Jump to content

20 mph


vic
 Share

Recommended Posts

So on 15th April its Doomsday, 20 mph rolled out and the world as we know it comes grinding to a halt :wink:

 

It's just like the Y2K nonsense if you ask me. You'll be pushed to notice any difference. Bill constantly bangs on about Long Lane, having had business premises on Long lane for a few years(which was during the entirety of the 20 mph trial) I can assure you all that the reason it took so long to get from one end of Long Lane to the other was nothing whatsoever to do with the speed limit. It was totally governed by the dreadful access via Long Lane to the Longford Island and the other way by the ridiculous traffic lights at the Blackburne Arms. It might as well have been 5 mph max as you couldn't get anywhere any sooner regardless what speed you covered the small gaps in traffic queues at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PJ 'Domesday' comes when they roll it our across the WHOLE of Warrington not just this one little area :P

 

But then again you may well be right as the way Warrington is being built up and the way the road infrastructure can't cope already it would suprise me if we can reach 20 mph in a few years.

 

It took me over 30 minutes to get down Chester Road yesterday (Sunday 2pm) due to one tiny set of temp lights and the A49 was at a complete stand still too :? It had been like that all day apparently :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

April the 15th is the best day every year.

PJ. You need to stop pedalling that rickshaw down Long Lane. 30 is always achievable. I once got fined for doing over 30 many years ago when overtaking a car doing 25. aaagh.

 

Peter I can assure you that at most times ,especially busy ones , it wouldn't matter if you had a Formula 1 car you would never average 30 mph from one end of long Lane to the other.

 

As we've all seen from Algys photos the roads were quite different when you were young :D

 

This 20 limit thing is a storm in a teacup which has captured the attention of the more easily wound up posters on this forum but will probably pass unnoticed by the majority of drivers in this town but may well be welcomed by some of our pedestrians. :lol::lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PJ, as has been said many times on here, pedestrians have footpaths to play on, cyclists have cycle paths to play on (at great expense too I hasten to add) the roads are for motorised forms of transport which pay the tax to traverse them.......this blanket 20mph limit (for that is what it is and what it will become) is ridiculous, expensive and unenforceable. (In Portsmouth, the Police won't even entertain enforcing it apparently, so that says a lot)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill

 

Some comments :-

 

Put it this way, if a route like Long Lane had been made 20mph, are you seriously expecting us to accept that you had nothing to do with it and it was all down to some guy in planning?

 

I was against the pilots when they were proposed as I thought that they were not needed and that Warrington should proceed directly with rolling out 20mph limits across the town.

 

It was the Traffic Officers who proposed to select 3 very different areas and pilot 20mph limits without speed bumps. These included the town centre, a wide area in Orford and a single road win Great Sankey.

 

I understand that the wide area in Orford was to include Long Lane becaase it had a high number of pedestrians from the school and college and was an A road.

 

Remember that this was an "Experimental Traffic Order" and not a permanent implementation. The whole idea was to see what difference it made.

 

So it was not me who decided upon either the pilot or which roads were chosen.

 

My own view at the time and one which I have not changed is that :-

 

a) The pilots would be less effective than an town wide roll out because they were isolated and often gave no benefit to drivers going through who themselves still liuved on a "fast" 30mph road.

 

B) It could delay a town wide roll out and therefore miss the opportunity to save casualties in that interim period.

 

I therefore accepted the decision made by the Council to experiment with the pilots and at least saw it as a step in the right direction.

 

The department of transport determines whether a road is residential or an arterial/feeder road and it?s this classification that should form the basis of any decision making process. Your repeated failure to condemn the councils decision to include a major A road would indicate that you support the idea, even it you can?t bring yourself to say so.

 

The DfT Guidelines actually say in its 01/2006 guidance that the characteristics of 20mph limits were "In town centres, residential roads and in the vicinity of schools where there is a high presence of vulnerable road users"

 

The 2009 guidance says that "we want to encourage highway authorities, over time, to introduce 20mph limits and zones into

 

streets which are primarily residential in nature; and into

 

town or city streets where pedestrian and cyclist movements are high such as around schools, shops, markets, playgrounds and other areas;

 

where these are not part of any major through route."

 

There is no recognition opf arterial or feeder road as a category in either guidance from DfT. Also remember that this is only guidance and it is the local traffic authority that has the primary responsibility for road safety on local roads and not the DfT.

 

Whether Long Lane is a "major through road" is open to debate. I am sure we all have opinions on that. As the Excecutive Board have asked the Scrutiny Committee to decide upon the criteria for considering which "residential" roads should be left at their previous speed limit then you will have every opportunity to make your case. My own view is that if officers and councillors can justify a residential road being an exception, then that is their responsibility not mine. I can campaign for or against it but must accept their decision.

 

The benefit of including Long Lane within the pilot was that it did demonstrate that people would drive slower with a 20mph limit. I understand that through most of the day there was a 2-3 mph drop in mean speed. Using established algorithms for relating speed reduction to casaulaty reduction (as quoted by DfT) this over time would result in a 12-18% drop in casualties.

