20 mph

[Peter T]

YES!!!

[Dizzy]

http://www.warrington-worldwide.co.uk/articles/10335/1/Town-poll-on-20mph-limit-plan/Page1.html#postedcomment

 

Another report listed in the comments for anyone who wants to read it

[observer]

Perhaps an online poll Diz?

[disgusted]

http://www.warrington-worldwide.co.uk/articles/10335/1/Town-poll-on-20mph-limit-plan/Page1.html#postedcomment

 

Another report listed in the comments for anyone who wants to read it

 

 

See Paul says this:

He told the council that from comments made on campaigners' websites, it appeared they had a rather wider interpretation of what a "residential road" was.

 

 

Then RodK says this:

If he did then he would find that with regard to "having 20mph speed limits for residential streets", the answers were :- 22% Strongly in favour 49% In favour 12% Neither for or against 12% Against 3% Strongly against Or to put it another way 4 times as many were in favour compared to against and 7 times as many strongly in favour compared to those strongly against. and there is no reason to believe that people in Warrington would be any different.

 

Well yes there is Rod, because while that poll says so many are in favour, and I believe they would be for residential streets, what you are looking for is far far different, as Paul has so clearly picked up on and highlighted.

 

You are so far out of touch on this issue it is unbelievable, despite not a word of support on this now 30 page long thread for your stated aim of a blanket default 20mph limit in the town.

 

Your way or now way eh Rod? I believe all the middle eastern dictators are now in the process of being overthrown, I hope we're not about to see them replaced by people like you in this country.

[rodk]

Fatshaft you say

 

for your stated aim of a blanket default 20mph limit in the town.

 

I think you must need an eye test. For whenever I type the word DEFAULT for some starnge reason when it enters your brain it gets changed to BLANKET.

 

It seems that no matter how many I times I point out that our campaign is for a default 20mph limit to be excepted as appropriate, you keep wanting to stir up controversy by misrepresenting it.

 

I have every confidence that when rolling this out then due consultation will take place to determine what the exceptions will be. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that exceptions will not be made, but that still does not stop you trying to conjure up this idea of every road having a lower limit.

 

It shows the complete weakness of your arguments against a perfectly rational policy that you have to invent a completely different one of your own making.

 

Your actions therefore hinder debate on the real initiative being implemented and instead focus your arguments on a mythical blanket policy.

 

You wonder why no-one listens to you; and the reason is that you are "banging on" about a policy that no-one is intending to implement.

 

Keep doing that if you wish, but the real debate about how to make our streets better, safer, quieter and more pleasant for all is one that you are excluding yourself from by perpetuating this battle against something that does not exist.

 

Rod

[Dizzy]

Perhaps an online poll Diz?

 

That wouldn't work Obs as only the people who come on here would know about it and only those who have registered would be able to vote and give their opinion... so whatever the result the figures would only be based on those people and not everyone Now that wouldn't be very fair would it

[silverlady54]

Fatshaft you say

 

for your stated aim of a blanket default 20mph limit in the town.

 

I think you must need an eye test. For whenever I type the word DEFAULT for some starnge reason when it enters your brain it gets changed to BLANKET.

 

It seems that no matter how many I times I point out that our campaign is for a default 20mph limit to be excepted as appropriate, you keep wanting to stir up controversy by misrepresenting it.

 

I have every confidence that when rolling this out then due consultation will take place to determine what the exceptions will be. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that exceptions will not be made, but that still does not stop you trying to conjure up this idea of every road having a lower limit.

 

It shows the complete weakness of your arguments against a perfectly rational policy that you have to invent a completely different one of your own making.

 

Your actions therefore hinder debate on the real initiative being implemented and instead focus your arguments on a mythical blanket policy.

 

You wonder why no-one listens to you; and the reason is that you are "banging on" about a policy that no-one is intending to implement.

 

Keep doing that if you wish, but the real debate about how to make our streets better, safer, quieter and more pleasant for all is one that you are excluding yourself from by perpetuating this battle against something that does not exist.

 

Rod

 

I think that, as has been shown over the many posts in this debate, there is a huge amount of distrust regarding anything the Council is proposing for roads, perhaps due to past experience. When you talk about default, people do assume that it will be what happens across most of the town, that seems to be the opinion of the majority, including Paul Kennedy, judging by his request for a referendum.

 

All too often, when something is suggested as being the default which can be altered (by residents in this case), the possibility of alterations are quietly forgotten about when the cost of asking each community is realised. That is why people don't trust your 'default' idea.

 

I would much prefer the 'less signage' or 'no signage at all' which makes all road users take more care generally, with regard to other road users. This has been shown to work in the UK as well as abroad.

[Dizzy]

Fatshaft you say

 

for your stated aim of a blanket default 20mph limit in the town.

 

I think you must need an eye test. For whenever I type the word DEFAULT for some starnge reason when it enters your brain it gets changed to BLANKET.

 

 

Errrm Rod your 20's Plenty Press Web Site and press releases etc actually refer to them as 'blanket'

[observer]

Might not "be fair" Diz, but it would be a good initial indicator of public opinion.

[Peter T]

Actually Rod, we do listen to Fatshaft. Also stop cherry picking on what you are going to answer.

[Dizzy]

No Obs it would only be an indicator of what registered forum members think as no-one else would know about the poll or be able to vote unless they registerd.... you are not listening to me are you...

