20 mph Road Signs Painted Out - Long Lane

[rodk]

Peter T

 

I am not sure that you have demonstrated why you think it absurd to have a 20mph on a main road. There are many places in the country where a 20mph limit has been set on certain parts of the main road. This has taken into account the needs of all road users, the particular pedestrian movements, etc. I assume that the traffic authorty that set the limit did not think it absurd.

 

I am not sure of anyone in Warrington campaigning for 20mph on all main roads.

 

Whether it needs to be up to the police can be determined by what has happenned elsewhere and in the Warrington pilots. Compliance levels have been the result of only very light emforcement by the police. In Portsmouth on faster roads, speeds have dropped by 7mph!

 

I note that you feel you can be supportive of having a say in setting the speed limit on your own road. Do you feel that residents on Long lane should have a voice regarding their road?

 

kevofaz25

 

Yes you could make the argument that all of those roads are residential. Hence the local authority traffic engineers make a judgment as to the speed limit dependent upon particular local details.

 

In terms of thinking creatively, tell me how creative it is to travel faster than is necessary if it does not get you to your destination any quicker. How creative is it to tear down Long Lane only to be in the same position in a long queue of cars waiting to get out onto the A49?

 

How creative is it that parents do not allow children to cycle or walk to school because of the speed of motor vehicles?

 

 

 

I accept that there is a question of balance in all of this. But it seems that some people seem to presume that higher speeds provide some personal and society benefit which somehow exceeds the many proven benefits of lower speeds. So far they have been very reluctant to explain exactly what those benefits are.

 

So lets set a couple clear question and see if we can get any answers :-

 

• What are the benefits of a 30 mph speed limit instead of 20mph on residential roads?
   
  What are the benfits of a 30mph speed limit on Long Lane instead of 20mph?

 

I look forward to discussing further.

 

Best regards

 

Rod

[Peter T]

Rod.

If it's not broken don't fix it.

The problem is that drivers who ignore speed limits will continue to do so because nothing is done to change that.

Children and school??? You're avin a laff. Mummy and Daddy don't want little Johnny getting tired walking to school or he might even get wet or cold.

Perhaps teaching cyclists how to behave on the roads would solve the problem of them riding on the pavement endangering pedestrians.

 

Prior to implementing 20mph in my area, we had several proper consultations, and the only complaint we had was from the lycra brigade because we didn't include them.

I haven't replied to your two questions as they are just like a survey designed to give little choice in opinions.

What I will say is that driving at a slower speed is more dangerous as the concentration levels are a lot less and a driver can easily be distracted and do other things whilst driving.

[Bazj]

Rod,

 

20 may be plenty for a bike..... but "don't get shirty if it's 30"

 

Peter also fails to note that if you have ever traversed Long Lane (which I do quite a lot as I used to have my office on the business park) you will notice that the most dangerous threat to road users and pedestrians are not the cars, vans and lorries that use the road; but the bloody maniac kids which spill out of the high school with no common sense on how to cross a road safely......

 

Maybe instead of wearing lycra displaying various bike logos; you should get the Green Cross Code Man outfit on and show the kids how to cross the road and stop trying to blame the motorist all the time.

 

20 will also never work down Long lane because even the police didn't adhere to it..... I was driving down there a few months back (at 20mph on cruise control ) and I was overtaken by a panda car (with no flashing lights being displayed etc. plus he stopped at the traffic lights so was not on an emergency). If even the police can't be bothered how can you possibly enforce it?

[vic]

What I will say is that driving at a slower speed is more dangerous as the concentration levels are a lot less and a driver can easily be distracted and do other things whilst driving.

Oh great, from the "I don't wear a seat belt because it makes me feel invulnerable" school of motoring.

[Peter T]

What I will say is that driving at a slower speed is more dangerous as the concentration levels are a lot less and a driver can easily be distracted and do other things whilst driving.

Oh great, from the "I don't wear a seat belt because it makes me feel invulnerable" school of motoring.

 

And your point?

[Bill]

Anyone see the program last night about distracted drivers?

 

They found four people who were prepared to have a video camera installed in their cars to show their driving habits, which was quite honestly unbelievable. One young girl was shown with her dog (quite a big one) sitting on her lap while she put her makeup on. Others were doing stuff like sending a text while trying to eat a burger but the scariest thing was that when shown the evidence, they all thought it quite acceptable and didn?t affect their ability to drive!

 

Bill

[Bazj]

"I don't wear a seat belt because it makes me feel invulnerable" school of motoring.

 

a bit of a double negative going on there isn't there?

