Jump to content
vic

20 mph

Recommended Posts

Well I think that goes to show you can’t trust statistics, especially when different groups with possibly differing interests supply them. Department for transport say accidents are up 24% in these zones while others are claiming big reductions. No doubt Rod will be here soon to explain why the figures don’t add up and that’s going to be quite interesting.

 

Bill :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt Rod will be here soon to explain why the figures don’t add up.

 

 

I doubt it

 

Although he might give it a go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It all seems rather a pointless and expensive exercise as none of the residential roads will be policed with speed guns anyway. Those who speed will continue to speed and those who drive carefully will continue to do so.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those who speed will continue to speed and those who drive carefully will continue to do so.

 

That should read

 

Those who speed will continue to speed and those who drive carefully will continue to do so but will now probably be also classed as speeding.

 

Bill :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the figures of 25% increase in accidents and the contradictory 40% reduction are total nonsense, cherry picked from meaningless data sets depending on you point of view. The only thing that I read that seemed to make any sense was that with so little reliable data and numbers so low, it makes it almost impossible to draw any significant conclusions.

 

The views expressed on this forum could also be argued to be statistically unrepresentative, but with the overwhelming majority questioning the cost effectiveness of this plan it would appear that the council have been pressured into making decisions based more on their public perception rather than hard facts.

 

I believe the argument “what price for a child’s life” has to be balanced by the reality of living in a modern world where like it or not, economics and views of others have to be taken into account.

 

Bill :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rod.

 

You should resist the urge to resort to abuse and stereotyping. The fact that one of those links takes you to a blog called War on the Motorist is a dead giveaway. I think you would have been better linking to the results of Warrington Borough Council's own pilots which show that the 20mph scheme makes no difference except to create rat runs and increase pollution. It certainly doesn't reduce accidents in Warrington or anywhere else. Those are the facts and that is where I draw my opinion, not The Sun.

 

Incidentally you may want to read some recent announcements from the council about the closure of school bus services and care homes. Those are both worthwhile services that could have benefited from the money you have campaigned to divert to this useless scheme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grey Man says :-

 

I think you would have been better linking to the results of Warrington Borough Council's own pilots which show that the 20mph scheme makes no difference except to create rat runs and increase pollution.

 

Well I have looked through the reports GM but can't seem to find this apparent "fact" which you want me to link to. Perhaps you could do a public service by providing the link and the particular reference.

 

Best regards

 

Rod

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It all seems rather a pointless and expensive exercise as none of the residential roads will be policed with speed guns anyway. Those who speed will continue to speed and those who drive carefully will continue to do so.

 

Don't be too sure. Enforcement of 20mph limits is happenning in Cumbria, Thames Valley and Lancashire. ACPO approve of enforcement as long as the 20mph limits have appropriate repeater signage.

 

Best regards

 

Rod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do/will all the new 20mph roads in Warrington have repeater signs.

 

Forgive me if I'm being stupid but I thought the idea was to create 'block' areas where all entry/exit roads into the 'blocks' have the 20mph signs and all the other roads inside wouldn't need signs.

 

Also, all along councils and supporters have said the idea of 20mph limits is that they should be self enforcing and not put any extra strain on the police (unless there is a particular need on certain roads of course like already happens with existing limits).

 

If Cumbria, Thames Valley and Lancashire are now implementing police enforcement on their 20's surely that means that 'self enforcement' didn't work after all. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rod

 

The report is there for all to see - during the Warrington pilots there was no improvement in road safety, no substantial reduction in speeds over the longer terms, no support from the police, diversion of traffic on to other roads. You've read it. So have I.

 

You can keep linking to the blogs of people who have decided they know what's best for everybody all you like. I'll keep waiting for you to admit that your motives have nothing to do with safety.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dizzy

 

Dizzy

 

Yes they do. The 200 or so roads in the pilot all had repeater signs 300mm in diameter every 100m or so. The new 20mph roads will have these as well.

