20 mph

[observer]

Well with less coppers with more important issues to deal with - I guess it won't be enforced anyway!

[disgusted]

They've always had more imporitant issues to deal with, that's never stopped them chasing the motorists for the chance to earn some fines before, I doubt it will now.

[Bazj]

Listening to the radio today on my drive back from Ipswich in my Gas Guzzler.....love it!!

 

There was some chap on From Portsmouth Council.....you know, the Council that the Lycra Warriors have convinced that 20 mph across the whole city is a good idea...... He stated on the radio that a lot of traffic has stopped entering the city limits and whn pressed; admitted that it could have an effect on trade for local business and also admitted that the police have said they will not enforce the 20mph limits....... So far, NO ONE has been prosecuted for exceeding the 20 limit, anywhere in Portsmouth.

 

Now then, if that is the case, why the hell are we bothering to accomodate the whims of a few low key campaign groups and the likes of Rod king and his gang, if the cops won't, don't or can't be bothered to prosecute??

 

Discuss!

[Bazj]

This makes interesting reading.......

 

It shows that KSI (killed and seriously injured) people decreased by 1 across the whole of Portsmouth after the introduction of the scheme and that average speeds across targeted roads reduced by only 1.3 mph on average as most roads and users did not exceed the 30 limit in place anyway and in fact, most average speeds were not much more that 20 mph anyway!

 

Seems to be a right old waste of cash!

 

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/speedmanagement/20mphPortsmouth/pdf/20mphzoneresearch.pdf

[Dizzy]

Discuss Do we really have to Baz

 

Portsmough council have their report on the 20 zone available (well the one from Spetember anyway)

 

I've notread it all but I noticed a bit near the bottom where residents had replied and many said they feel it's not really made any difference due to lack of enforcement etc. Many want speed cameras installing too

 

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/speedmanagement/20mphPortsmouth/pdf/20mphzoneresearch.pdf

 

Re: this conference that is being held soon in Warrington mabe it would be a good idea if the likes of Portsmouth Council also attended and spoke of their findings after all they have been there and done it. Maybe they have some better suggestions on how they feel things should/should not have been done. Could be well worth WBC taking some advice from them rather than just from the others.

 

Or maybe Gary could question Portsmouth Council and provide us with all the details throught the news pages

[rodk]

Dizzy

Re: this conference that is being held soon in Warrington mabe it would be a good idea if the likes of Portsmouth Council also attended and spoke of their findings after all they have been there and done it. Maybe they have some better suggestions on how they feel things should/should not have been done. Could be well worth WBC taking some advice from them rather than just from the others.

 

WBC have already been to Portsmouth on at least two occasions regarding this issue. Once in 2008 with the Transport Councilor and officers, and again in 2009 when Portsmouth held the first "20mph city" conference. They are fully aware of the report from Portsmouth and the very positive results such as a 22% reduction in casualties and a 6.5 mph reduction in average speed on faster roads.

 

So WBC have not only been watching Portsmouth, and Bristol, and Oxford which have already put in wide area 20mph schemes but also took 2 years to conduct their own pilots which once again had a positive result in reducing casualties and speeds.

 

They have come to the conclusion, that its cheap and effective. 20mph limits on a wide-area basis are 7 times more cost effective in reducing speeds than 20mph zones with speed bumps.

 

See:-

http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/BriefingSheets/20mphLimits_7_times_more_cost_effective_than_20mph_zones.pdf

 

WBC is not alone in seeing this as a very positive move in making residential roads better for residents. Lancashire is implementing it across the whole county!

 

 

Best regards

 

Rod

[observer]

So your telling us - that faced with a clear road with no road humps, BUT with a 20mph sign drivers will drive slower than if faced with a series of road humps - get real Rod.

[rodk]

So your telling us - that faced with a clear road with no road humps, BUT with a 20mph sign drivers will drive slower than if faced with a series of road humps - get real Rod.

 

If I had wanted to tell you that I would have written that.

 

Maybe it would help if you read what I actually wrote.

 

Maybe even follow the link and read it as well!

 

Regards

 

Rod

[Peter T]

Perhaps you can explain WHY it is necessary to hold a conference at great expense when the council is millions of pounds in debt, whilst at the same time people are losing their jobs and services are being reduced?

[Bazj]

Because Rod and his non-road tax paying cycling chums aren't bothered about people losing their jobs..... just as long as they get their way

[Peter T]

Fascinated to read his justification though.

[observer]

Erm - Rod, your post quoted area 20mph zones as being "7 times more effective than 20mph roads with speed bumps". Clearly absolute nonesense: speed bumps physically prevent excess speed (argueably above 10mph, never mind 20mph) and are thus self enforcing. 20mph zones will simply just be ignored imo.

