20 mph

[observer]

Why do we need a 20mph limit on roads that have road humps, as I 've found it quite impossible to drive over these humps at speeds in excess of 10mph? So arn't we just adding more street furniture signage clutter to our pavements for blind folk to bump into?

[Geoffrey Settle]

Dizzy the reason that I took a break for a year was so that I didn't spend too much time on here, that's why Paul took a break as well. But as my back injury is still stopping me getting to sleep I'm awake anyway.

 

Gary's article gives pointers

 

http://www.warrington-worldwide.co.uk/articles/9804/1/Last-chance-to-oppose-20mph-limits/Page1.html

 

and objectors have a few days left (3rd Feb) to lodge any objections.

 

Everything is in place and ready to go as I understand it. The Speed signs used in the trial are still in place and those road selected just have to have their greyness removed.

 

It took me a while to adjust my driving to the 20mph but once I did I found it ok. The elephant in the room was perhaps Long Lane but that is not included, as I understand it.

 

Hope this helps.

[Dizzy]

Cllr Geoff.. I'm not being intentionally awkward and I'd like to appologise if any of my questions or posts are making you feel like you are now spending too much time on here and your replies are very much apprecitaed by me

 

Re: Garys article... yes I read that and yes it mentions that all details and a full list is available at the 'Quattro Building' (wherever that is) during normal office hours Mon to Fri.

 

You will also have noticed that I commented under the article asking

 

Dizzy at 18 Jan 2011 9:40:55 AM UTC Dizzy ( Author)

said this on 18 Jan 2011 9:40:55 AM UTC

 

OK so are the proposals and list of affected roads available on-line !!! Most people work so can't simply pop down to the Quattro building durning usual office hours to have a look. Can objections be submitted online too !?!?? I sincerely hope so and if not then it would appear that the council do not want objections or representations.

 

Why don't they just put the full list and details online.... if nothing else it may stop me moaning on about it. (By FULL I also mean the proposed roads to be included in the blanket rollout scheme. There must be a draft proposal either made by the council or the 20's plenty lot)

 

As for objecting to this one particular residential area .

 

I probably wont be objecting as I dont use any of the roads other than Long Lane near the college (which I don't think should be a 20 unless someone can convince me).

 

I think the residents themselves and other regular road users have to be the ones who decided if it is a good idea around there or not as they are the people who live there and use/know all the side roads and the problems etc.

 

If it was round here then yes I may also object if I felt it was necessary as I know the roads and problems around here.

 

As for driving at 20.. yes I'm sure we would all get used to it and I tend to drive between 15 mph and 20mph on all smaller residential side roads anyway

 

So what is the reasoning behind Long Lane becoming a 20? Is it because it is near a school and the college? If so then I guess they would need to make the college end of Winwick road a 20 too

 

How many accidents, minor road injuries, major road injuries or deaths have occurred on Long Lane.. any idea

 

This is the last time I will edit my post and add to it I will stop pondering now

[wahl]

Dizzy Long Lane and Park Road are omitted from the proposal

[Dizzy]

"And thereby your honour I now rest my case regarding the afore mentioned road"

 

If I had been able to READ THE INFO AND THE LIST OF AFFECTED ROADS ONLINE I wouldn't have been wittering on about the bloody road in the first place

 

So where is the big list then

[wahl]

list sent I have been told I should object if only to show that there are some concerns. especially about spending money on signs and not potholes!!

[Bill]

Just reading the report on todays pages.

 

Research has shown that more than 29,000 people are injured on the region's roads each year. Of these casualties, more than 3,000 are seriously or fatally injured, including more than 400 children up to the age of 15.

Shocking ststistic but nothing to do with the situation in Warrington

 

The study also reveals that in Warrington

Whoops stop! We've just changed to Warrington

 

each year between 2006 and 2008 an average of more than 1,000 people were injured in a road traffic collision - around 280 people in the town are admitted to hospital each year as a result of a road traffic collision.

Or put another way, on average, less than three people each day are injured on our roads and of these, less than one per day needs hospital treatment.