 

 

I am not in a position to say whether getting to the queue of traffic at the traffic island at either end of Long Lane a couple of seconds later is worth saving 12-18% of caualties. That is a matter for councillors and I am happy to let them make that judgement.

 

 

I?ve have pushed you on this several times but just like a true politician, you side-step the issue and try steering the subject away onto some trivial side issues like fuel consumption or noise. So you see Rod it?s not that it?s not sinking in, it?s just that I don?t take the bait quite as readily as others.

 

Bill, there is no side-stepping and I am not a politician. Frankly the subject is about road danger, fuel consumption, noise, ability to freely choose how to travel and pollution. On all of these counts there is a growing body of opinion in transport and health circles that 30mph speed limits do not provide enough benefits to society over 20mph limits.

 

Should Long Lane be 20mph? Well whenever I drove down it during the pilots at 20mph I never got to the end of the road without joining the end of a queue of traffic. So the the time taken to get from one end of the road to the other was unaffected by the speed limit.

 

Is it a major through road? Well, I hardly think so, but I do accept that others may think differently.

 

I accept that this is a subject over which some people have strong views. But in the end we all have to share these public places between our houses and many wish to do that equitably with equal respect and safety for all road users whether they be in a car, on foot or on a bicycle.

 

I think we should all accept that whether we like it or not, we have to make changes. Having 1,000 caualties a year in Warrington is not something we can find morally acceptable or financially viable.

 

Having people scared to walk or cycle on our roads due to traffic speed is not acceptable either.

 

And if we look to the political situation in the oil producing countries of the Middle East and the technical difficulties in squeezing the last drops of oil out of other deposits then there may be more of us needing to walk or cycle than we expect in the future.

 

Best regards

 

Rod

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having people scared to walk or cycle on our roads due to traffic speed is not acceptable either

 

 

what utter scaremongering nonsense..... if you have proof that people are SCARED to walk on the roads (well they should be on the pavement but that's another story) I would love to see it...... or was that person a Mrs King who happened to be interviewed for your reasearch?

 

There are cycle lanes which cyclists will not use and choose to put themselves in the path of traffic. Just tonight a woman came wobbling through between cars on Cromwell Avenue when there is a perfectly good cycle lane which hardly gets used.

 

We have spent all this money on cycle lanes which again were championed by one of your cycling groups Rod...... are you now telling us that the millions spent on these was a total waste?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PJ, as has been said many times on here, pedestrians have footpaths to play on, cyclists have cycle paths to play on (at great expense too I hasten to add) the roads are for motorised forms of transport which pay the tax to traverse them.......this blanket 20mph limit (for that is what it is and what it will become) is ridiculous, expensive and unenforceable. (In Portsmouth, the Police won't even entertain enforcing it apparently, so that says a lot)

 

No they aren't well certainly not exclusively. Answer this mate, when does a car have priority over a pedestrian on a road?

 

There are cycle lanes but this does not exclude them from roads.

 

If you feel that these new limits are unenforceable then where's the problem? Ignore the limits , go as fast as you like and hope you never get caught. Its your choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would I want to go as fast as I like? I will go as fast as I am allowed to do...... (unlike some who have been caught speeding of course :wink: ) but it doesn't mean I am happy about it.

 

I very rarely go fast anyway as mostly the road conditions dictate my speed as they would any competant driver....

 

It is interesting to note that the ONS states that casualty rates are the lowest they have been since the 60's with almost half of the deaths in road crashes being car drivers or passengers. Pedal cyclists and motor cyclists represented 5 and 20 per cent of those killed respectively. Occupants of buses, coaches, goods and other vehicles accounted for the remaining 5 per cent of road deaths. 22% were pedestrians.

 

the figure has dropped by 78% since 1967...... so if these 20 limits do not reduce it markedly then they have to be seen as a waste of money and a failure as from the above it can be deduced that factors such as car design, lighting of streets and other innovations have been a great help

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You noticed the town centre traffic too.

Well so did the wbc executive whren they reported "the end of trial traffic flow data in the town centre cannot be used as a quantifiable value for assessment.?

 

However they then ignored this and used the "data"

Twisted? someone is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's use Long Lane as an example seeing as you have posted on it at length here.

 

 

The 2009 guidance says that "we want to encourage highway authorities, over time, to introduce 20mph limits and zones into

 

streets which are primarily residential in nature; and into

 

town or city streets where pedestrian and cyclist movements are high such as around schools, shops, markets, playgrounds and other areas;

 

where these are not part of any major through route."

 

There is no recognition opf arterial or feeder road as a category in either guidance from DfT. Also remember that this is only guidance and it is the local traffic authority that has the primary responsibility for road safety on local roads and not the DfT.

 

Whether Long Lane is a "major through road" is open to debate. I am sure we all have opinions on that. As the Excecutive Board have asked the Scrutiny Committee to decide upon the criteria for considering which "residential" roads should be left at their previous speed limit then you will have every opportunity to make your case. My own view is that if officers and councillors can justify a residential road being an exception, then that is their responsibility not mine. I can campaign for or against it but must accept their decision.