[Dizzy]

Rod... Thanks for the link to your 20's document which I did read.

 

While it is clear that a global 20mph limit with the odd sign here would of course be far cheaper than putting in speed bumps everwhere.. it is not very cost effective (ok what I really mean is it is a waste of money) if it doesn't make any great difference is it ?

 

Glad to hear that WBC went to Portsmouth in 2008 and then again in 2009....... BUT IT'S 2011 NOW

 

And when you say they are aware of the report... who is explaining it all to them or are the committee just taking a 'officers/persons' word and recommendation as usual

 

I actually hope they do it now just so in a years time when it's not made a scrap of difference we can all say 'We told you so'

[observer]

You'll get the occasional speed blitz by the coppers from time to time, when some lycra bikey complains, a few fines given some publicity - but life will go on and so will the speeding!

[rodk]

Why hold the conference at great expense

asks Peter T

 

Well the conference is being run by PTRC. I understand that all expenses are being paid by PTRC from the income from those attending from around the country. Therefore for WBC, no expense at all, and no job losses. In fact as the event will be using local caterers then it actually brings money into Warrington.

 

20mph zones will simply just be ignored imo.

says observer.

 

But that is not the evidence from Portsmouth, Warrington or Bristol which says that it is effective and reduces casualties by 20+%.

 

Dizzy

 

You cannot have it both ways. When the idea of 20mph limits as the default for residential streets was suggested in 2007 then officers said that they needed to conduct pilots to see whether it would work in Warrington.

 

The pilots have proven that it works and coupled with evidence from other towns shows that this offers very good value for money. With crashes costing Warrington ?37m per year there is plenty of benefit to be gained from casualties reducing, plus it can make for better street life in so many ways.

 

I can understand that Dizzy thinks that travelling just 1.5mph slower does not make any differrence, but it most certainly does. Especially when that average is the result of greater reductions on faster roads. Multiply the effect across a whole town and you have thousands of incidents where those involved have maybe a fraction of a second more to avoid a collision. That can make the difference between a collison and a near miss, or a death and an injury.

 

To others, I note the continued obsession with "lycra". It really is so lazy to try and make this out as some cycling based conspiracy.

 

 

 

Best regards

 

 

Rod

[disgusted]

 

To others, I note the continued obsession with "lycra". It really is so lazy to try and make this out as some cycling based conspiracy.

 

 

 

Best regards

 

 

Rod

Well it's sure not coming from drivers, and as the only other road users are cyclists, you'll understand the issue maybe?

[Dizzy]

Why hold the conference at great expense

asks Peter T

 

Well the conference is being run by PTRC. I understand that all expenses are being paid by PTRC from the income from those attending from around the country. Therefore for WBC, no expense at all, and no job losses. In fact as the event will be using local caterers then it actually brings money into Warrington.

 

Rod can I just ask......

 

The price for attending the conference is a whopping ?145.

 

As you say it is geared towards council officilas then who actually pays this ? I presume it is either paid for by the relevant council or claimed back as an expense by the councillor/transport/whoever person who attends. Therefore whichever way surely it comes out of tax payers money Same with the travel too as other councils will have to pay for that out of their funds

 

Now you say that it is at no expense to WBC at all but surely it is their best interests to send as many of their own councillors/transport bods on it so they themselves can hear the whole story too before they make any decisions and they will have to pay the ?145 for each person attending too.

 

I only know how much it costs as I thought about trying to book a sneaky place just to see what's really going on but at that price I shant be bothering.

 

In addition are there any plans to hold propper public information/consultation meetings so that WE the PUBLIC can ask questions and find out more info rather than just having to rely on what we read or are told by say for example your group (no disrespect mean there by the way)

 

I can understand that Dizzy thinks that travelling just 1.5mph slower does not make any differrence, but it most certainly does. Especially when that average is the result of greater reductions on faster roads. Multiply the effect across a whole town and you have thousands of incidents where those involved have maybe a fraction of a second more to avoid a collision. That can make the difference between a collison and a near miss, or a death and an injury.

 

Well that didn't make any sense to me at all.

 

Are you saying Rod that if I hit you at 48.5 mph you will receive far less injuries than if I hit you at 50 mph

 

or if I hit you at 18.5 mph you will receive far less injuries that if I hit you at 20 mph

 

As for the 1.5 mph possibly making a collision less likely well I suppose so in principle with stopping distances etc but in reality as people often drive too close anyway I doubt that the reduction of 1.5 mph will it will any difference I'm sure you will prove me wrong though

[Peter T]

Why hold the conference at great expense

asks Peter T

 

Well the conference is being run by PTRC. I understand that all expenses are being paid by PTRC from the income from those attending from around the country. Therefore for WBC, no expense at all, and no job losses. In fact as the event will be using local caterers then it actually brings money into Warrington.

