rodk Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 Your'e losing me there Bill. Rod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 Oh for goodness sake Rod please try to keep up with me! The fact that Long Lane shows in bright red on the maps and is called an ?A Road? is a big clue to why people call it a main road. And by the way, the commuter and estate feeder roads that Dizz mentions also all appear in different colours to differentiate them from purely residential roads. So what your saying Rod is that the DfT classification of the road is up for debate in your eyes and that some unelected planner can dictate that cars drive more slowly than the planners of these roads intended? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 I'm keeping up Bill as I remember it too so have just found it Taken from the Executive Board Report Oct 2010 CHESHIRE POLICE 6.9 An official view from Cheshire Constabulary was sought on the Borough-wide delivery of 20mph limits. A formal statement has not been received to date. However, specific concerns have been raised and the following comments obtained. 6.9 The Police have no objections to the Town Centre Scheme becoming permanent due to the high volume of pedestrians in this area. 6.10 Neither do they have objections to the Orford or Park Road area schemes becoming permanent, with the exception of Park Road and A50 Long Lane themselves, which the Police suggest should be set at 30 mph limits. 6.11 This view is based on the fact that these are local distributor roads and bus routes. Long Lane is also a key distributor route avoiding the town centre, especially when there are closures on the local Motorway network. 6.12 The Police report that the nature and usage of these routes does not indicate a logical 20 mph limit to road users, which leads to confusion and driver frustration, with associated incidents of aggressive overtaking and tailgating. For these reasons the Police have stated that they could not justify enforcement of a 20mph limit on these roads. ...........That's why I thought a decision had actually been made regarding Long Lane hence my earlier comment too Rod. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodk Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 Bill The police actually did not put in an official response regarding Long Lane. They did provide an unofficial response and one argument was that if they ever needed to shut the M6 then Long Lane is used as a redirected route. Anyone who has experienced Long Lane when the motorway is shut knows that in such circumstances then even a 10mph limit would not make any difference as it would be nose to tail all the way. Regards rod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 Ok so what about the other bit that I posted above where they said......... 6.12 The Police report that the nature and usage of these routes does not indicate a logical 20 mph limit to road users, which leads to confusion and driver frustration, with associated incidents of aggressive overtaking and tailgating. For these reasons the Police have stated that they could not justify enforcement of a 20mph limit on these roads. I'm sure all my posts are being ignored by you Rod.. ...and what about my recurring question about the need for NEW SPEED SIGNS ON ALL ROADS IN WARRINGTON (ie those becoming 20 and those currently without speed signs as they are and could stil be 'default' 30 limits Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 I suppose it was on the wrong colour paper as well. Well just reading what Dizz has posted, that seems to read quite a bit differently to me. I can?t see it but I seem to recall also figures that indicated that less people were using Long Lane and the council claimed this to be measure of the schemes success. The police reported however that people were simply avoiding the road and this diverted traffic flow to other less suitable roads. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 http://www.warrington.gov.uk/content_documents/Documents/Roads/Executive_Board_20mph_Pilot_Outcomes_Report.doc I just had a quick read through the full exec report and the table on last page shows that the number of collisions and casualties actually WENT UP in the Town Centre during the 20 mph trial period Although I am at a loss how they can determine what the figures actually show and wether any rise/fall was because of the speed reduction trial I guess it's just open to what anyone wants to think they show or prove. Very glad to see that there were no fatal accidents though before or during the trials and that there were only a few serious ones too which seem to balance themselves out across the three areas and result in almost the same figures as before Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodk Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 Dizzy said I'm sure all my posts are being ignored by you Rod.. ...and what about my recurring question about the need for NEW SPEED SIGNS ON ALL ROADS IN WARRINGTON (ie those becoming 20 and those currently without speed signs as they are and could stil be 'default' 30 limits Dizzy I am not ignoring you, but am rather busy so there is a limit to how much time I can spend answering all of your questions. But this one is quite simple :- 30mph is the urban speed limit if there are no other limits shown. 20 mph limits can be recognised either by repeated traffic calming features or by repeater signs. Those with traffic calming features are referred to as zones whilst those without (and with repeater signs) are just called limits. Before you jump in with any criticism of the names then its defined by DfT and not me! Both are enforceable but the police tend not to bother about enforcing those with traffic calming features. DfT guidance says that 20mph limits should not expect anything more than routine police enforcement. Most Police forces are in a battle regarding budgets at the moment and seem to be at odds with the local traffic authorities. Of course these signs have existed on 200 roads across Warrington for the last 2 years. Maybe have a drive across the river and see what they are like for yourself. Best regards Rod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 Thank you for not ignoring me Rod and I'm rather busy too but I still find the time to ask my questions (which to me