Jump to content

Recommended Posts

.. how much do a set of traffic lights cost these days :shock:

 

...... as apparently the blanket rollout of 20 mph across the whole of Warrington could be made for about the cost of three sets of traffic lights. Now that sounds like to good a a bargain to miss :?:lol::?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Rod. You're being disingenuous because I've read the reports including the conclusions from the council that the benefits you seem so certain of are in fact far from certain. The pilots did not reduce

Well lets all hope that the 4% cuts a year comes off the speed trap budgets!!

So no numbers then Rod? As usual. I actually know the results of the pilots and they are inconclusive which is one reason why the police are not interested in your scheme and is one reason why you wil

here's some comments from the safe speed forum....

 

http://safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=21104

 

and then there is the Portsmouth website forum. They did a story on the 20mph limits..... they got about 15 replies; unfortunately the first 10 weren't printable and the rest didn't seem so keen on the limit either....

 

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/travel-forum/20mph-zones-widen-in-city.2957935.jp

 

Baz

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rod, thanks for the detailed reply. No doubt after a re-read I will be questioning you further :lol::wink:

 

PS My previous post was typed before yours had appeared but I had forgotten to press submit.. just incase you thought it was 'in answer' :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites
ROD

 

THEY HAVE NOT ASKED ALL RESIDENTS FOR THEIR OPINIONS ON A BLANKET ROLLOUT...... THEY HAVE HAD NO FULL CONSULTATION...THEY HAVE NOT EVALUATED ALL THE ROADS FOR SPEED, USAGE, DRIVER HABITS BLAH BLAH LIKE THEY DID WITH THE PILOT STUDY ROADS SO THEY CAN'T AND SHOULDN'T **BLUMMIN **WELL JUST DO IT REGARDLES !!!!!.... regards

 

Dizzy, I think you are misinformed. There is no "blanket" roll-out. Roads which are arterial will be reviewed to see what would be an appropriate speed limit. I understand that this will take into account many factors but DfT guidance does say that when setting any speed limit the needs of vulnerable road users MUST be taken into account.

 

If there are any roads which you particularly feel should not be reduced to 20mph then why not write to the council giving your reasons. I think in such circumstances you may well wish to comment on whether such roads are a risk to vulnerable road users. I can assure you that from my experience WBC are not intending to make arterial roads 20mph without appropriate consideration.

 

Best regards

 

 

Rod

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rod YOU said this on Thu Oct 28, 2010 8:17 am

 

WBC now has a policy of rolling out 20mph limits in residential roads across the borough.

 

By that I class it as a 'blanket roll' out as the majority of roads in Warrington ARE residential now due to all the housing developments. In fact I am finding it hard to think of any road I drive down that dows NOT have houses somewhere along it's route.

 

So YES I may be misinformed but that's due to the information I am being given or which I find and read elsewhere. :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to contribute to this thread any more. The 20mph loonies aren't listening and obviously don't believe in the truth, genuine consultations, the will of the majority, or any such democratic processes.

 

I just hope that any of our elected representatives reading this will realise the anger that this would generate amongst the electorate, and what a huge vote loser forcing this through would be.

 

And that any potential future elected representatives realise how big a vote winner commiting to oppose or repeal this plan would most certainly prove to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dizzy

 

If past experience is anything to go by, then consultation will be a leaflet through the door informing you of what is going to happen based on overwhelming public support. You'll have the opportunity to object but only in writing and to the council?s solicitors, which of course is enough to put most people off. So the plans will get rubber stamp approval that's 100% certain and there's bugger all you can do about it.

 

The council, just like Rod, listens only to what it wants to hear and will use the 80% support data to support their own argument. I've not heard one single person speak in favour of the limit on Long Lane, it's been nothing but complaints right across the board but they, just like Rod will side step this fact and talk about how they're simply meeting peoples needs.

 

This is how local democracy works. :cry:

 

Bill :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dizzy

 

I am sorry if you have misunderstood but:-

 

The first post of this topic said :-

 

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.

 

I also said in a previous post:-

 

There are no plans for a "blanket" imposition of 20mph speed limits, only a "default". Traffic authorities are free to decide where a road should have a higher limits and have justifiable reasons for doing so.

 

and

 

There may be disagreement about the exceptions but this is a matter for the local traffic authorities to decide on the basis of the evidence available. In doing so they will take responsibility for any consequences of those decisions.

 

I am aware that many on this forum like to present our campaign as including ALL roads, but it does not and has never done so.

