Jump to content

20 mph


vic
 Share

Recommended Posts

Great :roll::roll: I'd just read all the replies and I was just about to ask some serious type questions based on what I had read and what others including Rod have replied with and well ..........

 

BAZ your little outburst (which ok was fuelled a bit bu Rods reply) has made me completely lose my train of thought completely. So I will have to read it all again now.

 

You have just made youself out to sound like a selfish bugger who is only concerned with the amount you have had to pay to fill up your car.. which one was it by the way :wink: ... and also you sound like you are only against the 20mph idea cos you hate cyclists. :roll:

 

Do you hate pedestrians and kids too.. and should they be kept away fron the roads and pavements until they start paying too :wink::?

 

Now where on earth was I......

 

It was something to do with criteria for roads being based on number of Pupils, road use and ???..... and that made me think the part of the main through road ie the A49 (London Road, Appleton) would eventually become a 20mph zone too as it falls into this category.

 

And then I was going to mention the idiots that have been on the roads today including the woman who came out of the Forge carpark near the school on the wrong side of the road and nearly drove head onto me as I turned the corner... she appologised as she thought it was one way DESPITE the blummin big sign that shows TWO WAY TRAFFIC.

 

And the woman and kids who walked out on the crossing in SH despite the fact that that it had turned to green FOR THE CARS

 

AND the kids who kicked their football right across the crossroads of the side roads where they were playing. I couldn't see the kids but the football suddenly hitting the middle of my windscreen gave them away... I think scored a goal though :roll::lol: I Wasn't expecting a football as they usually come down the slope and straight across the junction flat out on their bikes or scooters :roll:

 

These roads are 30mph limits (although like me most people don't drive that fast one them) but some do and if parents let their kids play on them now how many more will allow theirs to do the same thinking they are safer places to play.

 

Personally rather than spending money on 20 zones which probably wont even be enforced I would spend the money on 'shock tactics' ie printing big photos of road accidents, injuries sustained and even splattered pedestrians/cyclists/motorists etc (sorry that sounds really awful) and I'd stick them up in every school, pub and other public place as until people see what really happens... at least then they may start to THINK !!!!

 

Now what one earth were the actual points that I was going to query as there were quite a few and I have really got sidetracked now :?:oops:

 

PS Rod..... :lol: the bloke in the photo is the new SH lollipop man and if kids fail to follow the highway code and act responibly he spears them with his pointed stick... same with drivers... he spears and pops their tyres :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

Rod, are you ignoring me? It is a genuine question!!!

What made you pursue this crusade? Is it personal?

Compared to where I am at the moment, Warrington is a doddle traffic wise except when the motorways are down.

Can you please answer my questions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rod, I don't dislike cyclists or pedestrians, I just think most of them seem to have no road awareness and instead of trying to educate them, you see these 20 limits as an easy option.

 

Not at all.... I was a cyclist for a long time before I had cars; only I was taught how to ride a bike at school, just like I was taught how to cross a road and how to wait for a gap in traffic before crossing.

 

This council seems to try all sorts of ideas when it comes to traffic calming and speed reduction and in fact; in traffic management in general and to say 99% are a spectacular failure would be an understatement..... look at the chicanes they put in on Sandy Lane; the bends are so sharp and short that a bus and a car can't pass safely and no one knows who has right of way! The speed bumps that are everywhere, the traffic lights on roundabouts....... these 20 limits will just be another traffic failure to chalk on the board

 

maybe if they tried educating the kids it might actually make a difference. Show them photos as Dizzy says; shock tactics and the like would work wonders; just don't snarl up the town with a roll out of snails pace limits on main roads or you will condem the town to a slow and agonising future where if you drive you are goosed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

some words from

North West Public Health Observatory.

Over the last thirty years, the number of road casualties in the North West has fallen by around a fifth. There has not been a consistent decrease, however, although there has been a clear fall in the number of casualties in the last decade. Between 1994-98 and 2008:

? the number of people killed or seriously injured in the North West fell by 38.1%;

? the number of children killed or seriously injured in the North West fell by 54.5%; and

? the North West?s slight casualty rate decreased by 43.6%.