 

The benefit of including Long Lane within the pilot was that it did demonstrate that people would drive slower with a 20mph limit. I understand that through most of the day there was a 2-3 mph drop in mean speed. Using established algorithms for relating speed reduction to casaulaty reduction (as quoted by DfT) this over time would result in a 12-18% drop in casualties.

 

 

I am not in a position to say whether getting to the queue of traffic at the traffic island at either end of Long Lane a couple of seconds later is worth saving 12-18% of caualties. That is a matter for councillors and I am happy to let them make that judgement.

 

 

Should Long Lane be 20mph? Well whenever I drove down it during the pilots at 20mph I never got to the end of the road without joining the end of a queue of traffic. So the the time taken to get from one end of the road to the other was unaffected by the speed limit.

 

Is it a major through road? Well, I hardly think so, but I do accept that others may think differently.

 

Yes there is no recognition of "arterial" or "feeder" road in their definition, that is a term we used on here, those of us not being of the rabid agenda pushing fraternity, are not obviously acquainted with what is the management speak of the day.

A "Major through Road" is quite clearly exactly the same thing, they, and even you refer to such a thing, so we can all agree that this is what we ARE talking about.

 

YOU may not consider it so, or find it open to question, any sane individual couldn't possibly. It is clearly an arterial - sorry - major through road, the fact you are now attempting to suggest otherwise leads me to believe you accept the general argument that we have a major case from the pilot as an example of this erroneous policy, but you could not stand what you see as a flagship road in your doctrine escaping the clutches of your dictat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rod... a very good post by you actually and not your usual defensive way.

 

You say it is all down to the council and traffic officials but can you tell me wether the council ever considered doing this 20 plan BEFORE you pressed them for it ?

 

Also you say you were against the pilot scheme.. why was that again and was the pilot scheme only done after your group pushed for the 20 mph speed limit across Warrington or was this something the council were considering way before you came along ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fatshaft

 

Its not flagship to me although to the people living on and going to school and college on the road it may be.

 

But, as I have said, it won't be my decision or yours. And even though it may not be a "major through route" the council could still decide to keep it at 30mph. Equally, they could decide it was a "major through route" and decide that in the interests of all road users and the lack of benefit of travelling faster that it should be set at 20mph.

 

But as a matter of interest, this "major through route", where exactly is it going to from and to that you think is so major?

 

Regards

 

Rod

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well let me answer that one Diz if I may because I?ve had first hand dealings with them when trying to get 20mph adopted for our estate rather than speed bumps.

 

This was only a few years ago but back then, the council were adamant that such schemes just wouldn?t work. Some of their arguments were pathetic especially when coming from so called professionals.

 

But as everyone said, the council will do what they want to do, irrespective of what people think. Nothings changed since then!

 

Bill :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't the arguement about Long Lane irrelevant now though as they have made their decision on that one :?

 

PS your last sentence made me giggle Rod :wink::lol:

 

Speaking of 'major through routes' though off the top of my head (and based on a big triangle) I would put the major through routes near where I live as being

 

London Road A49

Wilderspool Causeway A49

Gainsborough Road

Grappenhall Road A56

Chester Road A56

Chester Road A5060

Walton Road A56

Ellesmere Road B5157

Farifield Road (possibly)

Knutsford Road A50

Ackers Road

 

So would these all stay as 30 + and the rest be reduced to 20 ?

 

And I still haven't been told whether EVERY street/road/avenue etc would need speed signs :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill you said :-

 

But as everyone said, the council will do what they want to do, irrespective of what people think. Nothings changed since then!

 

Well there has been quite a bit of change, including the revised guidance in 2006 which led Portsmouth to implement its town wide scheme, and also the evidence from Portsmouth, Oxford, Bristol and now the 20mph pilots. We have also had far more recent government support.

 

I think that back in 2006 WBC officers honestly did not believe that 20mph sign only limits would work. But now, based on evidence, they believe that it will, and there is growing opinion that this is the right thing to do.

 

Regards

 

Rod

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dizzy

 

Isn't the arguement about Long Lane irrelevant now though as they have made their decision on that one

 

No-one has actually made a decision on Long Lane. What they have decided is that the Scrutiny Committee should decide the criteria for basing the speed limit on various factors.

 

This is expected to include the nature of the road and the safety of its users. But this would need to be on clear identifiable characteristics rather than simply because some people want to drive faster on that road. It would also need to take into account whether going faster increases or decreases the capacity and throughput of all traffic.

 

 

And of course it would need to take account of the fact that with 1,000 casualties a year in Warrington there is a need to make our roads safer for all.

 

Best regards

 

 

Rod

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes well these will be the same people that couldn?t understand why motorist wouldn?t slow down to 20mph when passing a school at 2am in the morning. :lol:

 

And from what I heard (or at least thought I'd heard), the police stepped into the debate over Long Lane and advised against it and it was for this reason alone that the idea was dropped.

 

Bill :)

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...