Coffee Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 Very large potholes Coffee. A 'natural' deterrent and they are already being phased in as a trial measure by the looks of some of the road That is very funny Dizzy, but your right too. Read in the papers that parts of Europe have now made it against the law to overtake a bike in these zones, complete with a £100 fine. :roll: Now don't go around giving ideas. Ah but will the councillors be here after 22 May? Perhaps the new ones will remove all 20 stuff and use the road humps to fill in the potholes? Well we can dream, You won't get an answer coffee, because Rod does one of two things when presented with inconvenient facts. One is to crow that the money is being spent whether it achieves anything or not, so tough luck. The other is to vanish. No, it is typical thoug of such people, they come out with loads of claims yhen can't back them up, lack of input from councillors too. If I have time I will e mail all the ones that are standing at the weekend, if I can find their email addresses Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted May 15, 2014 Report Share Posted May 15, 2014 The thing is that councillors have to back these schemes. Anything that claims to be "In the interest of safety" especially if children are "potentially at risk of life and limb" must be backed by council even if the risk is so remote that you could not see it with the hubble telescope on a clear night. It does not matter if it turns out to be expensive or unenforceable it has to be done there is a safety issue at stake. Mentioning safety is the greatest way of getting something done or stopping something that you are opposed to. For example on todays news page there is opposition to building on the site of of medieval barn that has been demolished due to being unsafe. 70 people have objected and one of the main concerns thrown at the council is that the increase in traffic could pose a safety threat to schoolchildren who use the road as about 200 school children use the road daily. Question I would be asking is this. Is it 200 school children going to school and then coming back or is that 100 school children going to school and 100 coming back? it does make a difference, about 200 school children for a start. and also if it so busy with school children why have only 70 people objected, surely they cannot have 200 children between them (well they could I suppose it all depends on well..... er .....you know ) So why has a petition not been got up at the school gates to get the parents of said children to object as well. Don't forget this is a safety issue after all so given that each child has two parents and that there are no twins or siblings then there is a potential 400 signatures for a petition that are going begging. Still anything that keeps people safe is a good thing right, you cannot disagree with that can you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey_man Posted May 15, 2014 Report Share Posted May 15, 2014 The thing is that councillors have to back these schemes. Anything that claims to be "In the interest of safety" especially if children are "potentially at risk of life and limb" must be backed by council even if the risk is so remote that you could not see it with the hubble telescope on a clear night. It does not matter if it turns out to be expensive or unenforceable it has to be done there is a safety issue at stake. Mentioning safety is the greatest way of getting something done or stopping something that you are opposed to. For example on todays news page there is opposition to building on the site of of medieval barn that has been demolished due to being unsafe. 70 people have objected and one of the main concerns thrown at the council is that the increase in traffic could pose a safety threat to schoolchildren who use the road as about 200 school children use the road daily. Question I would be asking is this. Is it 200 school children going to school and then coming back or is that 100 school children going to school and 100 coming back? it does make a difference, about 200 school children for a start. and also if it so busy with school children why have only 70 people objected, surely they cannot have 200 children between them (well they could I suppose it all depends on well..... er .....you know ) So why has a petition not been got up at the school gates to get the parents of said children to object as well. Don't forget this is a safety issue after all so given that each child has two parents and that there are no twins or siblings then there is a potential 400 signatures for a petition that are going begging. Still anything that keeps people safe is a good thing right, you cannot disagree with that can you? In the case of the 20mph limits It should be about the opportunity cost. We know the limits achieve nothing (or as near as) which would be fine if the council was wallowing in cash. But it isn't, so the budget for this is inevitably coming from somewhere else and you can take your pick of the front line services that have been denuded or withdrawn. These are services we know for a fact make a difference in people's lives, including with regard to their wellbeing, health and safety. Far from improving the town and the lives of its residents, this has made them worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffee Posted May 15, 2014 Report Share Posted May 15, 2014 The thing is that councillors have to back these schemes. Anything that claims to be "In the interest of safety" especially if children are "potentially at risk of life and limb" must be backed by council even if the risk is so remote that you could not see it with the hubble telescope on a clear night. It does not matter if it turns out to be expensive or unenforceable it has to be done there is a