 

Child casualty information highlights how children living in the North West region are more likely to be injured on the roads than children anywhere else in the country

Again irrelavent. We are talking about Warrington here not the North West as a whole.

 

In Warrington 101 children aged between 0-15 were injured in road traffic collisions each year between 2006 and 2008.

So two injuries each week and assuming the same ratio of injuries to hospitalization for adults, this means that the hospital has to deal with a child road accident on average once every two weeks. The implication is that the child has been run over but the report only states injured in traffic collisions and that could mean as a passenger.

 

More than 80 per cent of these injuries to children occur on roads that have a speed limit of 30 mph

Is this really surpising given most of our roads are 30mph? Using this same logic it could be argued that only 20% are injured where the limit is higher than 30mph!

 

and research shows that up to 140 killed or seriously injured children could be saved each year if 20 mph speed limits had been applied in these areas.

Err just a minute, we're still in the same sentance talking about Warrington but now the figures seem to be regional or national?

 

 

 

This could go on forever but just one last snippit for good measure

 

 

Traffic related casualties in Warrington during 2009 were 442 (or 30 per cent) lower than the average of the 5 years between 1994 and 1998.

So to achieve a thirty percent reduction, 442, back then there had to be about 670 accidents.

But since then, Warrington's poulation has increased by 250% so if your going to make comparisons, you need to take this into account.

So 250% more people and cars would make the 670 accidents back then equivalent to 1675 in today's money.

 

Now anybody care to guess at the true percentage reduction already achieved?

 

One huge clue is that its certainly not 30%

 

Bill

 

PS before anyone starts, this isn't an attempt to be fippant about a sierious subject but just to show what a crap report this is. If I can twist round the satatistics just think what someone with a degree in media studdies could or should I say already has done?

[Dizzy]

Thanks.. at last someone is trying to help me

 

But who on earth told to to object on those basis

 

I know this is not a planning matter but I would imagine that at final decision time the officers/councillors will use similar rules when taking objections into account ie they will need to fall into the bracket of being a type of 'material consideration'.

 

In this instance the 'material considerations' could probably be something like Highway safety and Traffic generation/congestion/flow/redirection as well as the effects in general on road users/pedestrians/residents etc. These are the main points that the 20's P group will be aiming for in their representations.

 

For you to be told to object merely on 'cost' and 'potholes' will of course be noted but I suspect it will be ignored at final decision time.

 

Saying that though the council themselves have been know to completely break the rules and use 'cost' as an arguement 'for' when it suits them in planning terms and having read the comment under today's news article whereby costs reductions to the Warrington NHS are mentioned then I suspect they and the 20's P/council and other bodies will use that argument in favour.

 

However, you, I or other members of the public can't really use the cost arguement and it will be almost impossible to fully question what has been put on the table by the council/20p as we can't prove that their pilot figures, analysys and costs are wrong or misleading just as they can't prove conclusively that they are actually right .. only way of knowing is for people to do another pilot study and evaluated their own own results

 

Regarding the post by RodK under the news article here is what I have now asked. I AM TRYING MY BEST TO FEEL POSSITIVE ABOUT IT ALL... but yet again I find myself wanting to ask questions again

 

Sorry RodK

 

Dizzy at 28 Jan 2011 7:39:33 PM UTC Dizzy ( Author)

said this on 28 Jan 2011 7:39:33 PM UTC

 

EH ? Dizzy's getting Dizzy again

 

RodK you say in your reply that "pilots were conducted in several areas of Warrington. The results showed a clear reduction in speeds and a reduction in casualties well above the national trend."

 

MY QUESTION is how do they know how many accidents or injuries may have occurred on the same stretches of road in the exact same time period if the pilot study had not been in place ???

 

RodK.. you then say "They then evaluated the results and concluded that for every ?1 spent on implementing 20 mph speed limits in residential roads there would be an ?8 reduction in the costs to the Warrington community of casualties." followed later by " As a result in 2010 the Councillors and Officers have decided to immediately progress making most of the roads in the pilot areas into 20 mph limits and plan to roll-out 20 mph limits across the rest of the town."