 

All we have said is that 20mph should be the default and that any exceptions should be considered on their merits dependent upon how it is shared across all road users. Personally I cannot see how this is difficult or complicated.

 

There are main and arterial roads throughout the country where they have decided to put in a 20mph limit because of the number of children, or pedestrians on that particular stretch of road using exactly the same considerations. Equally on many such roads they have not.

 

So there really is not a lot to argue about. And as most posters here agree that residential roads that are not arterial should be 20mph then making a concious decision about the right speed limit for the rest is not particularly difficult.

 

Personally I do have a view on Long Lane and I can respect others having a different view. That's OK.

 

and for Inky Pete I would just say that any councillor thinking of taking a 20mph limit away from outside a constituents house may well get a very negative reaction.

 

 

Best regards

 

 

Rod

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait a minute Inky.. I've not asked my question about the 80+% of people who are in favour of the 20mph limit yet.

 

I'll be quick :lol:

 

ROD... re the consultation, pilot study and evaluation which has lead to the statistic that aprox 80% of people are in favour of a reduced speed limit.

 

Can you clarify HOW MANY people were consulted, WHO they were WHERE they were from.

 

My reason for asking is that I have just been reading the Councils latest Evaluation report based on the pilot scheme and findings

( dated 6 Oct 2010) and the 'Pilots ? Public Perception surveys' report (dated 27th August 2010)... full reports links at the bottom of my post

 

and it is clearly stated that

 

"Perception surveys were delivered to 100 random addresses in each of the 3 study areas. A 30% return rate was envisaged, i.e. 100 surveys in total. The surveys were sent out in three stages:

1. Before the study began - February 2009;

2. During the study - November 2009; and

3. After the trial period - August 2010.

 

??? To encourage a high completion rate, respondents were encouraged to complete the survey with the chance to win shopping vouchers. :?

 

It was anticipated that 30% of the questionnaires would be returned; an actual 20% response rate was achieved overall.

 

It is also states that a comprehensive consultation of 'public engagement' was carried out ... and again I quote...

 

Public Engagement

 

A comprehensive consultation of all those who would be affected by the introduction of a 20 mph speed limit was undertaken as a ?best practice? approach to the implementation process.

 

The term ?public? refers to the people who live, shop and work in an area. Effective public engagement invites affected residents to be involved in discussing the public issues that they care about. This creates a sense of empowerment, promotes ownership of the change and hence increases the potential for success.

 

 

 

Surely Rod even you must agree that a survey sent to 100 random addresses even at a 100% response return rate is not a true representation of public opinion:?

 

There is a lot of info in these reports worth reading but I only had time for a quick glance so will not analyse or comment further.

 

Although I doubt that any councillors who have to vote on the matter will read the officers reports and findings reports fully or indeed understand what is infront of them... that's what usually happens... they take what they are TOLD as gospel by the writers without having to put their brains in gear :wink:

 

Public perception survey questionarie :

http://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/warrington/UploadedFiles/20MPH%20FINAL%20SURVEY.pdf

 

Warrington Borough Council 20 mph Pilots ? Public Perception surveys (dated 27th August 2010) :

http://www.warrington.gov.uk/images/Public%20perception%20surveys%20for%20web%20-%20Final_tcm15-48336.doc

 

WARRINGTON BOROUGH COUNCIL 20mph Speed Limit Pilots - Evaluation Report (dated 6 Oct 2010):

http://www.warrington.gov.uk/images/20mph%20Limit%20Trials%20Full%20Report%20JMF%20Rev%20I_tcm15-48326.doc

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rod, Bill etc our posts are crossing in the wind again... some of us need to type faster (ie me :lol:) I'm going to eat my tea so hopefully when I come back I'll be 'in the loop again'.

 

PS Bill ... The council's solicitor has never put me off yet.... who is it now by the way as they always seem to change him/her after any contentious issues :wink::lol: I wont name who my 'favourite' two were to deal with... but they've both gone now.. I wonder why that was :shock::lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rod

 

Please don't insult my intelligence. Of course everyone on Long Lane would like to see traffic moving slower past their homes just like I and every person in this country would. Such a predictable response and you wonder why there's hostility to your postings.

 

Dizzy

 

When the council carried out their survey (actually it was a petition) here in Paddington, they received less than 4% response and this was translated into over 90% in favour of their plan.

 

A proper second survey was carried out by a group of residents (myself included) on the same 635 households. The rate of return was almost twenty times higher and completely reversed the councils figures by showing 83.4% in favour of a 20mph limit rather than the councils speed bumps.