 

20mph limits are suggested to be "generally self-enforcing". What we are seeing elsewhere is "light-touch" enforcement in response to particular resident concerns or experience of speeding. As I have said, this is in line with ACPO guidance on enforcing 20mph limits.

 

Compliance is very much seen as a multi-agency responsibility with the recognition that whenever people drive at a lower speed in residential areas then they create a "better place" for the people who live there.

 

Best regards

 

 

Rod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rod

 

The report is there for all to see - during the Warrington pilots there was no improvement in road safety, no substantial reduction in speeds over the longer terms, no support from the police, diversion of traffic on to other roads. You've read it. So have I.

 

You can keep linking to the blogs of people who have decided they know what's best for everybody all you like. I'll keep waiting for you to admit that your motives have nothing to do with safety.

 

GM. I see a consistent pattern here.

 

1) You propose some fictitious fact which refelects your position or aspiration.

2) You ask me why I haven't provided a link to it.

3) When I ask what the link is that you want me to reference

4) You repeat your "fact" with a little embellishment and a "complaint" about something else

 

 

I have already referenced those aspects of the reports showing that there was no traffic diversion due to the limits and there was an increase in safety. But you seem to be very reluctant to provide any reference to your fictitious claims.

 

Best regards

 

 

 

Rod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rod

 

You're obviously reading a different report to me.

 

A direct quote from the report - "the results show that traffic flow reduced by an average of 2678 vehicles per week per road throughout the 3 trial areas".

 

So the fact is that it did divert traffic on to other roads. FACT. You are either mistaken or lying to claim that the results show different. I could argue that any reduction in collisions could be put down to the fact that there was less traffic on the pilot roads.

 

However even allowing for the fact there were fewer cars:

 

Serious injuries in Orford before the trial - 3.52

During trial - 2

 

Park Road before - 0

During - 0

 

Town centre before - 1.76

During - 3

 

So over the three trial areas over an 18 month period there was a 0.28 reduction in the number of serious injuries. Not even remotely significant statistically when you consider the hundreds of thousands of car journeys that took place during those 18 months and you cannot even claim that given the hundreds of thousands of diverted cars during the trial that the minuscule difference wasn't diverted onto some other road.

 

No wonder the police couldn't even be bothered to respond to the consultation.

 

So the net effect of the spend on this ridiculous scheme is at best zero. Meanwhile essential front line services that actually make a difference to people's lives are being cut.

 

There. I've laid my argument out. I have no M.O. and it's only you that is looking for data to back up your evident prejudices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the text from the full report :-

 

After Implementation - July 2010

5.13 Following analysis of the results at the end of trial surveys it was appreciated that there was significant impact on Town Centre sites due to bridge works being undertaken on Liverpool Road. These works created a significant reduction in traffic flows on Sankey Street, particularly eastbound with a reduction of 17260 vehicles per week over the baseline study (some 37.5% reduction).

5.14 Although Sankey Street westbound experienced a smaller reduction in comparison to eastbound (at 2891 vehicles less per week), due to the lower baseline numbers the reduction percentage was higher at 45%.

5.15 For these reasons the end of trial traffic flow data in the town centre can not be used as a quantifiable value for assessment. Roads that may have been specifically affected by Liverpool Road bridge works would include Academy Way, Bold Street, Sankey Street, Winmarleigh Street, Scotland Road and Buttermarket Street.

5.16 There is also a fundamental difference in the traffic flow data for Scotland Road North westbound as following an average of 11000 vehicles per week the July 2010 survey data produced only 1084 vehicles. Some of this may be attributed to the works on Liverpool Road however as this direction is restricted to buses and taxis this is not likely to have had such a distinct effect.

5.17 Analysis of the vehicle data indicates an overall average reduction of 2678 vehicles per week per road equating to 11% from the baseline traffic flows. This figure may have been reduced slightly if Liverpool Road Bridge works were not underway at the time of the final study.

5.18 The minimal changes in traffic flows between April 2009, November 2009 and the baseline figures would indicate that any increase in vehicle reductions in July of 2010 may have been affected by works being undertaken on the highway network outside of the trial areas. This must be taken into account when qualifying any final conclusions on traffic flows.