These decreases generally compare favourably to other English regions and the England average

 

 

The data used from STATS19 is not a comprehensive record of all injury road traffic collisions and casualties

ambulance call outs for road traffic collisions is not a full residence-based measure

 

estimate for the average number of children killed or seriously

injured on main roads in 2004-08 is derived

 

 

Lots of queries about use of data including question why distances are in kilometers and not miles, and correlation between where collision occurred and number of incidents. The report seems to use 87% of all roads as 30mph roads and difficult to confirm if this is true without more analysis.

Is this yet another academic report?

difficult to tell without a lot of analysis, but the way conclusions have been reached leaves me with doubts as to their veracity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While some of the side roads will be become 20mph (possibly unenforced and a level of false security maybe) there will be many more roads which are higher speeds and which pose the most dangers :?

 

For any kids (or adults) who may be reading who seem to still be oblivious and ignorant to the dangers that surround them everyday and who DO NOT PAY ATTENTION ... Yes, sadly sometimes unavoidable accidents do happen but most of the time THEY COULD BE AVOIDED !.

 

Adults... WHO WOULD YOU BLAME ?

Kids.. WHO WOULD YOU BLAME ?

 

1. The driver ?

2. The Speed Limit ?

3. The Highways Department ?

4. Someone Else ?

5. OR 'MAYBE' THE PERSON IN THE PHOTOS ?

 

 

Texting as you walk...chatting on your mobile.....taking a chance..... messing about.... drinking... being 'brave'..... showing off..... rushing out of school... playing in the street.....thinking it only ever happens to other people.....

 

NO you aren't invincible and ANY of the above WILL at some stage result in THIS happening to YOU or someone you KNOW.

 

So WHO IS TO BLAME REALLY ? THINK ABOUT IT !

 

IF IT ONLY EVER HAPPENED TO 'SOMEONE' ELSE AND WAS ALWAYS 'SOMEONE ELSE'S' FAULT THEN MAYBE THESE PEOPLE WOULD STILL BE ALIVE

 

lancashiregovroadsafety.jpg

 

lancaster3.jpg

 

These are actually only actors and are images from Lancaster Council who are trying to get the message across and I'm sure that they wont mind me using them :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like a lot of effort went into that one Diz but this is only a local debate forum, not a window to the world. :wink::lol:

 

The big problem with a debate like this is that there?s a whole multitude of individual issues being raised all under one heading. Then throw into the equation that we all have our little pet hates about something that we want to get in and it all starts to get a bit fragmented and repetitive.

 

In the end, we will have 20mph limits across the town and just like other changes in the law that in the past caused upset when introduced, I think we?ll all just learn to accept it and after a short time it?ll become the norm.

 

Bill :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter T

 

You said

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?

 

Much of this information is included in the North West Public Health Observatory website at http://www.nwpho.org.uk/RTCs_NW/

 

You can also contact WBC for detailed information.

 

Baz J

 

Quite happy for you to campaign against "snails pace limits on main roads".

 

What Warrington B C have decided is for a 20 mph limit as a default for residential roads and the ability to set the speed limit higher where appropriate.

 

Wahl

 

It is standard practice to report in kms as this enables comparison with other countries.

 

I note your opinions.

 

I note your question about it being yet another academic report. Does that give you a problem?

 

 

Dizzy

 

Your post seems to mainly be looking at the degree of blame attached to the child.

 

But the duty of care for our children rests with adults and society at large. That includes councillors, officers and the public. Adding a couple of seconds to our journey times seems a very small cost to pay.

 

I note that your post said :-"5. OR 'MAYBE' THE PERSON IN THE PHOTOS ?

"

 

I see more than one person in the photo. I do see the driver sitting at the edge of the road. I do see the presence of the police, and I see the public in the background... and I see the child dead on the road.

 

Did the driver make a mistake by travelling faster than he needed to?

Did the police make a mistake not putting enogh resources into road danger reduction and speed limit enforcement?

Did the councilor representing the public at the back think that his constuents preferred higher speeds to living children?

 

Whether the child is to "blame" or no is inconsequential. Its a dead child.

 

What do we want them to do, stop going out, never cross the road, walk in single file on pavements, always be driven by mum or dad to school?

 

They are kids, they make mistakes... the penalty for making a mistake should not be death.