safety issue at stake. But I do not think this is true. The council have withdrawn school crossing petrols and have not reinstated them despite calls to do so. If the council had to do things just because for the safety of children cars would have been baned long ago, we would be watching only childrens TV, alcohol and smoking would be banned along with fast food, sugar, cola and salt Not every council is bringing in the 20mph restriction, although most seem to be. EDIT: The 20MPH spped limit is a political thing thart all three parties are pushing, it is like ban smoking, healthy eating, gay rights, public transport, it is the in thing for poloticians at the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted May 15, 2014 Report Share Posted May 15, 2014 From the Drivers Union website "Liberal Democrats in York have criticised the Labour-run council’s plans for citywide 20mph speed limits on residential roads. The Lib Dem group has expressed its unhappiness with the plans in response to the council’s consultation on implementing 20mph limits in the west of the city. “We continue to support a targeted use of 20mph limits at known accident blackspots and in areas such as outside schools and shopping areas,” say the Lib Dems. But they say evidence for the effects of blanket 20mph limits is “very mixed in regards to accident levels, reducing speeds, helping produce a modal shift away from car use and in reducing emissions. The evidence from the UK’s first city-wide 20mph scheme [Portsmouth] showed that serious accident levels went up slightly, the average reduction in speeds was just 1.3mph, and the scheme made little different to the majority of respondents in the amount they travelled by their chosen mode.” Discussing the specific plans for 20mph limits in York, the Lib Dems say: “The folly of the current approach is shown in the speed and accident data … showing that average speeds on many of the roads proposed for the new limit are already below 20mph and accident rates on the roads proposed are either zero or very low. This means that in many areas the £600,000 cost of the project will make little discernible difference on the ground, except to increase street clutter and spend taxpayers’ money.” The Lib Dems say there remains confusion about how 20mph limits will be enforced. “The evidence is that locally and nationally the police do not have the resources or inclination to enforce all new 20mph limits,” they say." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey_man Posted May 15, 2014 Report Share Posted May 15, 2014 From the Drivers Union website "Liberal Democrats in York have criticised the Labour-run council’s plans for citywide 20mph speed limits on residential roads. The Lib Dem group has expressed its unhappiness with the plans in response to the council’s consultation on implementing 20mph limits in the west of the city. “We continue to support a targeted use of 20mph limits at known accident blackspots and in areas such as outside schools and shopping areas,” say the Lib Dems. But they say evidence for the effects of blanket 20mph limits is “very mixed in regards to accident levels, reducing speeds, helping produce a modal shift away from car use and in reducing emissions. The evidence from the UK’s first city-wide 20mph scheme [Portsmouth] showed that serious accident levels went up slightly, the average reduction in speeds was just 1.3mph, and the scheme made little different to the majority of respondents in the amount they travelled by their chosen mode.” Discussing the specific plans for 20mph limits in York, the Lib Dems say: “The folly of the current approach is shown in the speed and accident data … showing that average speeds on many of the roads proposed for the new limit are already below 20mph and accident rates on the roads proposed are either zero or very low. This means that in many areas the £600,000 cost of the project will make little discernible difference on the ground, except to increase street clutter and spend taxpayers’ money.” The Lib Dems say there remains confusion about how 20mph limits will be enforced. “The evidence is that locally and nationally the police do not have the resources or inclination to enforce all new 20mph limits,” they say." There you go. Almost word for word the exact conclusion we should draw from the Warrington pilot based on the evidence, and all for the same reasons. In some ways it's fascinating watching politicians ignoring facts as they pursue whatever idea is in their heads. But for those of us who have to pay for it and can only sit and watch as they remove functioning services to pay for it, it's farcical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffee Posted May 15, 2014 Report Share Posted May 15, 2014 From the Drivers Union website "Liberal Democrats in York have criticised the Labour-run council’s plans for citywide 20mph speed limits on residential roads. The Lib Dem group has expressed its unhappiness with the plans in response to the council’s consultation on implementing 20mph limits in the west of the city. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffee Posted May 15, 2014 Report Share Posted May 15, 2014 Yes but that is because they are in opposition. Many Liberal Democrat councils have or are implementing the 20moh speed limits, Islington, Bedford, Bristol (cost several million) and others. IN 2012c their conference called to actively consider 20mph speed limits and has become government policy. Yet what I find interesting is, in order to introduce the 20mph limit, the pilot study seemed very short and councillors have decided based upon these few months that there is overwhelming evidence that a 20mph speed limit would be beneficial. It has been three years since the introduction of the 20mph zone in Portsmouth, yet it is to early to tell from the statistics whether it is working or not? PS I couldn't get the text to go in the unquoted bit above Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 4, 2014 Report Share Posted July 4, 2014 According to the IAM, there's been a 17% increase in serious accidents on roads designated as 20mph zones ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted July 4, 2014 Report Share Posted July 4, 2014 It seems it's even higher than that Obs.The report I saw said serious accidents had increased by 26% last year to 420 and there was a 17% increase on accidents causing slight injuries. Fatal accidents were down by by 33% bringing the total down to 6.http://www.lbc.co.uk/20mph-zone-road-crash-casualties-rise-by-26-93218 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted July 4, 2014 Report Share Posted July 4, 2014 Well now that the roads are safer for cyclists it only remains to educate the cyclists so the roads are then safer for pedestrians. four red light jumpers spotted this morning alone and three of those were the lycra lads. maybe a blanket ban on mobile phones in public may help as well given the number of people i see wandering blithely out into the road whilst gazing intently at the playlist and not the traffic situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodk Posted July 5, 2014 Report Share Posted July 5, 2014 Those interested may like to see the original report from the IAM :- http://iam.org.uk/media-and-research/media-centre/news-archive/20505-casualties-increase-in-20mph-zones and the response made by 20's Plenty for Us :- http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/PRel/bogusIAMrep.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted July 5, 2014 Report Share Posted July 5, 2014 So which expert are we to believe then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted July 5, 2014 Report Share Posted July 5, 2014 Lies, damned lies and statistics...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey_man Posted July 5, 2014 Report Share Posted July 5, 2014 rod I agree that the IAM should have put their press release into context, but then so should you. Your final statement is also deliberately comparing apples with pears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted July 23, 2014 Report Share Posted July 23, 2014 Front page news today.... http://www.warrington-worldwide.co.uk/articles/18807/1/Council-squandering-20000-on-30-road-signs-claims-councillor/Page1.htmlextra......The other report on the WG gives the actual figure as £27,280 for the 30 roads and says that Cllr Axel was told "all roads would need a 20mph sign otherwise motorists would think they are 30mph" It also mentions that Cllr Paul Kennedy also questioned the scheme and asked “Can the executive board member give reassurance to residents that the expenditure represents best use of taxpayers’ money, and does she also share my concern that the 20mph speed limit will fall in to disrepute and that the original 20mph roads, for example outside of schools, might actually become less safe.” Cllr Lindit Dirir replied "before the lower speed limits were brought in a pilot had high results with 86 per cent of people responding giving positive opinions on the pilot. In 2011 a decision was made by the executive board to implement a roll out on all residential roads. It makes streets safer, it reduces accidents and saves lives. The Government recognises this and gave us funding. It’s the best use of tax payers money.” I wonder what the grand total is for all the roads in Warrington which now have 20 signs on where it's impossible to get up to 30mph as there are quite a few around here too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey_man Posted July 23, 2014 Report Share Posted July 23, 2014 Does Cllr Dirir have any evidence for the impact of 20 mph limits because the council's own pilot showed there was no change and casualties increased in one of the test areas? If the council has a million quid or whatever to spend on road safety, it could be spent far more wisely than this for example by targeting places where there is a problem rather than putting pointless signs up in cul de sacs. It strikes me that Linda Dirir has bought into the idea peddled by Rod King that if you make people's lives more difficult, they'll do something different. Instead of which, they carry on as before but with a more determined belief that this is the council's town and the rest of us just live in it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 A far better use of the million quid would be to buy the likes of Dire and King et al, a one way ticket to New Zealand..... that way they can't be meddling in stuff around here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 That's not very nice Baz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 Councillor Dirir - "It’s the best use of tax payers money.” Shows Government's (national and local) attitude to the tax payer. They take all the money from us in taxes and then look for ways to spend it, instead of identifying the minimum monetary requirement and taxing accordingly. Thieves each and every one. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted July 27, 2014 Report Share Posted July 27, 2014 Taxtion:- The legal way of demanding money with menaces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveewood Posted July 27, 2014 Report Share Posted July 27, 2014 No taxation = no police, no roads (except tolled), no public parks, no sewage system. Good luck with that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted July 27, 2014 Report Share Posted July 27, 2014 Who said anything about NO taxation? The point is that governments take as much off us as they think they can get away with, then waste a lot of it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.