 

MY QUESTION So have the officers and councillors only voted to agree to this as they 'think' it may save money as that's how it reads but without knowing the answer to my first question how can they be sure?

 

This has got me thinking and questioning it all again and just as I was coming around to the idea (not that we seem to have any choice) BUT cost wise members of my family and most people I know have only actually only ever cost the Warrington NHS (and other authorities) money by falling of bikes or through other light outdoor activities including walking ... none (thankfully) have ever cost the NHS anything because of a road or traffic accident .

 

Time to ban bikes and other outdoor activities is what I say... it would save a FORTUNE on costs

[asperity]

Well done Bill, obviously you've put a lot of time into analysing the statistics and have found that this is the way that pressure groups get their point of view across - using the statistics, massaged to suit, to kill any argument stone dead. Don't let them get away with it

[Dizzy]

Oooh sorry Bill I completely missed your post as it wasn't there when I started typing my long rant.

 

I agree with ASP.. having now read your post yours is a very good analysis of the 'analysis' indeed and I think you are in the wrong job

 

As for your final comment.... you are not being flippant at all and yes it is a serious issue and one which I'm sure most people would agree with and hope for a solution.

 

But is a total 20mph zone the answer?

 

There will still be ignorant and uneducated kids, pedestrians and drivers on the roads and pavements... just as there will still be the busy main roads... just as there will still be the idiots who ignore the speed limits whatever they are set too or who drive without due care and attention and who will still injure/crash/kill people regardless

 

It would be nice to think that 20 zones will stop this but in reality it probably wont.

 

Lets face how many more parents will probably allow their kids go out more or ride their bikes to school etc etc thinking it will be safer... and then Mr/Mrs/Miss **** head comes flying round the corner and splat....

 

It wont stop the likes if him/her... it will only slow down the drivers who are already careful and take notice

[Dizzy]

For anyone like me who had no idea which actual roads are to become 20mph zones in the first stage of scheme (providing it gets the go ahead which it probably will)

 

Here is the list... (thanks to WAHL)

 

Great Sankey Area

 

Barrow Hall Lane Its entire length.

Princess Avenue Its entire length.

York Avenue Its entire length.

Stanley Avenue Its entire length.

Warwick Avenue Its entire length.

Fraser Road Its entire length.

Mill Avenue Its entire length.

Cronulla Drive Its entire length.

Crovelly Avenue Its entire length.

Coogee Avenue Its entire length.

Mayfair Close Its entire length.

Greenway Its entire length.

Hall Terrace Its entire length.

North View Its entire length.

Philips Drive Its entire length.

Sunnyside Its entire length.

Snowdon Close Its entire length.

Vine Crescent Its entire length.

Conifer Grove Its entire length.

Rowan Close Its entire length.

Chestnut Avenue Its entire length.

Charles Avenue Its entire length.

Cedar Road Its entire length.

Woodside Road Its entire length.

Lilford Drive Its entire length.

Halton Road Its entire length.

Palin Drive Its entire length.

Wilmot Avenue Its entire length.

Pyecroft Road Its entire length.

Ruscolm Close Its entire length.

Muriel Close Its entire length.

Audre Close Its entire length.

Pyecroft Close Its entire length.

Hilary Close Its entire length.

Paul Close Its entire length.

Lingley Road Its entire length.

Sanderson Close Its entire length.

Kintore Drive Its entire length.

Cromdale Way Its entire length.

Keith Avenue Its entire length.

Rhona Drive Its entire length.

Duncansby Crescent Its entire length.

Kirkcaldy Avenue Its entire length.

Wroxham Road Its entire length.

Thetford Road Its entire length.

Ranworth Road Its entire length.

Yarmouth Road Its entire length.

Sheringham Road Its entire length.

Norfolk Drive Its entire length.

Lingwood Road Its entire length.

Wednesbury Drive Its entire length.

Campbell Crescent Its entire length.

Conway Close Its entire length.

 

Town Centre Area

 

Sankey Street Its entire length.

Dixon Street Its entire length.

Arpley Street Its entire length.

White Street Its entire length.

Henry Street Its entire length.