 

 

I note that the properties of the photo refer to Lancashire Road Safety. Indeed it is the County Council which is responsible for road safety in Lancaster.

 

Lancashire County Council have committed to a 20mph limit on all residential roads by 2013.

 

By all means have a safety campaigns and education campaigns, but all of these must be acompanied by a sensible speed limit. And 20 is Plenty where people live.

 

The WBC policy of a default 20 mph is perfectly sound and is correct both ethically and financially. It was decided with support from councillors from all parties.

 

Its time to move on.

 

Best regards

 

 

Rod

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rod, my point was that, to sell something to the public and get them on your side they need to see stats that relates to them or their area.

 

In this, you have failed, but probably don't give a fig because you have sold it to the incompetents that run Warrington. And finally, if it makes very little difference what will you do then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rod good to know other countries are interested in a report about NW England. Perhaps if it was in miles which is the unit used for measuring distance in this country, the report may have more empathy with road users.

Obviously it is academic and probably for a masters degree. No doubt in due course some other academic will come out with another report based on different facts that will contradict this one.

Basically the "facts" this report seems to be based on are dodgy to say the least. This especially applies when using these "facts" to calculate another possible result and which really requires some detail knowledge of the "facts" used to reassess them and makes this an even more dodgy document. For instance suppose a person had slid into a bus rather than into a door a door during the icy weather. This would be a traffic incident. Its severity would be estimated and reported perhaps. It would not matter what the road speed limit was However in assessing what effect a reduction in speed limit could have had, a guess would have to be made based on probability and possibility. Without examining all the surrounding information -most of which is not available- It is almost impossible to reclassify the probability of possible incidents.

 

This is the main problem with the 20 restriction. Nobody can say what the future number of traffic incidents will be, especially when the limit is not enforceable and when there is inadequate road safety education given in schools. Will accidents reduce in areas where the limit is introduced? Will incidents increase as traffic gradually moves at some speed "approprate " to the road conditions and not to obey an artificial limit? Who knows.

 

To improve the safety on roads needs money spent a proper education programme in schools so that children are aware of the dangers and are educated in how to cross roads, what to watch for when vehicles are parked obstructing a clear view of the road, and to be aware of other road users.etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like a lot of effort went into that one Diz but this is only a local debate forum, not a window to the world. :wink::lol:

 

Bill :)

 

Bill no effort at all and no longer than 5 minutes which included a google search on 'road accident' (the images I used were on the first page of results so a quick copy, paste and upload to photobucket) a quick typing of my comments... and 4 edits to correct my spellings.

 

The fact that you gave me a :wink: and a :lol: shows that you did not even take it seriously :roll::?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dizzy

 

Your post seems to mainly be looking at the degree of blame attached to the child.

 

Yes, that was my aim. Have you ever been outisde a school for example or driving on a road when they are walking home in their groups, hanging around, playing or wahtever Rod. I'm sure you have and I'm sure you know what I am saying... many are completely blind and ignorant to the dangers. I'd be interested to hear wether you disagree with that .

 

But the duty of care for our children rests with adults and society at large. That includes councillors, officers and the public. Adding a couple of seconds to our journey times seems a very small cost to pay.

 

Yes I agree and I even agree with a few seconds on our journey time being a small cost to pay if it saves a life but unless kids,drivers, cyclists and others are ALL educated too accidents and deaths WILL continue to happen, maybe not so much on the new 20 mph roads but lets face it kids don't just wander around their own home streets do they ?

 

I note that your post said :-"5. OR 'MAYBE' THE PERSON IN THE PHOTOS ?

"

 

I see more than one person in the photo. I do see the driver sitting at the edge of the road. I do see the presence of the police, and I see the public in the background... and I see the child dead on the road.

 

No rod YOU DO NOT see the DRIVER sitting at the edge of the road on the photo !!! You see a young lad sat at the edge of the road.

 

Why do you assume he is the driver ?

 

He could be the girls boyfriend, friend or just someone else. He may have been injured in the accident OR the blood on his face could be her's as he has gone to help her?

 

Did the driver make a mistake by travelling faster than he needed to?

Did the police make a mistake not putting enogh resources into road danger reduction and speed limit enforcement?