 

shouldn't that be either

 

"I don't wear a seat belt because it makes me feel vulnerable"

 

or I wear a seat belt because it makes me feel invulnerable" ?

[Bazj]

Anyone see the program last night about distracted drivers?

 

They found four people who were prepared to have a video camera installed in their cars to show their driving habits, which was quite honestly unbelievable. One young girl was shown with her dog (quite a big one) sitting on her lap while she put her makeup on. Others were doing stuff like sending a text while trying to eat a burger but the scariest thing was that when shown the evidence, they all thought it quite acceptable and didn?t affect their ability to drive!

 

Bill

 

Bill,

 

I get the point of your post, but surely; if these people don't have accidents or cause accidents.... there can't be an issue with their driving or concentration?

[Bill]

No Baz, the point was these were all relatively young drivers who hadn?t had an accident yet but if you could have seen how they were driving I reckon you?d agree they were all just accidents waiting to happen.

 

The bit that scared me was the fact they couldn?t see anything wrong with what they were doing.

 

Course if they did end up killing someone they could just claim to have fainted !

 

Bill

[kevofaz25]

saw one young 'un in town the other day- smoking and on the Mobile phone whilst driving.. now that sorta thing should be reportable

[observer]

Answer: police check and actually stop such offenders, issue on the spot fines. Three strikes and your banned for life - sorted. Problem: Not enough cops, assuming they or the politicians were inclined to sort it.

[Peter T]

Exactly. They all pay lip service to issues, but that's it. My point about the 20mph. IF people and officialdom is serious, sort out the speeders who break the law before moving on to the next hare-brained idea.

Perhaps it is time to ban minority groups and prioritise problems that affect everyone, not just a few.

[rodk]

HI

 

I would really like to answer all the questions raised by different posters. So lets try :-

 

Quotes are those from the various posters.

 

Peter T

 

If it's not broken don't fix it.

 

Peter. Why do you think we have red signs on almost all of the arterial roads in Warrington pointing out the number of casualties? Are these signs of a system that is working or one that is broken? I happen to believe that most of these casualties are avoidable and slower speeds are a significant factor in avoiding collisions.

 

 

The problem is that drivers who ignore speed limits will continue to do so because nothing is done to change that.

 

So presumably that is an argument against any speed limits is it?

 

Children and school??? You're avin a laff. Mummy and Daddy don't want little Johnny getting tired walking to school or he might even get wet or cold.

 

That may be your opinion, but most children woul prefer independently travelling to school rather than "Mummy or daddy" taking them. 74% of adults questioned in a recent DfT survey on attitudes to cycling say it was the speed of traffic that deterred them from cycling.

 

Perhaps teaching cyclists how to behave on the roads would solve the problem of them riding on the pavement endangering pedestrians.

 

Unfortunately many cyclists are encouraged to ride on pavement by WBC building many shared use paths. But surely cyclists have a much more benign presence than motor vehicles?

 

Prior to implementing 20mph in my area, we had several proper consultations, and the only complaint we had was from the lycra brigade because we didn't include them.

 

Exactly what do you mean by "the lycra brigade". Is this some sort of road user defined by what they wear? It seems to lack some precision and would seem to reflect your own prejudices more than anything else. Do you think that such "name calling" helps the debate or hinders it?

 

I haven't replied to your two questions as they are just like a survey designed to give little choice in opinions.

 

That's Ok. There seems to be a great deal of justification for 20mph speed limits on residential roads. If you don't want to suggest any benefits from a 30mph limit then that is your perogative.

 

What I will say is that driving at a slower speed is more dangerous as the concentration levels are a lot less and a driver can easily be distracted and do other things whilst driving.

 

That is not the evidence from other countries. We do not get road traffic engineers from Netherlands and Germany coming across to see how we have made our urban roads safer by having a speed limit 60% higher than their's in order to create mandatory high levels of concentration required. they happen to believe that the more you can "de-stress" and calm the sharing of the roads then the better it is for everyone.

 

Baz J

 

Peter also fails to note that if you have ever traversed Long Lane (which I do quite a lot as I used to have my office on the business park) you will notice that the most dangerous threat to road users and pedestrians are not the cars, vans and lorries that use the road; but the bloody maniac kids which spill out of the high school with no common sense on how to cross a road safely......

 

But that is something which occurs whenever you get a large number of road users (and I do include pedestrians as road users) who spill out onto an ajoing road. The same happens after sports matches, and any other similar situation. That's what kids, and adults, do.

 

Maybe instead of wearing lycra displaying various bike logos; you should get the Green Cross Code Man outfit on and show the kids how to cross the road and stop trying to blame the motorist all the time.