do seem important)... and after all there is no-one else to pose my questions too to as you are the only one apparently who knows all the ins and outs and supports it Anyway as you are stuck for time I will be as quick as I can in typing my reply 30mph is the urban speed limit if there are no other limits shown. Yes I know that thanks... but if the default (urban speed limit) in Warrington is dropped/set to 20 mph then surely ALL roads will then NEED to be signed as either 20 or 30 otherwise people coming into the area will 'presume' that they are 30 mph limits as stated in the highway code. The council officers have quoted the costs involved for a borough wide implementation at around ?740,000 (from memory) but surely it could cost a lot more and based on past experiences the council are always wrong with their costings especially when it is something they support.. they are usually quoted as being a lot higher if it is something they oppose With money being tight then should they be spending this sort of money on something when they have NO PROOF THAT IT WILL MAKE THE ROADS SAFER....OR EVEN WORSE FOR THAT MATTER 20 mph limits can be recognised either by repeated traffic calming features or by repeater signs. Those with traffic calming features are referred to as zones whilst those without (and with repeater signs) are just called limits. Before you jump in with any criticism of the names then its defined by DfT and not me! I had no intention of criticising your wording Rod as I am again aware of the terms. But I presume that from what you say then that 20 mph repeater signs WILL have to be installed on ALL ROADS which COULD/WILL eventually fall into your/their global plan. Both are enforceable but the police tend not to bother about enforcing those with traffic calming features. DfT guidance says that 20mph limits should not expect anything more than routine police enforcement. OK...... so they wont be enforced then but we already knew that too It's a bit like the community speed watch signs that are up on our road.. no-one has ever taken a blind bit of notice of them. I'd love our road to be a 20 mph limit or better still a 10 mph limit but having a brain cell we can all see it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference at all which is why no-one around here has ever asked for it. Most Police forces are in a battle regarding budgets at the moment and seem to be at odds with the local traffic authorities. Aren't the police authority the ones who compile the figures relating to all road traffic incidents / collisions / injuries and the severity of each incident and as such are they not the ones who can confirm which roads require may intervention and which don?t? Maybe they too can not see the benefit in wasting so much money on something that probably will NOT work especially when their funds are being cut and the real solution will in itself will be unenforceable too ie targeting speeders and idiotic drivers and making them pay. A simple 20 mph sign WILL NOT deter these people. Of course these signs have existed on 200 roads across Warrington for the last 2 years. Maybe have a drive across the river and see what they are like for yourself. Believe it or not Rod I do venture out a lot and I even see the result of traffic collisions on a weekly basis but thankfully none that have ever resulted in injury to a person, only the cars involved, but my questions were actually not aimed at the signs that currently exist (including those of the Town Centre/Orford/Great Sankey in the soon to be implemented 20 limits) but more so towards the costs involved and possible benefits of ALL the other roads on the so called blanket/default roll out in Warrington should this ever be decided and approved too. With regards to the Town Centre/Orford/Great Sankey approval then in all fairness to the council I can fully understand WHY they have now chosen to approve these areas after all they have spent money on the lengthy pilot survey after being prompted to look into the matter and they have also spent money on all the installed signs so it would have been a great waste if they had then said ?actually no it didn?t really make a great difference scrap the idea for these areas? and had chosen to refuse the plan? they would no doubt have got a great deal backlash (or whiplash depending on how you want to look at it) had they gone to all that trouble and expense only to say ?NO?. So as the signs were already in place then I think they decided for the best based on the pilot areas for that reason. Anyway? like I say? I?m busy too? so I kept it brief.. and I typed very fast so sorry for any typos. By the way Rod? Have you any idea where I can find the fuller details of Warrington?s Local Safety Scheme Programmes (LSS) as they apparently detail all the collisions/accidents/incidents on all of Warrington Roads. I?d like to read that please Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 If collisions actually went up in the town centre during the trials, why are they still implimenting the 20 speed limit? sounds a bit potty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 If collisions actually went up in the town centre during the trials, why are they still implimenting the 20 speed limit? sounds a bit potty To justify wasting money on the 20mph signs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 The signes were a bit of a givaway wern't they! Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodk Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 Dizzy Regarding :- By the way Rod? Have you any idea where I can find the fuller details of Warrington?s Local Safety Scheme Programmes (LSS) as they apparently detail all the collisions/accidents/incidents on all of Warrington Roads. I?d like to read that please Try Warrington Borough Council! Rod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodk Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 Dizzy You said I just had a quick read through the full exec report and the table on last page shows that the number of collisions and casualties actually WENT UP in the Town Centre during the 20 mph trial period Can I correct you there! Collisions went DOWN from 21.12 to 21.0 Casualties went UP from 24.64 to 37.0 The latter was mainly attributed to multiple passenger casualties on a small number of bus collisions. Best regards Rod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 A case of making the figures suit the argument. Bus passengers shouldn't count as more than ONE, ie driver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 Dizzy You said I just had a quick read through the full exec report and the table on last page shows that the number of collisions and casualties actually WENT UP in the Town Centre during the 20 mph trial period Can I correct you there! Collisions went DOWN from 21.12 to 21.0 Casualties went UP from 24.64 to 37.0 The latter was mainly attributed to multiple passenger casualties on a small number of bus collisions. Best regards Rod Of course you can correct me Rod and I would expect nothing else So I was right then.... there were more casualties in the town centre Are all these figures based on vehicle incidents and passenger injuries rather than all road incidents eg people being run over, knocked of bikes etc etc and how can collisions drop by .12 for example ? Surely you either have a collission (1 whole incident) or you dont (0 incident). I shall read it all again and see if it makes more sense a second time around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 Dizzy Regarding :- By the way Rod? Have you any idea where I can find the fuller details of Warrington?s Local Safety Scheme Programmes (LSS) as they apparently detail all the collisions/accidents/incidents on all of Warrington Roads. I?d like to read that please Try Warrington Borough Council! Rod Thanks but I have already tried their website Rod and nothing to be found as usual. I may ring them later or send in a FOI request just to find out as I may be suprised by the actual number of accidents on all our roads and may start to campaigh against cars, mororbikes, cycles and pedestrians Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wahl Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 Thanks but I have already tried their website Rod and nothing to be found as usual. I may ring them later or send in a FOI request just to find out as I may be suprised by the actual number of accidents on all our roads and may start to campaigh against cars, mororbikes, cycles and pedestrians you'll be lucky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 IF all our actions and policies are to be governed on the basis of statistics - perhaps we'll eventually see bans on fags and booze, extreme sports or anything else that results in death and injury? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 Most injuries happen in the home Obs... or so statistics have shown Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 Just a thought... but if all roads became 20 mph which Rod says the statistics show to be 'safer' for all road users (depending on how you read them) then would our car insurance come down Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdrianR Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 No chance and then we'll get the 10 is plenty campaign and the return of the red flag in front of the car. BTW injury can occur in a car accident invoiving a velocity of as little as 4kmh. Does the plenty cmapaign propose that. What concerns me with all this is the COMPLETE and lack of a willingness for the 20 mob to name roads that woudl be exempt from the blanket / default 20 mph. Until they do i dont trust them at all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disgusted Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 What concerns me with all this is the COMPLETE and lack of a willingness for the 20 mob to name roads that woudl be exempt from the blanket / default 20 mph. Until they do i dont trust them at allAdrian, this is exactly the issue. As Rod is so willing to point out, there is a lot of support for 20mph limits; what he always fails to point out that this is for wholly residential streets. Once arterial roads are put into the equation, the support falls away dramatically, as witnessed by the posters in this thread, virtually all of whom support his main aim, and virtually all of whom disagree entirely with said limit being imposed on through roads. The 20s mental campaingers seem to realise this (though won't admit as much), and hence refuse to discuss which roads would be arterial, indeed in Rod's case, having so clearly lost that particualr case on the trial run along Long Lane, has now switched the battle to deny such a clear through road is even a through road. I imagine the aim is that if they don't state which roads are arterial, they will maybe sneak a few in that should have been designated as such but get over-looked? And as Paul our ex-poster and only councillor seemingly willing to show some common sense on this issue points out, there is clear signs on the '20s' website that their view of an arterial road is much different to the publics. I imagine if they were pressed for a definitive answer, in the whole of Warrington their description would be the A49, and the Manchester/Liverpool Roads. Certainly, if Rod's view that Long Lane does not fall under such a category, then there would be very very few others that could either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disgusted Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 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 If you are seriously asking this question ()which to be frank is astonishing if so), or failing at all to admit that this is a clear arterial route, then you should be having no say, and no influence upon, the roads planning issues of this or any area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 Maybe the council or it's highways dept could help out here and supply a list of the roads that they believe are Warringtons main/arterial/through routes to put our minds at rest. I presume they will be following this topic and they will have already looked into it Rod does seem to be getting a battering on here but maybe that's because he is the only one supporting it... whereas the council are the ones who will ulitmately make the decision and they are the ones who manage our roads etc SO THEY SHOULD TELL US so we all know and stop jumping to conclusions. Saying that they probably like the fact that all the blame is being diverted elsewhere while they sit and read. Are they paying you Rod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.