 

The job losses reference was to the current situation in WBC. By your statement, you are inferring that people from the council will be attending in their own time and not getting any money or expenses. Is this the case?

 

 

Dizzy

 

You cannot have it both ways. When the idea of 20mph limits as the default for residential streets was suggested in 2007 then officers said that they needed to conduct pilots to see whether it would work in Warrington.

 

Now that most of the senior officers have been disposed of, and the council is being run by consultants, perhaps the situation needs re-visiting just to make it legal?

 

Peter.

 

 

 

Best regards

 

 

Rod

[observer]

Any "evidence" that defies logic and common sense has to be suspect imo, and indicates that the "research" has leaned towards pleasing those who commissioned it. FACT: any stretch of road with road humps WILL physically slow vehicular movements well below the 20mph target, even for the boy racers. This generally forces traffic onto main roads, thus increasing congestion and queing, thus again slowing speeds - can't exactly do 60mph when your stuck in a queue of cars at a traffic lighted junction, with waiting increased by pedestrian phases.

[rodk]

For fatshaft

 

Well most of the people I know both in Warrington and around the country that are campaigning for 20mph limits are drivers.

 

And how about including pedestrians as road users? Don't they count?

 

Dizzy

 

Well in Warrington they have been looking at this issue for the last 4 years and have already made desisions about rolling it out across the whole town.

 

With regard to greater reductions on faster roads in Portsmouth, the average reduction on all roads may be 1.5mph but on roads where the before average speed was 25-29mph the reduction was 6.5mph.

 

It is fairly consistent that the reduction in speed has resulted in reduced casualties wherever 20mph limits have been implemneted on a wide area basis.

 

Peter T

 

By expenses I mean such things as advertising, catering, etc.. for running the event. What attendees do and whether they are in their own time or works time is entirely up to them and their employer. But remember that this conference is not particularly aimed at Warrington people, but is being run here because of the excellent transport links and Warrington's experience as one of the towns that is implementing wide area 20mph limits.

 

In order to make the limits legal then you need the correct Traffic Regulation Orders to be approved. For the pilot roads these have gone through full consultation and approval by the Council and its Traffic Committee.

 

Observer

 

No-one is saying that 20mph limits are more effective than 20mph zones at reducing speed. Only that they are more cost-effective. They also happen to be a lot more popular as well.

 

Please remember that 20mph speed limits are neither controversial or new. Our twin town Hilden and most of Germany, Austria, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Belgium and Denmark have had them for the last 20 years. Warrington is one of a growing number of local authorities implementing town wide 20mph limits as a default for residential roads.

 

Best regards

 

 

Rod

[Dizzy]

Dizzy

With regard to greater reductions on faster roads in Portsmouth, the average reduction on all roads may be 1.5mph but on roads where the before average speed was 25-29mph the reduction was 6.5mph

 

Thanks for putting me straight Rod and appologies over my confusion due to damn averages .

 

I presume from what you have now told me that it means on all the roads which were originally 30 (as there aren't any 29 mph roads) after implementation of the 20 limit the speed was reduced to 23.5 mph. Oooh now I've just confused myself after typing that.

 

Dizzy

 

Well in Warrington they have been looking at this issue for the last 4 years and have already made desisions about rolling it out across the whole town.

 

Have they indeed. so I presume by your comment that the rest of us wont be actually asked for an opinion then or be involved in any consultation

 

You seemed to have slightly overlooked my other questions though

 

So can I politely as again......

 

The price for attending the conference is a whopping ?145.

 

As you say it is geared towards council officilas then who actually pays this ? I presume it is either paid for by the relevant council or claimed back as an expense by the councillor/transport/whoever person who attends. Therefore whichever way surely it comes out of tax payers money Same with the travel too as other councils will have to pay for that out of their funds

 

Now you say that it is at no expense to WBC at all but surely it is their best interests to send as many of their own councillors/transport bods on it so they themselves can hear the whole story too before they make any decisions and they will have to pay the ?145 for each person attending too.

 

I only know how much it costs as I thought about trying to book a sneaky place just to see what's really going on but at that price I shant be bothering.

 

In addition are there any plans to hold propper public information/consultation meetings so that WE the PUBLIC can ask questions and find out more info rather than just having to rely on what we read or are told by say for example your group (no disrespect mean there by the way)

 

I suppoest the last one is slightly irrelevant now after your earlier reply

[rodk]

Dizzy

 

I presume from what you have now told me that it means on all the roads which were originally 30 (as there aren't any 29 mph roads) after implementation of the 20 limit the speed was reduced to 23.5 mph. Oooh now I've just confused myself after typing that.