 

I am always encouraged when someone plays the "lycra card". It shows that they certainly don't know what I normally wear when I do cycle.

 

20 will also never work down Long lane because even the police didn't adhere to it..... I was driving down there a few months back (at 20mph on cruise control ) and I was overtaken by a panda car (with no flashing lights being displayed etc. plus he stopped at the traffic lights so was not on an emergency). If even the police can't be bothered how can you possibly enforce it?

 

Well most people comply with the limit and have reduced their speed. In addition, the police are prepared to do light enforcement.

 

Peter T

 

Exactly. They all pay lip service to issues, but that's it. My point about the 20mph. IF people and officialdom is serious, sort out the speeders who break the law before moving on to the next hare-brained idea.

 

Surely no-one is payling lip service to the issues. Quite the contrary. Communities want to set the correct speed limit for their streets and 75% of those believe that 20mph is the correct limit.

 

Perhaps it is time to ban minority groups and prioritise problems that affect everyone, not just a few

 

I would not try and ban people from expresing their views. We should respect the fact that 28% of drivers do not believe that 20mph is the correct speed limit for residential roads. But equally, 72% do believe that 20mph is the correct speed limit. They believe we should prioritise the problems that effect all of us when we use the roads rather than the 28% who want to drive faster on our residential streets.

 

Maybe that 28% who do think that 30mph is the right speed limit for residential roads should start explaining why rather 30mph is beneficial than dodging the issue. If 30mph limits are so great then why not justify their benefits.

 

I think it is important to address two issues here and NOT confuse them.

 

The first is the very strong case for 20mph as the default speed limit for residential roads which has huge support from communties and other organisations. This already exists in towns in most of Norther Europe and an increasing number of towns in the UK.

 

The second is the method used for deciding which roads should be exceptions set at a higher (or lower) level due to local road characteristics.

 

This rests with the local traffic engineers and will be based upon a wide range of considerations including pedestrian use, schools, numbers of cyclists, etc. All of course balanced by whether there are actually any benefits from having a higher speed limit. As is so often said, at the time when most people travel along Long lane, the congestion at Hilden Roundabout or the A49 means that the time taken to travel along Long Lane bears no relation to the overall journey time. Hence the benefits of travelling faster simply do not exist.

 

So, thank you for your comments, I trust that this debate can continue.

 

Best

[Peter T]

Rod,

After all these years of cycling you don't know who the Lycra Brigade are?

 

Only time for a couple of points.

The words Residential areas needs defining to make your view acceptable.

Knutsford Rd is a residential area, and to make that 20mph would be ludicrous which takes me back to my point re. lip-service. ie No real effort is made to penalise drivers for exceeding the limit.

You are not starting your argument at 30 but more like 50 mph. Get that sorted and then you know how to deal with any problem.

I would suggest that comparing the native Englishman with someone from Europe is a non-starter anyway.

ie the difference with the consumption of alcohol over there and the lager louts and lasses over here.

 

Just a final question on this post. What do you do when people ignore the 20mph as they ignore the other limits?

[rodk]

The Lycra Brigade!

 

Well you are the one using the term. maybe you should explain exactly who you mean. Could it be :-

 

• * All cyclists.
  * Sports cyclists who are wearing Lycra based shorts and top.
  * Commuter cyclists in ordinary working clothes (that's how I cycle most of the time)
  * Only those who have clothes with Lycra content. (Do socks count!)

 

I know that it is sometimes easier to blame everything on some perceived but identifiable minority, but I think that you will find that the vast majority of people in favour of 20mph speed limits actually do not cycle. So any attempt at marginalisation here does seem to fall on rather "stony ground". This is not about being "anti-motorist" but being "pro-people".

 

Frankly "The Lycra Brigade" is about as useful a term as "Rally Jacket Brigade". Don't ask me what that means because I would never dream of using it. After all, this is a serious debating forum isn't it?

 

Residential roads. That's simple. Its roads with houses on where people live. Knutsford Road is easy to work out. As a main road it may be more appropriate to keep this at 30mph. However, any part of a main road running through such a shopping centre as Latchford Village or Stockton Heath Village would have grounds for considering that part to be set at 20 mph rather than 30mph. I am happy to leave this to the local traffic authority to determine.

 

Your questions about policing do have some relevence, but do not seem to be specific to 20mph. Maybe you should ask the police about the policing of current 30mph roads. There is ample evidence that 20mph limits do reduce the speeds of motor vehicles. And whilst compliance is not as high as putting in speed bumps, the reductions in speed are very beneficial given their wide area coverage and low cost. For example it is 51 times cheaper to put in a 20mph limit than a 20mph zone. Ie the cost of 1 road with bumps is about the same as 51 without bumps. An important consideration when maximum "value for money" is being sought.