Did the councilor representing the public at the back think that his constuents preferred higher speeds to living children?

 

I don't know Rod... but of course it could be that the child simply make a terrible mistake and just walk out whilst being distracted or simply not thinking.

 

Whether the child is to "blame" or no is inconsequential. Its a dead child.

 

I know it is inconsequential and regardless of who or what was at fault the child is 'dead'

 

BUT it only takes one car and one kid to walk/run out into a road and this could be the result.

 

Although obviously I do realise that they stand slightly more chance of surivival if hit at 20 rather that 30 :wink:

 

What do we want them to do, stop going out, never cross the road, walk in single file on pavements, always be driven by mum or dad to school?

 

Errmmm NO Rod and not you are just being stupid :roll:

 

They are kids, they make mistakes... the penalty for making a mistake should not be death.

 

Yes I know that... but they will STILL make mistakes on roads wether they are 20 mph, 30 mph or even 50 mph and UNTIL they start using their BRAINS and showing some SENSE the penalty will still be death or serious injury.

 

I note that the properties of the photo refer to Lancashire Road Safety. Indeed it is the County Council which is responsible for road safety in Lancaster.

 

Lancashire County Council have committed to a 20mph limit on all residential roads by 2013.

 

Rod just to clarify.....I did not specifically chose Lancashire Council or indeed these two images because because they were council ones.... I did a quick google image search and these came up on the first page and they fit in with what I was saying.

 

My other reason for using these was that they were ACTORS as I thought posting an image or a REAL accident on the forum would have been a bit OTT without the permission of the person involved 8)

 

By all means have a safety campaigns and education campaigns, but all of these must be acompanied by a sensible speed limit. And 20 is Plenty where people live.

 

Now we do agree on something :D

 

Here's one for you Rod..... Your 20's plenty group are endlessly campaigning for 20 mph speed limits and it seems you are going worldwide with it too....SO WHY DONT YOU ALSO campaign for this BUT AT THE SAME TIME branch out and start to EDUCATE KIDS in ROAD SAFETY too !

 

Now that would be worthwhile and may even make more people support your initiative. Undoubtable if you use the 'shock' images etc it would result in less serious injuries and lost lives than with just your 20's P alone.

 

I'm sure all the local schools would welcome you may even save some lives.

 

The WBC policy of a default 20 mph is perfectly sound and is correct both ethically and financially. It was decided with support from councillors from all parties.

 

OK although I'm not really bothered which party makes the decisions :lol:

 

Its time to move on.

 

Errm OK so this topic is decided and closed then eh... so what are you moving onto next Rod...I hope it's educating kids in road safety :wink::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some years ago, I was Chair of a Committee in a Regeneration area, that agreed to 20 on the side streets. This was as well as full speed ramps/humps. The only thing I was disappointed with was that people wouldn't agree to a one way system to avoid the congestion due to a Take away shop.

 

Yes it works, for the conscientious drivers, but the tear aways of either sex and any tradesmen in their white vans just ignore the limit.

As far as I am aware, no-one has been injured, but there have been a couple of collisions because of the number of vehicles and in one case, obviously going to fast. I am not aware of any before the 20 was put in place.

 

So having agreed to it in the first place, I am not against it being done sensibly.

However, there doesn't seem a great deal of sense in this plan, as has already been said, it is un-enforceable, given the police cut-backs and the fact that this wouldn't even be on the police radar. (Forgive the pun)

Common sense is that it should be a last resort when everything else has failed. It should NOT be implemented because it is someones hobby horse that he is unable to prove to the posters on here what/where the problems are in Warrington, The rest of the world and country, yes. But NOT WARRINGTON. :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dizzy

 

I don't intend to go line by line through your responses. I think I understand where you are coming from. We probably overlap in our views but have preferences that our different.

 

But the laws of physics do actually mean that lower vehicle speeds result in fewer collisions and less severity in casualties resulting from collisions.

 

 

For the record :-

 

Although obviously I do realise that they stand slightly more chance of surivival if hit at 20 rather that 30

 

Well its slightly more than slightly. At 30mph a child has a 55% chance of living. At 20 mph they have a 95% chance of living.

 

If you have had children you will know that sometimes even when using their brains the output is not always sensible.