Thynne Street Its entire length.

Hanover Street Its entire length.

Museum Street Its entire length.

Winmarleigh Street Its entire length.

Palmyra Square South Its entire length.

Palmyra Square North Its entire length.

Springfield Street Its entire length.

Bath Street Its entire length.

Legh Street Its entire length.

Bold Street Its entire length.

Egypt Street Its entire length.

Cairo Street Its entire length.

Suez Street Its entire length.

St. Austins Lane Its entire length.

Barbauld Street Its entire length.

Rylands Street Its entire length.

Friars Lane Its entire length.

Friars Gate Its entire length.

Bridge Street Its entire length.

Scotland Road From a point 41 metres south east of its junction with Winwick Street, to its junction with Academy Street.

Town Hill Its entire length.

Academy Way Its entire length.

Moulders Lane Its entire length.

Bank Street Its entire length.

Academy Street Its entire length.

Dial Street Its entire length.

Buttermarket Street Its entire length.

Naylor Street Its entire length.

James Street Its entire length.

Orford Street Its entire length.

Cockhedge Lane Its entire length.

 

Poplars Area

 

Densham Avenue Its entire length.

Gough Avenue Its entire length.

Currans Road Its entire length.

Armour Avenue Its entire length.

Marron Avenue Its entire length.

Dean Crescent Its entire length.

Brandwood Avenue Its entire length.

Achilles Avenue Its entire length.

Poole Avenue Its entire length.

Ajax Avenue Its entire length.

McKee Avenue Its entire length.

Hunter Avenue Its entire length.

Crowe Avenue Its entire length.

Sandy Lane West Its entire length.

Chiltern Crescent Its entire length.

Chiltern Road Its entire length.

Brendon Avenue Its entire length.

Toll Bar Road Its entire length.

Cheviot Avenue Its entire length.

Oxenham Road Its entire length.

Crawley Avenue Its entire length.

Lancing Avenue Its entire length.

Poplars Avenue From its junction with Winwick Road, to its junction with Lancing Avenue.

Cotswold Road Its entire length.

Ulverston Avenue Its entire length.

Grisedale Avenue Its entire length.

Ennerdale Avenue Its entire length.

Pentland Avenue Its entire length.

Pentland Place Its entire length.

Cleveland Road Its entire length.

Petworth Avenue Its entire length.

Loweswater Close Its entire length.

Brathay Close Its entire length.

Mendip Avenue Its entire length.

Swindale Avenue Its entire length.

Sandy Lane Its entire length.

St Stephen?s Avenue Its entire length.

Sinclair Avenue Its entire length.

Cooper Avenue Its entire length.

Locker Avenue Its entire length.

Poole Crescent Its entire length.

Northway Its entire length.

Clough Avenue Its entire length.

Fisher Avenue Its entire length.

Cossack Avenue Its entire length.

Shakespeare Grove Its entire length.

Walpole Grove Its entire length.

Milvain Drive Its entire length.

Beatty Avenue Its entire length.

Clive Avenue Its entire length.

Kipling Avenue Its entire length.

Tennyson Drive Its entire length.

Ruskin Avenue Its entire length.

Dryden Place Its entire length.

Burns Grove Its entire length.

Keats Grove Its entire length.

The Coppins Its entire length.

Morgan Avenue Its entire length.

Statham Avenue Its entire length.

Patterdale Avenue Its entire length.

Howson Road Its entire length.

Penrith Avenue Its entire length.

Mardale Avenue Its entire length.

Borrowdale Avenue Its entire length.

Cartmel Avenue Its entire length.

Scafell Avenue Its entire length.

Bentham Avenue Its entire length.

Ambleside Crescent Its entire length.

Appleby Road Its entire length.

Kirkstone Avenue Its entire length.

Keswick Avenue Its entire length.

Honister Avenue Its entire length.

Kendal Avenue Its entire length.

Bowness Avenue Its entire length.

Festival Avenue Its entire length.

Hughes Place Its entire length.

Hughes Avenue Its entire length.

Caldbeck Avenue Its entire length.

Lee Court Its entire length.

