lives_saving%20money.pdf

 

PS Rod... you will have already read it as it's the Road Safety Foundation's report dated April 2011. I’ve not read it all yet before you jump down my throat ha ha but it does seem very interesting and easy to read and understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason for the high cost is the 100% council mark-up. The bottom line is that the only cost should be the signs that would be bought at bulk. the rest in theory would be the installation done by their own employees (if there are any left) who are already getting paid.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ideal job for the community service wallers and a saving as they don't get paid plus gives them a skill that can be used at a later date. (even if it is just climbing ladders to take the signs down again) <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, why put something to bed that stimulates such debate? by debating it and pointing out the fact that the whole scheme is a complete waste of money and constantly questioning and asking for information from its champion (Mr King) it means that new visitors to the forum can also realise what a waste it is.....

 

And it is £750,000 not £150,000!! and remember with the exception of one councillor, EVERY COUNCILLOR voted or agreed with this so at the next election; vote them out.

 

VOTE AGAINST EVERY SITTING COUNCILLOR REGARDLESS OF WHATEVER PARTY THEY STAND FOR AND SHOW THEM WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THEIR ACTIONS ON THIS AND MANY OTHER MATTERS. VOTE THEM ALL OUT UNTIL THEY UNDERSTAND

 

 

I believe I have read ,(Guardian. Worldwide)that Councillor Dirir is planning to use 106 funding so that the scheme can be introduced in three years. Do a bit of research to see if I have understood the item correctly. I thought it a bit of a liberty to use 106 funding for such a contentious project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess where 106 funding is non-specific they can use it however and where ever they like Borris and even some 'specific' funding often tends to go in the wrong 'pot' (allegidely).

 

I do see what you mean though and where some 106's are defined specifically for 'Highways' for example then properly resurfacing dangerous pot-holed roads and uneven pavements would be a much better use of the money. (Yes, last years pot-hole repairs are already breaking up around here again and others are appearing).

 

Some badly surfaced roads must definatly pose a danger to cyclists, motorbikes, pedestrians and also to drivers and their cars too. Some pavements pose a danger to pedestrians especially the elderly. Some roads clearly need better crossings in sensible places etc etc. So of Rod's 20's P want to make the streets safer for everyone maybe he should be addressing these issues first.

 

On the other hand perhaps just leave the potholes on all non main roads (and dig a few where there aren't any). Positioned well these will without dount slow drivers down on side roads thus saving the money on the 'need' for all these new 20mp signs and implementation etc and with the added benefit of also saving money on road repairs.

 

The last paragraph was a joke by the way... or was it? :unsure:B)

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

×