 

Rod's figures are probably correct but as the above example shows, figures can indeed be bent to suit your own argument by carefully worded questioning.

 

Bill :)

PS As for the solicitors, something Black & something? Yes they were dumped shortly after the Paddington affair where they made a monumental cock-up which cost the council thousands.

PPS Enjoy your tea. I'm pouring myself another liquid one. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst we accept that in steady state driving 20mph is probably the same as 30mph over a mix of cars, on many residential roads the actual speed varies between 0mph and the speed limit. Therefore taking into account a fluctuating speed that one which is capped at 20mph will always use less fuel for acceleration than one capped at 30mph.

 

OMG, just hold your hands up and admit you're wrong ffs. It's now become less fuel for aceleration has it? You do admit that overall you'll use more fuel driving at 20 than 30 though yes? Jesus christ almighty.

 

 

 

 

"Was polution/noise/fuel consumption etc a consideration in the first place or have these just been brought in as a side arguement in favour of the reduction?"

 

I think that the primary motivation was reducing road casualties. However over the same period there has been an increased concern about pollution in our towns.

Really, despite the fact that cars have got cleaner and cleaner? Saab's even put out cleaner air than they take in if their adverts are to be believed, and lets face it, a Tory party advert is more believable than you at the moment Rod, never mind one from the squeaky clean Swedes..
Link to post
Share on other sites

Trouble is Fats that Rod has an answer for everything and is never wrong. The crazy thing is that at one time I had a lot support for what he was doing but his arrogant holy er than thou approach has put me right off. :lol:

 

Bill :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fatshaft

 

I have been entirely consistent in what I have said.

 

For Fatshaft's Sake, I will repeat it again.

 

Some cars use 10% more some 10% less. On balance its aabout the same when spread across all cars. A 20mph cap on speed takes away the requirement to speed up to 30mph within a road. As acceleration consumes far more fuel than driving at a steady speed then this reduces overall fuel consumption.

 

I am sorry if you don't understand that.

 

and

 

You are clearly not aware of the Air Quality Directive, a requirment for all towns to meet maximum levels of pollution. Whilst cars may have become more fuel efficient, you may have noticed that there are more of them on the road and many of them are much larger and emit more pollution.

 

 

 

Best regards

 

 

Rod

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill

 

Whilst other do seem to quite easily resort to insults, this is something which I try to avoid.

 

I would not dream of insulting your intelligence, but my simple question was about understanding the basis of who you had been talking to. After all if it had only been, say, fatshaft and baz then it would have been a very differnt sample than if it had been people walking along Long Lane.

 

 

Best regards

 

 

Rod

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rod

 

What me insult you? I'm your biggest fan so think yourself lucky! :lol:

 

Are you seriously saying that other than this forum, you've not heard any negative comments regarding Long Lane? Contrary to what you may think I have a life outside of this forum and enjoy discussing both national and local events. I'm not a member of any grouping whatsoever or so sad as to keep statistics about this but I can say with 100% certainty that every single person I've spoken to regarding this has condemned the councils tinkering with the limits.

 

Now if you?re telling me otherwise then I would put it to you that you?re either telling porky pies or mixing with a completely unrepresentative section of the public. :roll:

 

Bill :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dizzy you say :-

 

ROD... re the consultation, pilot study and evaluation which has lead to the statistic that aprox 80% of people are in favour of a reduced speed limit.

 

Exactly what are you referring to?

 

Rod

 

I really don't know anymore. maybe it was 70+% but I'm not re-reading any more bloody council reports, past posts or any other news articles or looking at any more bloody web sites including those called 20's Plenty or Warrington Cycle Campaign or Warrington Council ... In fact NOTHING !

 

You're right Rod... I'm right too.. Bill's right... Fatshaft's right.. Peter's right... everyones right... IN SOME WAY so why are we taking about it anyway as like Bill says it WILL happen anyway regardless of what WE all think.

 

Infact your consistency Rod (and you yourself have just said that you are consistent) and the way you are not taking one jot of notice of anyone elses opinion, what they have to say or to perhaps to sit back and consider what they are saying and discuss it properly just shows what a farce consulting, discussing and talking with the mortals is really about.

 

If they don't agree be polite, thank them but IGNORE !!!