Primrose Close Its entire length.

Capesthorne Road Its entire length.

Povey Road Its entire length.

School Road Its entire length.

Neville Avenue Its entire length.

Burton Road Its entire length.

Park Road Its entire length.

Bruce Avenue Its entire length.

Osborne Avenue Its entire length.

Birtles Road Its entire length.

Woodcote Close Its entire length.

Warren Road Its entire length.

 

Well I can't say I know where most of those roads are although I have probably driven down them but not noticed the names so I hope they signpost the limits clearly as I don't want my first ever speeding ticket

 

Of the roads I do know mainly in the town centre I dont think I many drive above 20 on most of them anyway

[Bill]

Despite everything that was said about this being primarily for residential roads and that feeder roads would probably be excluded, it would appear that?s now NOT the case.

 

 

Here?s another map showing the Poplars area. I?ve enhanced the colours slightly to better show the residential (white) and feeder roads (light yellow) and ?A? roads (bright yellow). The information shown here is NOT my opinion, it will have come from the highway?s agency?s database of road classifications.

 

This is going to destroy Rods argument about the changes not affecting journey times because only the major ?A? roads seem to be exempt although that clealy wasn't the wish of the council!

 

Our feeder roads were specifically designed to allow free movement of traffic to the main arterial routes but by slowing traffic down on feeders, this?ll simply make rat runs out of the real residential roads.

 

 

Bill

[Dizzy]

Bill it might be my monitor or my eyes but I can't differentiate between the yellows

[Dizzy]

I see what you are saying now Bill as I compared yours with the councils one below

 

[Dizzy]

and just for information here are the maps showing the affected roads in

 

Town Centre

 

 

and Great Sankey

 

 

At least we all know where they all are now eh

[P J]

But what about the fact that feeder roads are also residential.

 

Last year during the trial there was a lot of people upset that Long Lane had been made a 20. They could make that road a 5mph limit and you'd not get off it at either end any quicker. The roundabout entry at Longford is a mess as are the lghts near the Blackburne Arms. These are where the hold ups are.

[Dizzy]

Most feeder and main routes are all residential now PJ and I would imagine that most accidesnt happen on these roads

 

.....so really they should be dropping them ALL down to 20 mph too Oooh what am I saying

[Dizzy]

Children should be taught to cross roads safely. Even this bloke knew only to cross when the green man was flashing (and no I haven't cloned 2 photos he really was crossing there and all his mates were behind me )

 

[rodk]

Well, I will apologise in advance for the length of my post, but it seems better to do one larger one rather than several short ones.

 

So, if you are not interested then save yourself some time and stop reading now. But here goes!!!!

 

Some answers :-

 

First to Bill

 

I guess you were analysing the article in WW rather than the report itself. Had you done the latter you would have found that the objective of the report was :-

 

"Comprehensive data on road traffic collisions and casualties is now available in Road traffic collisions and casualties in the North West of England, produced by the North West Public Health Observatory. The report is intended to support local decision-making and inform the development of local plans to reduce the risk of injury and death from road traffic collisions and protect the health of people who travel in the North West."

 

The whole idea was to compare the North West as a region with the national figure and also compare the individual local authorities within the North West. Hence the inclusion of stats for NW and the national figure gives a useful comparison.

 

I am not sure whether you are saying that 1,000 people injured on the roads in Warrington is a good thing or a bad thing. I guess that if you have never been one of those 3 people then it may not seem significant. However, it has affected thousands of Warrington people over the last couple of years either directly or indirectly. many have died or been seriously injured. And many of those were drivers and their passengers.

 

If you had looked at the actual report, you would have found that the Warrington rate of collisions per 100,000 people (396) is significantly worse than the North West average of 320. This in turn is significantly worse than the England average of 310.

 

I note that you make reference to David Boyer's comments which are in the article but are not part of the report.

 

You said that :-

 

But since then, Warrington's poulation has increased by 250% so if your going to make comparisons, you need to take this into account.

So 250% more people and cars would make the 670 accidents back then equivalent to 1675 in today's money.