 

See the report on children and visual acuity at :-

http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/Press_Releases/children's%20vision%20of%20car%20speeds%20and%2020%20mph.pdf

 

You said

SO WHY DONT YOU ALSO campaign for this BUT AT THE SAME TIME branch out and start to EDUCATE KIDS in ROAD SAFETY too !

 

Well I already have been. I was one of the campaigners who pushed the council to make Bikeability on-road cycle training available to all primary school children in the borough. Something that is ahead of many other local authorities and helps to ensure that children are aware of the dangers on the road and how to cycle on the roads.

 

Peter T

 

I am sorry. When you said :-

 

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?

 

I assumed that it really was you who wanted to know these things. Now that I have pointed you in the right direction then why don't you spend some time looking at the information?

 

By "incompetents that run Warrington" exactly who are you referrring to?

 

Are these the same people you are trying to influence?

 

 

Wahl

 

I somehow think that other countries are not exactly interested in a report about NW England. After all we don't seem to get delegations of European Road Safety people coming to NW England to see how well we are doing.

 

Can you imagine them going back home ---" Ya, its the speed of the traffic. In residential streets they travel 60% faster than us. No wonder their kids are scared to use the roads!!"

 

That's why we need 20 mph limits.

 

Contrary to what you believe Britain has been using the metric system since the 1960's. The use of km as a measure when comparing distance related statistics is fairly universal in the highways and transport engineering field.

 

On what grounds do you feel that :-

 

"Basically the "facts" this report seems to be based on are dodgy to say the least".

 

 

Which facts and which parts of the report? Or have you dismissed it out of hand because the conclusions don't match your opinions.

 

 

Note that a 20 mph limit is enforceable.

 

 

Best regards

 

 

Rod

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dizzy

 

I don't intend to go line by line through your responses.

 

Why not Rod .. you usually do :wink::lol: and out of politeness I read and replied to your long reply specifically given to me :?

Maybe I said something that you do not have an answer too at the moment :oops:

 

I think I understand where you are coming from. We probably overlap in our views but have preferences that our different.

 

Thats a start then.... at least you 'think' you understand where I am coming from :wink:

 

But the laws of physics do actually mean .....

 

We've all been through the laws of physics discussion before on a previous topic about this and it was a looooong one if I remember rightly :wink:

 

At 30mph a child has a 55% chance of living. At 20 mph they have a 95% chance of living.

 

I understand that... but they also stand a far greater chance of living if they act responsibly near roads too.

 

If you have had children you will know that sometimes even when using their brains the output is not always sensible.

 

Yes and the same can be said for adults too :wink: Although as a responsible parent I have always told my child NOT to ride his bike on the road, NOT to walk around with his headphones in his ears... NOT to take chances running across busy roads.. and to BE AWARE and even at the age of 16 I STILL remind him every day. I say the same to other kids that I know too.

 

You said
SO WHY DONT YOU ALSO campaign for this BUT AT THE SAME TIME branch out and start to EDUCATE KIDS in ROAD SAFETY too !

 

Well I already have been. I was one of the campaigners who pushed the council to make Bikeability on-road cycle training available to all primary school children in the borough. Something that is ahead of many other local authorities and helps to ensure that children are aware of the dangers on the road and how to cycle on the roads.

 

 

Bikeability in primary schools :shock:

 

BIKES AGAIN !!!! What about teaching them about safety when they are on foot. There are more kids who walk that who ride bikes on the roads.

 

Ok so it's good that little primary kids get a bit of an insight into riding their bikes (and I did my cycling proficiency test too) but not many young primary kids are allowed out on their bikes on the road on their own and once they get a bit older all the little things they have been taught go straight out of the window when it comes to cycling responisbly. Young children shouldn't be riding on the roads anyway in my opinion :?

 

 

I witnessed some of the local primary kids in their high vis jackets doing their cycling training near my house on a 30mph road with a school governor/councillor/avid cyclist. You will know him.

 

I was appauled not because of their obvious inabilities but more so because the 'person' training was allowing them to ride on a real road when they clearly were a danger to themselces and other road users. These children were on the main road, wobbling all over the place past parked cars and turning up a side street virtually in the middle of the road adn then doing it all again. One even fell off ON THE ROAD! Not good :evil:

 

Maybe Rod you would do well to take the emphasis OFF bikes and put it onto safety in general.