 

These are average before speeds and the main roads set at 20mph were those with an average before of 29mph or less. The average reduction on such roads was 6.5mph.

 

Have they indeed. so I presume by your comment that the rest of us wont be actually asked for an opinion then or be involved in any consultation

 

Well both the discussions about the pilot areas and the roll-out to all residential roads have been the subject of public debate for over 6 years now. The pilots had numerous exhibitions detailing them when first implemented and the Traffic Regulations Orders making them permanent were publicised for consultation.

 

So, the opinion of the public was asked as part of the democratic process and the consultation process was duly followed. But these decisions have already been made and are on public recoprd as having been made.

 

I am sorry if I failed to answer your other question. But the conference is aimed at Councillors, Officers, Transport professionals and others. And yes if Council's decide this is an important matter then they may send their Councillors (presumably whoever hold the portfolio for transport) and/or Officers to attend. Such an event will provide a very useful insight into the issue and ?145 would seem to be good value for money.

 

But please remember that this conference was not instigated by WBC or 20's Plenty for Us. PTRC run a wide range of courses and approached both WBC and 20's Plenty for Us independently. I have not been involved in ANY negotiations between WBC and PTRC.

 

With regard to public information and consultation then before any TRO's are issued there is always public consultation.

 

I trust that all of this helps.

 

 

Regards

 

Rod

[Dizzy]

Hi Rod and thanks for your quick response but I have more questions now following on from your reply ... sorry

 

I presume from what you have now told me that it means on all the roads which were originally 30 (as there aren't any 29 mph roads) after implementation of the 20 limit the speed was reduced to 23.5 mph. Oooh now I've just confused myself after typing that.

 

These are average before speeds and the main roads set at 20mph were those with an average before of 29mph or less. The average reduction on such roads was 6.5mph.

 

Sorry I still don't understand what you mean Rod. Are you refering to roads which were previously 30 mph limits or were they higher eg 40/50/60/70 etc. I'm not being intentionally questionable, I just dont get what you are saying.

 

Have they indeed. so I presume by your comment that the rest of us wont be actually asked for an opinion then or be involved in any consultation

 

Well both the discussions about the pilot areas and the roll-out to all residential roads have been the subject of public debate for over 6 years now. The pilots had numerous exhibitions detailing them when first implemented and the Traffic Regulations Orders making them permanent were publicised for consultation.

 

So, the opinion of the public was asked as part of the democratic process and the consultation process was duly followed. But these decisions have already been made and are on public record as having been made.

 

But surely Rod the original consultation only applied to the roads that were in the pilot scheme and which have now been approved as permenant. Well that's the way it was shown to be anyway at the time.

 

Had everyone known that the consultation was part of a broader decision which could/would result in a mass future rollout of 20 mph across the whole of warrington then more people would have likely got involved either for or against the idea as a WHOLE.

 

I am sorry if I failed to answer your other question. But the conference is aimed at Councillors, Officers, Transport professionals and others. And yes if Council's decide this is an important matter then they may send their Councillors (presumably whoever hold the portfolio for transport) and/or Officers to attend. Such an event will provide a very useful insight into the issue and ?145 would seem to be good value for money.

 

But please remember that this conference was not instigated by WBC or 20's Plenty for Us. PTRC run a wide range of courses and approached both WBC and 20's Plenty for Us independently. I have not been involved in ANY negotiations between WBC and PTRC.

 

But doesn't the conference detail say that it is being held here so people can see what 'we' (ie Warrington) has already done or are doing ? Maybe I read that bit wrong so I will re-read

 

With regard to public information and consultation then before any TRO's are issued there is always public consultation.

 

I thought you said earlier that this has already been done though and the decisions have already been made.

 

Time for me to have a lie down in a dark room I think. I'll get there and hopefully understand it all in the end. Maybe I do need to go on that conference after all

[Peter T]

Public consultation?????

They don't have those in Warrington. Oh I forgot, they put it on the website, which means that EVERYONE has a computer and Broadband.

 

They discuss it with compliant people and call that a consultation. And that is fact because I can get statements to support it.

 

Seems par for the course thes days. Other councils do the same. It's on our web site people.

[Dizzy]

You have a very valid point there Peter as I would imagine that the vast majority of people who actually do have internet access don't ever go on the council's website. And those who do, for whatever reason, probably are going on for something specific like a contact number or to pay a bill so don't realise what plans or consultations are going on as they aren't always immediately obvious or easy to find.

 

I was just about to ask my other half what consultations he has been aware of but alas he apears to be snoring... just about sums it all up nicely though I suppose