5.19 Overall the data collected would indicate that the presence of 20mph speed limits on the three key areas has not encouraged drivers to divert onto the network surrounding the trial roads.

5.20 Park Road did show some changes in that westbound at the Lingley Road end showed a 10.5% increase in traffic flow where as the eastbound an 18.6% reduction. This could be attributed to a historic problem that saw traffic for Lingley Mere Business Park use this route due to queuing at the Lingley green Avenue signals with A57 Liverpool Road. Prior to the July 2010 surveys the phasing of these signals was altered to allow greater clearance of southbound traffic from Lingley Green Road. Where this suited the migration of vehicles away from Park Road heading eastbound it would also seem to have increased westbound migration from Lingley Road to bypass the inbound traffic.

5.21 This can be confirmed by the fact that the traffic flow on Park Road near to Norfolk Drive saw a reduction in both directions indicating that vehicles are turning right from A57 onto Linley Road and then Left onto Park Road to access Lingley Mere Business Park. This may be due to the reduction in right turn phasing at the signals from A57 to Lingley Green Avenue to increase that of the southbound phasing.

6.0 Traffic

 

Note the key finding that :-

 

5.19 Overall the data collected would indicate that the presence of 20mph speed limits on the three key areas has not encouraged drivers to divert onto the network surrounding the trial roads.

 

and regarding casualties :-

 

8.14 The two residential road trial areas produced a reduction of 9.3 casualties or 27% in the study period combined. With the understanding that the town centre is unique regarding a greater density of vulnerable road users coupled with the appreciation that there are no other areas being similar topographically and demographically.

8.15 It is appreciated that the model for a Borough wide delivery of 20mph speed limits on residential roads would have a greater benefit and compliance when the majority of residents live on and respect the reasons for the lower speed limit provision.

 

Of course casualty reduction is not the only benefit and those who are tasked with responsibility for our streets understand that with 20mph limits for residential roads come less noise, less fear of traffic, less pollution, more active travel and less traffic as people decide to walk or cycle.

 

You can keep "tilting at the windmills", but 20mph limits provide nothing to fear and everything to benefit our communities.

 

Have a nice day

 

 

Rod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During the trials there were several posters both here and on other forums that openly admitted to avoiding certain areas. There’s no statistics for that of course but in any case, numbers can be simply interpreted to suit any argument.

 

Figures from independent authorities such as the police and the department for transport are the only the only reliable sources of information. Those provided by groups with an interest need to be taken with the same pinch of salt as used for the newspapers.

 

Bill :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was expecting something a little more factual from that but in the end it didn’t tell me anything I didn’t already know, except maybe the fact that the department for transport hadn’t got a clue either.

 

So with numbers so low as to make any statistical comparison meaningless, the only real benefit comes from injuries, which irrespective of quantity, are likely to be less severe but I think is going to be even harder, if not impossible to quantify this.

 

So the bottom line seems to be without any overwhelming evidence, opinions will be the main decider on whether or not the system works. Whether or not it’s all worth it and could the money have been better spent is another story.

 

Bill :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And there's the rub. There is no evidence to make a decision on this and yet it has been made. Rod can do all his 'yeah but, no but' arguments to dismiss results that fail to back his rhetoric and link to silly blogs that are written by one-eyed zealots as though they are in any way reasonable, but the fact is that there is no basis to do this except for an emotive argument that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. In fact the results of the Warrington scheme bear more than a little resemblance to those in places like York and Portsmouth.

 

However for me, the most telling thing is that the police are not interested in this policy. But I wouldn't reverse this decision because we've wasted enough money on it. I just hope we don't cripple the town financially and with regard to its infrastructure by extending it. If you asked me whether we should preserve the school bus service and maintain the town's care homes or spunk money away on an unfounded ideology with no effect, driven by people with an agenda that they won't admit to, I know what I'd choose.

  • Upvote 1

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

×