 

Now if something grows by 250% as you have suggested, it means that 100 increases by 250 to 350. This was your basis for suggesting that a reduction in casualties of 30% needs to be adjusted accordingly.

 

Well I looked up the population for Warrington UA in 1994, 1998 and 2009. The figures were :-

 

1994 186,100

1998 189,600

2009 197,800

 

Now I am not really sure where you get your 250% growth from, but in my opinion 197,800 is just 5.2% higher than the average of 1994 and 1998.

 

Can I suggest that you read the report and consider its findings before arbitrarily rubbishing it on the basis of an article.

 

 

Dizzy

 

You asked :-

 

MY QUESTION So have the officers and councillors only voted to agree to this as they 'think' it may save money as that's how it reads but without knowing the answer to my first question how can they be sure?

 

Well they measured the casualties over the previous 18 months and then compared it to the pilot 18 months. Then they took away the reduction due to a downward trend in casualties in the rest of Warrington and found that the reduction on these roads was above that trend.

 

This reduction was consistent with those found in other towns who have implemented wide area 20 mph limits such as Portsmouth, Oxford and Bristol.

 

 

MY QUESTION So have the officers and councillors only voted to agree to this as they 'think' it may save money as that's how it reads but without knowing the answer to my first question how can they be sure?

 

No, I believe that they, like other councils, have voted for this for humanitarian reasons. It reduces casualties for motorists, pedestrians, cyclists and passengers as well as making our roads a more pleasant place to be. It acknowledges that absolute speed is not the main determinator of journey times and that any slight increase is more than outweighed by the benefits. The financial consideration that for every ?100,000 spent you get an ?800,000 saving in casualty costs to the community is also a factor.

 

Bill

 

I think that "feeder" roads were never considered an exception to the idea of 20 mph for roads that are primarily residential. The only reference we can find in any guidance is the exception of "major through routes". Even that is subject to over ruling by local authorities based upon local conditions.

 

Indeed the very word implies that they merely "feed" within a residential area to a further residential area.

 

With regard to knowing where they all are. Those most effected by this change (ie those who live and drive on these roads) should have noticed that for the last 24 months the council have placed signs at regular intervals showing the 20 mph speed limit. Note that many of the "feeder" roads you have detailed in your post have been at 20 mph for the duration of the pilots, and have not caused any undue concern.

 

There is a discussion to be had on what is the basis for including or excluding roads. I suspect that this will be very much determined by use, schools, average speeds, etc. But there are many examples in the country of there being a 20 mph limit on A roads.

 

And as you and many others have said you would be pleased to be able to travel at 20 mph most of the time on these roads. And the comment from PJ is correct, in that the speed you go down Long Lane bears little relation to the time taken to get onto the A49 or onto the Hilden roundabout. On the other hand it certainly does impinge upon the safety and aminity for residents and pupils.

 

I know that those who have never had a collision in the town may feel that this impinges on them regardless of their record. But many of the collisions involve the average Joe or Jane who have equally never been involved in a collision before. Travelling slightly slower means that we all have more time and ability to avoid a collision when the fickle finger of fate does point in our direction. And there is ample and increasing evidence from Warrington, other towns in UK and even Europe (!) that 20's Plenty Where people Live.

 

I think its time we all recognised that 30 may have been right for the 1930's but in the second decade of the 21st century then things have changed and we need to change as well.

 

 

Best regards

 

Rod

 

PS

 

Dizzy. Is that the new suggested "protective" clothing for pedestrians in SH so that London Road can stay at 30 mph.

[Bill]

Diz, there isn't a huge of difference and having seen it on three monitors now I understand your problem. Just so that you do know, Winwick Road, Long Lane and Cromwell Avenue are all "A" Roads and are bright yellow. Anything else that looks yellow is classed as an arterial (feeder) road.

 

It would be interesting so see what would happen to Rod's 80% support figure now that it's clear that we're not just talking side roads but pretty much all main roads. I fully support 20mph on side roads and anywhere that an obviouse danger exists but not a blaket coverage of all roads because some councilor says so.