 

Anyway I can't be nothered to discuss this with you anymore as I'm fed up of banging my head against a brick wall....and it would appear that you are too :?:cry::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I forgot to add that with regards to the proposed implemenation of the 20 mph in Orford, Great Sankey and Town Centre. This may as well be put into action (which it will be anyway) as all the speed signs are already inplace from when the trials were carried out.

 

It would be impossible for the council not to implement the restrictions in these areas now (unless of course all the residents object which I doubt they will). If the council now said NO and one person got injured then they would be made to feel responsible regardless of whether the 20mph would have made any difference or not.

 

But I think they should look long and hard into the whole safety issue before simply just rolling a 20 out across the whole of Warrington and spending any more money on that.

 

The end :?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RODK

as usual, you have missed the point. The report was for NW England and should quote miles not some foreign measure of distance

 

If you read the report and understand English you will see that The authors of the report themselves admit the data used in inaccurate..... hence it is logical to assume the conclusions are not based on an accurate study, but may be biased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I see it is that there is no way a child is ever going to be in more danger if we drive slower, and to be honest the difference in travel time will ,for most of us, be negligable. As for measuring in miles or kilometres well that to me is just being pedantic. My speedo shows me both anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dizzy

 

I forgot to add that with regards to the proposed implemenation of the 20 mph in Orford, Great Sankey and Town Centre. This may as well be put into action (which it will be anyway) as all the speed signs are already inplace from when the trials were carried out.

 

This will be put into action because the council has already decided to do it under the recomendation from officers and having taken due consideration of the wide range of benefits including casualty reduction. I understand that within the original budget for the pilots they included the cost of removing them because they did not know at the time what results were expected. However, the success of the scheme has meant that this money (for removal) has been saved.

 

As I have pointed out before the decision to roll it out across the whole town has already been made. This was after looking long and hard into the whole safety issue.

 

Similar decisions have already been made in other towns and counties.

 

I note your comment that

Although as a responsible parent I have always told my child NOT to ride his bike on the road,

 

and

 

I was appauled not because of their obvious inabilities but more so because the 'person' training was allowing them to ride on a real road when they clearly were a danger to themselces and other road users.

 

Of course it is entirely your decision as to what you tell your child to do and whether you allow them to ride a bicycle on the road.

 

Many believe that such attitudes take away children's independent mobility and the ability to learn spacial awareness and road skills during their teen yearsl.

 

Maybe Rod you would do well to take the emphasis OFF bikes and put it onto safety in general.

 

I have been. Whilst in 2005 I did campaign for 20 mph limits because of the benefits for cyclists, my research led me to understand that pedestrian casualties were 4 times greater than cycle casualties. I realised that the benefits of lower speeds would be for all sections of the community. Here was something which was sensible, was working elsewhere and would provide a better residential enmvironment for us all. And that is why I have been campaigning for this particular intervention for the last 5 years as something which effects safety in general.

 

To tell you the truth, I have never felt more optimistic about the opportunities for success for the 20's Plenty for Us campaign. We may well be using our head to bang on brick walls, but the fact is that the walls are coming down!!!

 

We now have over 60 local campaign groups, we have increasing numbers of local authorities implementing 20mph as the default for residential roads, we have increasing numbers of traffic engineers seeing its benefits and increasing numbers of health and education professionals see it as the appropriate way to go.

 

But thank you for entering into the debate.

 

And for Wahl

 

Well maybe you should take consolation from the fact that the report does actually make reference to miles per hour in its recomendations.... 20 mph!!

 

I note your comment about "The authors of themselves admit the data used in the report is inaccurate".

 

It would help if you could tell us in which paragraph this is stated. I think it might be useful to understand how you came to that conclusion.

 

Many thanks

 

Rod

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's gone rather quiet on here since our two comments Wolfie :oops::lol:

 

I've been driving around at less than 20mph wherever I can for the past 3 days and I'm starting to quite enjoy it. I even did it down Wilderspool and Chester Road (when there was no-one behind me of course.)

 

I'm starting to feel chilled and at one with nature :D

Link to comment
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...