 

And DfT say that the cost of 1 pedestrain death is equal to ?1.8m. For that cost you can implement 1,600 km of 20mph limited streets.

 

And when people, (and some will), ignore the 20 mph limit then you do exactly the same as you would do if they had ignored any other speed limit.

 

 

As you say, you seem to be completely happy with 20mph on residential roads as long as they are not main roads or arterial roads.

 

I am quite content for the determination of the speed on main or arterial roads to be left with the local traffic authority. I am confident that they would take a reasonable view conerning the requirments to preseve the safety of all road users. I may have a "view" on specific sections of roads but I suspect we all have "views" on this anyway. But that decision would seem to be a Traffic Officer one anyway and every member of the public will be equally free to give their advice and opinion during the consultation process.

 

So I suspect that we do not really have any argument conerning the idea of 20mph being a "default".

 

Thanks for your time and comment.

 

Best regards

 

Rod

[Dizzy]

Prior to implementing 20mph in my area, we had several proper consultations, and the only complaint we had was from the lycra brigade because we didn't include them.

 

Exactly what do you mean by "the lycra brigade". Is this some sort of road user defined by what they wear? It seems to lack some precision and would seem to reflect your own prejudices more than anything else. Do you think that such "name calling" helps the debate or hinders it?

 

Even I have heard of the Lycra Brigade Rod I suspect you are just trying to wind Peter up by saying you have no idea who they are For clarification they are the more serious type push bike riders who ride on the road like they own it (sometimes 2-3 a breast) and who swerve in and out of traffic at high speed and give drivers the v's for being in the way..... well that's the ones I call the Lycra brigade anyway

 

As for all the other chat.. well some bits I agree with and some bits I don't so I'll leave it at that and let you two battle it except to to say that I wouldn't let my son ride on the roads round here and I wouldn't do it myself even if they were 20mph as many people wouldnt stick to it or simply claim ignorance

 

Bike vs car NO THANKS

[Peter T]

Rod, where do you get your figures from? We don't use km over here.

 

And just what do you get for your money for a dead pedestrian?

[observer]

The average (non lycra) cyclist, usually uses the pavement, but hops on the road when it suits and treats a red light as a give way only warning to be ignored.

[rodk]

Peter said

Rod, where do you get your figures from? We don't use km over here.

 

And just what do you get for your money for a dead pedestrian?

 

Well the metric system is almost universally used in design and engineering, so that includes highway design as well.

 

The Figures for 20mph signed only limits comes from Portsmouth where 1,200 roads covering 410km were set at 20mph for a total cost of ?475,000. hence ?1,158 per km. This was in 2008.

 

The cost of 20mph Zones of ?60,000 per km was quoted in the report :-

 

iii Grundy, Steinbach, Edwards, Green, Armstrong & Wilson ? Effect of 20 mph traffic speed zones on road injuries in London.

 

This was made up as follows :-

 

All cost data was adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index (CPU) and are reported in 2005 ?s. We calculated the cost per kilometre of road for each 20 mph zone as follows:

Mean: ?59,334.16 per kilometre

 

This report may be downloaded from:-

 

www.20splentyforus.org.uk/UsefulReports/20-mph-zones-and-road-safety-in-london.pdf

 

The cost of Road Casualties was estimated in the DfT Report on Road casualties for 2007. Table 2a lists the average value of prevention per fatality at ?1.65m per casualty or ?1.87m per collision. These are at 2007 prices.

 

 

I trust that these help.

 

 

Best regards

 

Rod

[Peter T]

Seem a bit iffy to me. A bit like WBC's quotes. Think of a number and quadruple it.

 

Perhaps a ban on cycling would resolve the problem. People could then use public transport. Look at the money that would be saved.

And a bonus would be having parents who taught their children to THINK as well as how to press a button.

It's a Social problem, NOT a Highway one.

[rodk]

Peter

 

Sorry, when you asked the question as to where I obtained the figures I thought you would be interested in the answer.

 

And of course if you ban cycling then you would have even more cars on the roads. That would help would it?

 

 

Best regards

 

 

Rod

[Bill]

Rod

 

Another predictable and tiresome reply.

 

Well Rod, your entitled to your own views but from where I sit, you don?t seem to have much support from the public forums in our town. Course you could argue that people that use forums don?t make up a representative view but leaving that argument aside, I?ve yet to meet one single person who believes 20mph on Long Lane is a good idea.

