Jump to content

20 mph


vic
 Share

Recommended Posts

But Rod, surely common sense should prevail as in the case of Knutsford Rd, where people need reminding that it is not a racetrack when you come over Black Bear Bridge and the same going the other way.

The same theory as the 20mph should apply in that reducing speed saves lives/accidents. What the book says should be over-ridden by common sense!!!!

It does seem bizzare, indeed completely perverse, that someone so in favour of the safety merits of the 20mph speed limit, resorts to quoting statute when safety is raised in other areas not relating to 20mph.

 

Surely statute determined that the roads Rod has browbeaten WBC into making 20mph should be 30mph?

 

Or maybe, Rod just never cycles down Knutsford road? :idea:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well although it's gone quiet on here and in the press lately Mr King was on the local radio news this morning..... the blanket rollout is still in the pipeline. Good or bad.. who knows ??

 

Can we have a proper consultation now please before any rash decisions are made for any other areas of Warrington :?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting ... (this link is also on the 20's P website)

 

.... along with a very sad campaign video created by a child in rememberence of his friend Tommy (and also as part of a campaign to introduce 20mph outside schools). Tommy died in 2007 as he crossed the road outside his school :cry: All schools should (if not already) have at least a 20mph buffer around them as a matter of course IMO.

 

Anyway here's the other link from a Professor Danny Darling.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I should put this link on a seperate topic although it does relaate to questions that have been asked many times on this one including by me... I might move it later.

 

Here is a link to a FOI request which shows the actual accidents which have occurred on Warringtons roads over the past 3 years.

 

Listed by date, severity, road name and shows detail of accident.

 

There are tabs at the bottom so you can view details for 2008/09, 2009/10 and 2010/11

 

http://www.cheshire.police.uk/advice--information/freedom-of-information/disclosure-log/2011/05/request-3062---rp.aspx

 

There are actually a few ones on there that made me giggle though including the drunk cyclist who after being beeped at rode straight into a wall :lol:

 

Worst Roads (exluding motorways and sliproads) for 2010/11 seem to be

 

Winwick Road - 29 incidents (26 slight and 1 serious).

Birchwood Way - 25 (9 slight and 6 serious)

Manchester Road - 22 (15 slight, 6 serious and 1 fatal)

Knutsford Road - 16 (13 slight and 3 serious)

Cromwell Avenue - 14 (12 slight and 2 serious)

Sankey Way - 12 (11 slight and 1 serious)

Wilderspool Causeway - 12 (10 slight and 2 serious)

Chester Raod - 12 (12 slight)

Sankey Way - 11 slight and 1 serious)

Mersey Streey - 10 (9 slight and 1 serious)

Lythgoes Lane - 10 (9 slight and 1 serious)

Liverpool Road - 9 (9 slight)

Winwick Street - 9 (8 slight and 1 serious)

Holcroft Lane - 8 (5 slight and 3 serious)

Long Lane - 7 (7 slight)

Midlans Way - 7 (5 slight and 2 serious)

Tarporley Road - 7 (6 slight 1 serious)

Lovely Lane - 6 (4 slight and 2 serious)

 

If anyone has any specific roads they would like the figures for just ask as I now have them all in a searchable speadsheet with filters... I was bored :oops::lol:

 

There were only 2 on my road which suprised me as I though it would be higher. One was my 'incident' (I wasn't involved though it was my car) :oops: and another was a kid who ran out between parked cars (only 'slight' thankfully).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:oops: errm because I' a muppet :lol: sorry....

 

10 + 2 = 12 not 14 and I quickly worked out the totals per those roads after getting the numbers for grade of accident per road which I then scribbled on a bit of paper and typed on here (the totals per road are not on the FOI request and I added them last).

 

I really should have cut and pased the whole 'actual' spreadsheet data for these roads but it is HUGE.

 

I've deleted the daft one now and thanks :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dont think you can assume anything. Even if you only class it as an accident if a hospital visit is needed, I still wouldn?t attach that much credibility to the numbers given how people these days very often tend to overplay their injury (just to be on the safe side!)

 

The only classification that?s got any certainty here is the fatalities, and thankfully, there?s not many of these; all the rest though is open to question. Some of the incidents seem to be just minor accidents like car 1 backs into car 2 or car 1 collides with dog.

 

 

Bill :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many of the 'slight' incidents are indeed vehicle 1 bumps into vehicle two etc (reported as to claim on insurance it helps if you have an incident number and also helps with compo claims).

 

But there are also some 'slight' ones where 'pedestrian walks/runs out between parked cars' or 'attemps to cross at crossing without pressing button' etc. Not too many of them but when will they learn :roll: and luckily for them they only felll into the slightly category.

 

But Peter asked a question ... make of it what you like :?

 

Recorded incidents by severity on all Warrington Roads (including motorways and sliproads)

 

1 April 2008 - 31 Mar 2009

Slight 520

Serious 83

Fatal 6

 

1 April 2009 - 31 Mar 2010

Slight 507

Serious 79

Fatal 4

 

1 April 2010 - 31 Mar 2011

slight 504

serious 77

fatal 6

 

I think :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's where I was leading to Bill. And why it is so annoying when you get the 20+ lot shouting about accidents numbers.

 

Take it a step further and analyse what goes on at home, and every time you bump your knee on a chair, or drop something the accident rate soars. Balmy!!!!

 

No wonder stats have NO credibility unless you are campaigning for something. :roll::roll::roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really Bill but I see what you are saying.