 

I live next to a four lane dual carrigway section of the A57 and there are houses here so is this going to be 20mph as well? In my view, it shouldn't be up to councilors with their anti car policy to make these decissions because the classification for the road has already been determained.

 

The council are just going to do what they want to do, irrespective of what anyone else thinks so this is all just accademic.

 

Bill

 

PS To Rod King

I am not sure whether you are saying that 1,000 people injured on the roads in Warrington is a good thing or a bad thing.

Thats odd because everyone else seemed to understand perfectly well what I was saying.

And you wonder why people here seem hostile to you!

[Peter T]

To compare Warrington with other towns is a nonsense. Bit like comparing our industry with Thailand.(and I could quote).

 

What I would like to know, and this may help to give the subject some credence, is:

how many accidents in WA this last 2,3, or even 5 years?

Where were they?

Whos was involved? ie car, bicycle, pedestrian, juvenile.

And what was the cause?

 

This would give support to the 20 lot. Until that happens, who will believe it?

[Bazj]

PS To Rod King

And you wonder why people here seem hostile to you!

 

I'm hostile to him because he is an anti-car cuckoo who refuses to acknowledge that most cyclists I seem to come across have no idea of road awareness, road safety or night riding and so no doubt bring a lot of their accidents on themselves..... but that is just my opinion!

[rodk]

Bill said :-

 

PS To Rod King

Quote:

I am not sure whether you are saying that 1,000 people injured on the roads in Warrington is a good thing or a bad thing.

 

Thats odd because everyone else seemed to understand perfectly well what I was saying.

And you wonder why people here seem hostile to you!

 

Bill

 

Well please explain it to me again. As you can see I failed to realise how your 250% growth in Warrington population came about so have a limited capability in understanding what you mean.

 

 

Once again you are trying to create a moutain out of a mole hill with your alarmist talk of " pretty much all main roads".

 

I have already stated that it is usually done on the basis of use of the road, pupils on the road, volumes and current speeds.

 

Your are taking a reasonable policy (ie 20 mph limits) and exagerating it so that you can then claim that it won't get support. I am afraid its a fairly transparent technique.

 

For months you have been banging on about a "blanket" 20 mph speed limits and cannot accept the difference between that and the agreed council policy of a "default" 20 mph speed limit which would allow for exceptions where democratically agreed. Which bit of that do you not understand.

 

I suspect that the current limit outside your particular house is not at risk of being changed. But the classification criteria will be up to democratically elected councillors to decide under the guidance of transport professionals and informed opinion. That seems entirely sensible. If you can think of a better way of doing it then please let us all know.

 

By the way, there is absolutely nothing new or revolutionary in classing the likes of Sandy Lane at 20 mph.

 

Maybe you should calm down and stop worrying.

 

With 20 mph limits life will go on, and maybe for some Warrington residents it won't stop prematurely.

 

 

Best regards

 

 

Rod

[rodk]

PS To Rod King

And you wonder why people here seem hostile to you!

 

I'm hostile to him because he is an anti-car cuckoo who refuses to acknowledge that most cyclists I seem to come across have no idea of road awareness, road safety or night riding and so no doubt bring a lot of their accidents on themselves..... but that is just my opinion!

 

Baz

 

That really is not very rational is it. You are saying that you are hostile because you meet a different set of cyclists to the ones that I meet. Maybe its just that your perception of cyclists is different from mine. Is that a rational reason to be hostile?

 

Evidence shows that when you put in 20 mph limits then the biggest casualty reductions are in reducing driver/passenger casualties. So not really anti-motorist at all.

 

 

Best regards

 

 

Rod

[Bazj]

Rod,

 

you may see your campaign as some life saving crusade and use dodgy statistics to back it up; I see it as yet another attack on the motorists who pay all of the tax that covers your cycle lanes and other luxuries.

 

Having just filled up my car at a cost of ?107.00 I see my hard earned petrol taxes being used to fund crazy cycle lane schemes which the majority of cyclists do not even use.

 

I think I am perfectly entitled to my opinion and when cyclists also pay for the use of the roads like I do, I will listen to theirs. In the meantime, I make no excuses for my opinions!