 

I?m not a member of any specific group of people in any sense and so I believe that when I speak with people, I?m getting a pretty representative response in line with that of the general public. I suspect that as a cycle campaigner, you have many friends and colleagues that support your views and this I believe may have given you a distorted picture of the public?s feeling on the matter.

 

In the past, I?ve taken issue with others, who like you, claimed to have widespread public support only to find that the complete opposite was the true. In that instance also, the person (another campaigner) said that everyone he?d spoken to agreed with him, which only proves my point.

 

Finally just to clarify my position for the benefit of anyone just reading this. I do support the call for 20mph in predominantly residential areas but not on arterial routes.

 

Bill

[rodk]

Bill

 

You said

Rod

 

Another predictable and tiresome reply.

 

I agree. It was predictable and rather tiresome that I should have had to reply. After asking me for the source of my quotes, Peter then dismissed them with a very casual "sounds a bit iffy to me". He then went on to imply that they were probably 4 times too high.

 

Look, I don't claim to have widespread support for myself. But I do claim that what I support also has widespread support. These are subtly different. Even you agree that 20mph is the right limit for "predominantly" residential areas.

 

I have never campaigned for arterial routes to be set at 20mph, but only that a concious decision should be made as to whether 30 mph was the right speed limit. I am not sure why this seems so subversive.

 

Indeed the government requires all A and B roads to have their speed limit set taking due account of the needs of vulnerable road users. Hence on such a basis it would seem inevitable that some A or B roads or arterial roads on some of their sections may find that a lower or higher speed limit than 30mph is appropriate. Indeed I could quote many cases around the country where A and B roads have some sections at 20 mph.

 

As an arterial road with several schools and colleges on it then it may well be considered that 30mph is not the most appropriate speed.

 

Now is there anything wrong the idea of selecting an appropriate speed limit based on local use, road characteristics, number of pedestrians and cyclists, number of shops, pedestrian and cycle facilities, etc. ?

 

Or should the speed limit be purely based on the fact that its an A or B road and regardless of consequences then the speed limit should be 30mph?

 

That is probably at the core of our discussion.

 

Best regards

 

 

rod

[Dizzy]

...... We should respect the fact that 28% of drivers do not believe that 20mph is the correct speed limit for residential roads. But equally, 72% do believe that 20mph is the correct speed limit. They believe we should prioritise the problems that effect all of us when we use the roads rather than the 28% who want to drive faster on our residential streets.

 

Maybe that 28% who do think that 30mph is the right speed limit for residential roads should start explaining why rather 30mph is beneficial than dodging the issue. If 30mph limits are so great then why not justify their benefits.

 

It's all getting a little confusing with all the statistics from here there and everywhere and comparisons with other countries being thrown into the discussion.

 

Personally I still agree that SOME roads should be 20 especially those around schools etc but I'm still struggling to get to terms with all residential roads being 20 and how on earth that would be implemented and 'managed'.

 

Anyway the reason that I have quoted you comment above Rod (which I only just spoted after having another read of the whole thread to see if I could make any sense of it all) is that you quote 28% of drivers being against the 20mph rule and 72% being all for it etc.

 

Could you tell me WHO, WHERE FROM and just HOW MANY drivers were actually asked this question as I am a driver and I was never asked.

 

The trouble with some statistics is that they often rely on a small minority group of people being asked and those who inturn actually bother to answer.

 

.....and when the % totals add upto 100% that usually means that the statistics have been drawn on exactly those number people who have replied rather than a broader spectrum which could result in a more meaningful statistical analysys of "8% said yes, 2 % said no and 80% didn't answer".

[rodk]

HI Dizzy

 

The figures come from the British Social Attitudes Survey 2005. In this 75% of those questioned thought that 20mph was the right speed limit for residential roads. Of those questioned who were drivers then 72% agreed that 20mph was the correct speed limit for residential roads. these figures are widely referenced in UK Government and other organisation reports.

 

 

The 28% came from my subtraction of 72% from 100%.

 

One of the issues of roads around schools is that more child casualties occur for children on school journeys nearer to their home than near the school. Paradoxically it is the sheer number of children evident around schools which makes drivers more aware of their presence. It is further from school where children are not expected that casualties are more likely to occur. The source of this is RoadPeace, the organisation that support road casualties.

 

With regard to 20mph on residential roads, it does appear to work where it has been done on an authority wide basis. Key aspects are consistency, community ownership and implementing through democratic processes.

 

More information may be found at www.20splentyforus.org.uk

 

Best regards

 

 

Rod