 

The red routes and signs relate to the roads with higher incidents of Serious/Fatal accidents.

 

Having briefly looked through the FOI data there are a lot on there that shouldn't really be used in the statistics that certain reports use re: the number of accidents.

 

Like I already mentioned one is a drunk cyclist who was beeped at and rode into a wall. Well hard luck and these should not be used my opinion as part of statistics or figures. Nor should the odd ones about pedestrian walking in the road and clipped by wing mirror.. no injury. Plus many others.

 

BUT to be fair, and the only actual incident I can personally comment on with knowledge, is one marked as 'slight' but actually involved a woman completely trashing 2 parked cars and overturning hers in the process. It looked pretty bad from where I was but she was not actually hurt at all so it has a category of 'slight'. Always remember to black out before hitting anything as you are relaxed and apparently it helps avoid serious injury (said the ambulance and police) :wink:

 

Now had any person been walking on the pavement as the driver of Car A blacked out and ploughed into Car B pushing it across a pavement and against a fence before Car A then overturned taking out the side of Car C on the opposute side of the road..... or had another car been travelling in the opposite direction at the same time it could well have resulted in a 'serious' or 'fatal' category.

 

Figures and statistics are often easily manipulated to suit and I agree withe Peter :?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dont think you can assume anything. Even if you only class it as an accident if a hospital visit is needed, I still wouldn?t attach that much credibility to the numbers given how people these days very often tend to overplay their injury (just to be on the safe side!)

 

The only classification that?s got any certainty here is the fatalities,

 

Bill :)

 

Bill only deals in death shocker!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We sort of grinned the other day going down Farrel Street. There had been a very slight bump and the driver of one car was sat there holding his neck.. all the others were out of the cars walking around and chatting happily to each other.

 

Felt a bit mean for our thoughts but 'Mr Whiplash' and 'Where there's blame theres a claim and a no questions asked payout' popped into our minds.

 

I mentioned on another topic a while ago (think it was about excessive car insurance for youngsters and all) but apparently insurance has rocketed in the past years mainly due to the number of no win no fee accident claim solicitors/companies out there.

 

With minor injuries and things like whiplash which are hard to dispute the payments are always made as it costs more for insurers to dispute them and so everyones premiums raise to compensate. It's not only road accidents it's any form of 'accident'

 

It was also reprted that people are claiming whiplash in non fault car accidents going back years (some nearly 10 years) even though they never saw a doctor, visited a hospital or mentioned/reported any injuries at the time :evil:

 

Madness and a form or fraud if you ask me.

 

Just going back to the 20 mph topic for a while though... be warned... If you have not been to Gateworth Tip or He(o)wdens for a while as you turn of Old Liverpool Road over the bridge that is all now 20mph. If you happen to be avoiding the Viola? waste lorries turning you tend to miss the large 20 signs and the rest are tiny. When you turn left to go past Hewdens that too is all 20 despite it having vans and lorries flying down it.

 

If you then turn left again towards and into the large new housing development that for some reason then all reverts to 30 mph.

 

I hope I'm not going to get my first ever speeding ticket as I did 10 in the 30 but 30 in the 20 :shock::oops:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dizzy shows the "value" of statistics. as i have mentioned elsewhere or somewhere most accident statistics are made up numbers that bear no relation to actuals.

 

I always remember working with a manager who needed "statistics" for a report, and who commissioned an exercise to obtain said "statistics". his advice to the statistician was.. I expect the figures to be between 98 and 100 ... and guess what... they were!

 

so treat statistics with a deal of scepticism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... because the many people are gullible Peter and do still take them as actually proving or meaning something. Maybe one day they too will learn :wink:

 

I had some great examples in my 'box of goodies' of our councils officers and planners etc using statistics in planning matters round here some years ago to sway peoples opinion and to try and justify their reasons for approval etc etc .. I will try and find them sometime and boy not only were they misleading but the so called 'data' was rather cleverly obtained..... and the result manipulated to suit although they were just as easy to manipulate to 'un-suit' :roll:

 

Infact I have many such examples and various underhand manipulations of facts, figures, rules and more that I could write a book.

 

Probably why I am so cynical of everything now eh :?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What abart this then ?? courtesy of the Daily Mail

 

Goodbye speed hump!

It's a little known fact that the proliferation of the dreaded speed hump is down to red tape and cost, but that's all about to change, as the Government today (June 13) announces new measures to ease the life of local councils. The result could mean a lot less speed humps on the road, though more 20mph zones.

Until today it was necessary to get approval from the Department for Transport before erecting speed limit signs on either side of the road. Hence it was easier for councils to build speed bumps, which naturally brought the speed of traffic down.

The changes are part of the Traffic Signs Policy Review, which in effect reduces red tape and cost. It also aims to reduce the number of new road signs erected - from a cost and clutter perspective.

Councils may now paint the speed limit on the road instead of repeating the upright speed limit signs, though signs at the start and end of the zone are still required.

Norman Baker, Regional and Local Transport Minister, said:

"I want to end the era of top-down government by providing a radical devolution of power to local authorities and communities.

"If councils and local communities want to put in place 20 mph schemes on residential roads or use common-sense measures such as variable speed limits outside schools, then they should be able to do so without spending time and money satisfying unnecessary Whitehall diktats.

"These changes will reduce costs for councils wanting to use 20 mph schemes, allowing them to act faster in response to the needs of their local residents while still ensuring that drivers know what speed they should drive at."

Shane O' Donoghue

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...