 

I'm sorry Rod as you seem like a really polite chap but you just WONT listen to anyone elses points and you've even managed to completely rattle my cage now and that takes some doing :cry:

 

Now can someone else please edit my post if it is deemed to be to harsh... as I'm not doing myself :evil::roll::oops:

 

Night all 8)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill

 

I am not saying that at all.

 

but imagine if I had said that "everyone I spoke to wanted a 20mph limit for Long lane".

 

I think it would have been reasonable for you to ask if I had included people who drive along Long Lane..

 

Surely it is reasonable for me to ask you a similar question from a different perspective?

 

And yes I have heard from people outside this Forum who want to maintain a 30mph speed limit on Long Lane. And with them I have often debated the benefits of a 30mph limit on Long Lane against the disbenefits.

 

 

Best regards

 

 

Rod

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if I'm not as meticulous as you Rod, I don't research the demographics of my friends to ensure their comments are a truly representative sample. What I can say is that they all come from differing backgrounds some drivers some not but the numbers are such that the probability of me getting this wrong is virtually zero.

 

There is a simple way to settle things once and for all. I'll openly challenge you to a test of public support for the council's plans to impose a 20mph limit on key commuting routes like Long Lane with no if are's or buts.

 

I say the vast majority of the public opose it.

 

If your right I'll show my backside on the town hall steps!

 

If I'm right you'll just need to admit you were mistaken.

 

Good night it's been a long day.

 

Bill :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gosh, some nasty posts. The main problem seems to be that Rod's won the argument (except for arterial roads) where it matters, in the town hall.

 

As for consultation, I'm not sure the Neighbourhood Area Boards were asked....

Link to post
Share on other sites

It started as a discussion, not an argument as most threads do.

The trouble started when Rod decided he had to defend his actions.

That was an argument that he lost because no-one agreed with his comments.

 

It wasn't about 20 mph, but imo, the terrifying thought of the council having carte blanche to roll it out across Warrington, with-out any discussion with the residents of the borough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill

 

You said

There is a simple way to settle things once and for all. I'll openly challenge you to a test of public support for the council's plans to impose a 20mph limit on key commuting routes like Long Lane with no if are's or buts.

 

There has never, ever been a plan for the council to "impose" 20mph limit on key commuting routes. Indeed we have always suggested that such routes should have their speed limit assessed independently and that this should be based upon a number of factors.

 

So lets all be thankfull that there will be no possible requirement for Bill to appear in any state of undress on the Town hall steps.

 

 

Peter T said

 

the terrifying thought of the council having carte blanche to roll it out across Warrington, with-out any discussion with the residents of the borough.

 

Vic said

 

As for consultation, I'm not sure the Neighbourhood Area Boards were asked....

 

 

We also agree that discussion is important, and that is why I continue to have a dialog on the forum even though there are several posters who disagree with my views.

 

We believe that residents and neighbourhood boards should be included in that discussion.

 

Therefore we were very pleased that the Executive Board responded to our critique of the Pilot Study reports and recomendation by deciding to include ward members and neighbourhood boards in its consultation.

 

It also placed the work on developing the criteria for exclusion in the hands of the Environment and Housing Overview & Scrutiny Committee to further discuss and report.

 

Hence 20's Plenty for Us has used its influence to ensure that a due democratic and public process is followed on this issue.

 

We are the firmest believers that any speed limit reduction must be "owned" by the public and residential communities. Most drivers who live in Warrington curently live on a 30mph street in Warrington. Their involvment in the discussion on 20mph limits is about how they are going to share both the roads they live in and the roads they drive in and is a key factor in making our roads safer and better places to be.

 

And yes I have defended my views but I also defend the right of others to disagree.

 

I defend the democratic process we have and I also defend the hard work by councillors in this town of all political persuasions.

 

At the end of the day, forums such as this, whilst being a useful place to discuss matters, are only that. We vest the responsibiliity for deciding how we share our communal spaces with our council, and our voice in that is through are elected representatives.

 

Democracy is never perfect and we have to keep working at it.

 

I do respect Bill for actually engaging with that process and for putting the legwork in to asking his community about lower speed limits and whether bumps should be required. I think we should broaden that to all our residents. and apart from a few detail arguments about some specific roads which make little difference to journey times and have particular road safety problems we seem to be in agreement.

 

I want Warrington to become a better place to live. I treasure that more than I treasure travelling down Long Lane at 30mph. Some may have different values.

 

Well that's OK, but it needs to be a democratic decision which involves all who use that road, and that must include those who walk, cycle or live on it as well as those who drive through it.

 

My best regards to you all.

 

 

Rod

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...