 

The questions need to be asked to all residents so either we all ask people in our own roads and report back

 

OR

 

a better idea would be for the council to have 'Do you know about the plans for, or want, a default/blanket 20 mph speed limit set across the whole of Warrington and please indicate which roads you woud like excluding' blah blah blah ......slips in all their polling booths on the 5th May so anyone who goes to vote could fill one in and pop it in a seperate little box.... or their election campaigners could ask when they go door knocking

 

We'd have to vet the questions first though to ensure they were not 'misleading'

[disgusted]

Fatshaft you say

 

for your stated aim of a blanket default 20mph limit in the town.

 

I think you must need an eye test. For whenever I type the word DEFAULT for some starnge reason when it enters your brain it gets changed to BLANKET.

 

 

Errrm Rod your 20's Plenty Press Web Site and press releases etc actually refer to them as 'blanket'

 

[rodk]

Well fatshaft

 

You are correct. In the early days of the campaign when we were asking for 20mph limits for residential roads, we assumed that no-one would be so irrational as to assume that by the term "blanket" 20mph speed limit this would mean ALL roads with houses on them even though they may be dual carriageways, or have separate pedestrian and cycling facilities.

 

But believe it or not there were people who seized upon this and said that this was a "stupid idea" , etc, etc. I am sure you get my drift.

 

As a result we found that "default" was a much better term to use as it clearly refers to it being a 20mph limit except for where an alternative limit is set. And yes there are some pages on our website which do refer to this "old" terminology.

 

Alas, even though in this thread we have many times explained that our campaign is for 20mph limits for residential streets as a default with the Traffic Authority deciding the exceptions, there are always some who want to ignore that and attempt to misrepresent it.

 

In retrospect, I am not too bothered. If those people want to oppose a campaign for putting in 20mph on ALL residential roads, then that's fine. But its not our campaign or what Warrington are intending to do.

 

Hence all the huffing and puffing and emoticons amount to absolutely nothing.

 

As always, my best regards

 

Rod

[Dizzy]

I guess you have updated your website now then Rod

 

Can I ask how many people in Warrington are actively involved with or members of our 20's Plenty Campaign Group ?

[disgusted]

 

You are correct. In the early days of the campaign when we were asking for 20mph limits for residential roads, we assumed that no-one would be so irrational as to assume that by the term "blanket" 20mph speed limit this would mean ALL roads with houses on them even though they may be dual carriageways, or have separate pedestrian and cycling facilities.

 

 

 

Alas, even though in this thread we have many times explained that our campaign is for 20mph limits for residential streets as a default with the Traffic Authority deciding the exceptions, there are always some who want to ignore that and attempt to misrepresent it.

Yet you class long lane as a residential street, when clearly it is an arterial route. So if anyone wants to throw around and catch the "irrational" moniker, well, I think you know who eh?

[disgusted]

I guess you have updated your website now then Rod

 

Can I ask how many people in Warrington are actively involved with or members of our 20's Plenty Campaign Group ?

Presumably no more than 20?

[Dizzy]

Which is a far higher so far than the number of people who live round here who actually know anything about the proposals to 'roll it out' across the whole of Warrington it seems..

 

Yes I've been chatting on my rounds.....although being fair some do know a bit about the Town Centre/Orford/Great Sankey scheme but they thought that was the 'roll out'

 

I guess it's their own faults for not coming on here or maybe reading the local advertising paper which comes out on a Thursday...or trawling the council's website.

 

Rod maybe you should head over to south Warrington on your travels and set up an information stand or arrange for those nice little leaflets to be put through everyones doors explaining it in full before more rebels start to make their own minds up

 

Lots of questions still not being answered though

[Bazj]

Errrm Rod your 20's Plenty Press Web Site and press releases etc actually refer to them as 'blanket'

 

 

 

[Dizzy]

I'm saying nothing Fatshaft

[rodk]

Hi all

 

I would really like to thank you all for pointing out a couple of corrections that are needed on our website. Most of them were made in 2008/9 before we realised the need to be quite so precise.

 

We will, of course, be amending our website accordingly.

 

I am sure these have made your evening and I am pleased to have been able to bring a little glee into the thread!!!

 

Best regards

 

Rod

[disgusted]

Hi all

 

I would really like to thank you all for pointing out a couple of corrections that are needed on our website. Most of them were made in 2008/9 before we realised the need to be quite so precise.

 

We will, of course, be amending our website accordingly.

 

I am sure these have made your evening and I am pleased to have been able to bring a little glee into the thread!!!

 

Best regards

 

Rod

By "precise", do you mean underhanded?

[observer]

Normally Diz, pollsters only take a sample survey for their results.

[wahl]

Congratulations to Warrington Worldwide in telling us about the implementation of the 20mph unenforceable costly scheme before WBC can get round to updating their poor web site.

 

I am sure this is not the last we will hear about this scheme as all the accident reports will be keenly scrutinised over the next year to see if we have been lied to again by wbc or to see if there is actually aqny reduction in the already low accidents.

.

The cost of this wasteful operation also needs to be published, and I am sure wbc will do this on their web site one day(ha ha).

 

 

We now need to be watchful for any further attempts to take transport back to the 1800s with any attempt to further reduce speed without proper consultation.

[Bazj]

can someone now start a campaign to get cyclists properly insured and paying road tax?

 

I'm sure the government would jump at it....think of the existing revenue!! If Paul Kennedy is reading.....mention it to Mr Mowatt and lets get this great money making idea rolling. My mate has just spent over a ?1000 on a bike so they must have money to burn.......

 

and how much does all that lycra cost??

[Peter T]

They'd make a mint if they fined them for cycling on the footpath, cycling in a dangerous manner, no lights, ignoring traffic lights, riding two abreast or even in a bunch of 20 just for starters.