Dizzy Posted September 22, 2011 Report Share Posted September 22, 2011 I think I follow that Bill although not sure if you are calling 'me' selfish there Our road is a 30 limit and is often used by a traffic diverting from the congested Chester Road to try to get to the other swing bridge on the A49. We get some right idiots flying down here and on some of the side roads but thankfully not really enought to warrant speed bumps. We also have a vast majority of people who drive with care and who are are aware of their surroundings. Reducing our road and the others around here to 20 mph limits would not really make that much difference as those driving above the current limit would still do what they do THEREFORE I wouldn't never consider it to be any safer than it is now and the same could be said for all other roads. I always air on the side of caution when it comes to the unpredictable brains of those who could not care less whether I am driving or walking... if the council want to spend money putting signs up and reducing the limits around here or even if they decide to leave them as they are it would NOT really make that much difference as those idiots driving above the current limit or without care would still do what they do THEREFORE I wouldn't never consider it to be any safer (or worse) than it is now. By 'idiots' I also include those who drive using mobile phones, pull out without looking etc etc and I also include the cyclists, kids and all other road users/walkers that seem to lack any common sense or reasoning. "Be Aware.. 'they' are Everywhere".. but most of us know all know anyway. The roads with the most accidents and biggest risks are the busy main roads so maybe they should change all those to 20 mph and leave the rest as they are. That would also probably be cheaper to do All those extra speed signs certainly make the roads and streets look a mess and spoil the street scene over the other side of Warrington though. (That comment may come back to haunt me) PS Bill... Real flu, man flu or a bad cold? Either way vitamin C and zinc, plenty of fresh air even if you dont feel like it and turn your heating down or off ! I hope you feel better soon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted September 22, 2011 Report Share Posted September 22, 2011 Nah this is really only woman flu so it's not that bad. Bloomin thoats killing me though and can hardley swallow. Yep I think pretty muuch everythings been said on this it's just odd that they're looking at spending an awfull lot of money that by all accounts we havent got and at a time when the future looks so uncertain. Still that's the way they've always done things so why change the habit of a lifetime. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted September 22, 2011 Report Share Posted September 22, 2011 Boil some sage and gargle with the cooled 'tea' great for sore throats. Then collect it all in a huge big pot, add some bicarb, and anything going spare in your garage, re boil then stick some councillors and 'others' in it. Cook on a medium heat until finally reduced and then sieve to get rid of the grotty bits. Pour clear liquid away down toilet and flush immediately and what is left can be used as fertiliser. Far more productive and a cost effective alternative to a simple problem Logical... hey there's a song about that isn't there Sorry to all those who feel that I am being a twit and that 20mph speed limits really WILL make a difference And double sorry that I have probably taken another topic off track but everything has been said many many times before against the idea of a 20 mph rollout but still no one seems to listen.... so more chance of curing Bill's problems than making some people see sense Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdrianR Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 I see Liverpool City Council are adopting a 20mph system based on the "success" of Warringtons prjoect which reduced casualties by 25%. One interesting approach which differs in liverpool is that they will be taking the roll out on a "street by street basis" subejct to consultation with the local residents of that street. Now theres proper logic for you. I hope our esteemed council is reading this i.e. a 20 mph limit along Winwick Road will not give Warrington a competitive advantage but 20mph on side streets will make matters safer. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 Well nobody can argue with that logic Adrian but then again they know that while people may have reservations, when it comes to slowing traffic down on “their” road, everyone’s going to be in favour of that. The big BUT here though is as you say, what happens when they ask the residents living on the A57? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdrianR Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 I had previous suggested on this point that instead of having the proposed default borough wide with exceptions, that the approach should be that key routes (A classified, bus routes, strategic routes) are identified as being automatically exempt and perhaps increase speeds to get people in (and out) of Warrington quickly. Other routes would be subject to consultation against key strategic criteria. I bet Liverpool wont put a 20 mph speed limit on Edge Lane, Queens Drive etc. Key strategic routes. if you look around locally, St Helens, Runcorn and even Widnes have express dedicated routes taking traffic right into the town / shopping etc. Geography limits W/ton in this respect and therefore it is vitally improtant to maintain competitiveness locally that people can get in and out quickly. Safety can be engineered as opposed to simply by reducing speed. If that was the only factor, i'll get the wife to get the red flag out in front of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wahl Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 I wonder what will happen when the cost of Liverpool's plan is evaluated against the loss of many policemen. I know I would rather money was spent on real live policing and not on unmanageable signs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdrianR Posted December 5, 2011 Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15975720 BBC have produced a map showing all fatalities on all roads in the UK between 1999 - 2010. Search Warrington and you will note that most take place on main roads. The vast majority of roads which the 20mp will apply to wouldnt have had any effect on this map. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted December 5, 2011 Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 Well yes looking at the map, virtually all the fatalities are on the main roads and pretty much nothing on the roads where the 20mph is going to be applied but I’m sure Rod King will have a perfectly plausible explanation for this. Given this data though, it makes you wonder why we’re still thinking of spending anything on this project. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted December 5, 2011 Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 The only one in Westbrook took place on the A574 Cromwell Avenue at 11:10 pm where one cyclist appears to have been killed..... Not sure how accurate the map is position wise but the accident is shown as taking place between Westbrook Crescent and Westbrook Way (where the big 4 way red bridge is) as there are cycle lanes on this stretch of Cromwell Avenue (and there were in 2007 as far as I remember), one has to ask if he was on a road when he could have been on the safe cycle lane? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffrey Settle Posted December 5, 2011 Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted December 5, 2011 Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 That was a bit long winded Geoff. Couldn't you just give a short summary? :grin: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffrey Settle Posted December 5, 2011 Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 That was a bit long winded Geoff. Couldn't you just give a short summary? :grin: I know I just had to pause for a moment when I saw how many pedestrians were killed on the motorway when I put in my postcode for the BBC map. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted December 5, 2011 Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 I know I just had to pause for a moment when I saw how many pedestrians were killed on the motorway when I put in my postcode for the BBC map. Geoff... what on earth has that got to do with things? If cycle lanes are provided, the cyclists should be made to use them; just like cars have to use the roads and not the footpaths; otherwise, you and your fellow councillors would be better off spending the money used to provide these expensive white elephants on more useful things like bigger wider roads or a ring road or care for the elderly etc. As for pedestrians on the motorway, there are many reasons why people would be walking on the motorway; walking to and from a broken down vehicle to the emergency phone perhaps? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodk Posted December 5, 2011 Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 Whilst fatalities are the most severe consequences of road crashes a statistically better measure of danger and risk can be gained by looking at all reported road casualties. We find the ITO road casualty maps are probably the best to use. See http://map.itoworld.com/road-casualties-uk Best regards Rod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boris1066 Posted December 5, 2011 Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 The only one in Westbrook took place on the A574 Cromwell Avenue at 11:10 pm where one cyclist appears to have been killed..... Not sure how accurate the map is position wise but the accident is shown as taking place between Westbrook Crescent and Westbrook Way (where the big 4 way red bridge is) as there are cycle lanes on this stretch of Cromwell Avenue (and there were in 2007 as far as I remember), one has to ask if he was on a road when he could have been on the safe cycle lane? The only cycling fatality I recall in Westbrook was a guy who cycled in to a culvert on the East side of the A574 in the vicinity of the Red pedestrian bridge late at night. I think it was reported in the WG at the time. If it was where I think it was, he was no where near the road but on the original footpath to the East of Cromwell Avenue. The original footpath dating from Warrington New Town days runs all the way down to Sankey Way and largely keeps bikes and pedestrians away from the road. I couldn't ever understand why WBC needed to build a path on the West of Crowell imediately adjacent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted December 5, 2011 Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 Boris.... they spend waste the money on bike lanes because it ticks the right boxes in the "green" agenda and keeep the likes of Rod King happy. It would be money better spent if they used it to sort out the road network and the impending disaster of the Runcorn Toll Bridge instead of pandering to minority groups and the EU Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted December 5, 2011 Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 A very good link AdrianR although very sad to see the fatalities In my particular area it shows a motorcyclist died almost on my doorstep in 1999. I had no idea and that was a bit of a shock as we've lived here for almost 20 years and I never knew and it was never mentioned by anyone around here. Very sad. What I have noticed from looking around my own area is that most fatalities were between 1999 and 2005. I wonder if maybe the roads have got a little safer or better, or have cars got safer or perhaps people themselves are being more careful whether on foot, in cars, on bikes or motorcycles or 'other'. ROD K.. yours is a good link too and again very sad to see the fatalities and injuries. I noticed that the motorcyclist who is shown to have sadly died on Adrain's link is not shown on yours? Why is that ? I agree with you that serious injuries are also an important factor to take into consideration but could you please clarify what 'slight injury' means on the site you use. Not being picky I just wondered whether those shown on the link you provided may included any incident where an ambulance or police as been called or perhaps even when a 'claim' for injury has been put in by someone accordingly or where maybe there was no actual injury at all but as a precautionary measure an ambulance and/or the police were called. If that makes any sense ) Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted December 5, 2011 Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 That was a bit long winded Geoff. Couldn't you just give a short summary? :grin: :grin: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodk Posted December 5, 2011 Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 Dizzy The motorcycle collision occurred in May 1999. The BBC database is 1999 to 2010 whilst the ITO database is 2000 to 2010. Both are based on STATS19 figures from the police. It is widely recognised that these under report injuries. It also does not include damage only collisions. Definitions of killed, serious and injured are :- Killed: The usual international definition, as adopted by the Vienna Convention in 1968 is 'A human casualty who dies with 30 days after the collision due to injuries received in the crash'.[1] Serious injury: The definition is less clear-cut a may vary more over time and in different places. The UK definition covers injury resulting in a person being detained in hospital as an in-patient, in addition all injuries causing: fractures, concussion, internal injuries, crushings, burns (excluding friction burns), severe cuts, severe general shock which require medical treatment even if this does not result in a stay in hospital as an in-patient.[2] Slight injury: Sprain (including neck whiplash injury), bruising or cuts which are not judged to be severe. Also slight shock requiring roadside assistance.[3] Note that if a road casualty dies more than 30 days after a collision then this is not included as a fatality! Regards Rod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted December 5, 2011 Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 Thanks Rod and appologies as I had not noticed the 1999/2000 differential Another question though, sorry, but why is someone who dies as a result of an accident/collision after 30 days not classed as a fatality as surely had they not been involved in the accident they would be very much alive. That is complete madness !! I presume from your reply that you are confirming that 'slight injury' does also include claims from the 'had an accident but not your fault' brigade which basically makes all those statistics and markers very questionable. It would be good to know just how many genuine 'slight' injuries there have really been eh rather to accommodate these 'others' into the equation and statistics but I guess we will never know. These sort of false claims just for the chance of a hand out of money really do annoy me !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffrey Settle Posted December 6, 2011 Report Share Posted December 6, 2011 Thanks as always Rodk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted December 6, 2011 Report Share Posted December 6, 2011 [quote Note that if a road casualty dies more than 30 days after a collision then this is not included as a fatality! If he/she dies 31 days after, he/she's still dead but he/she's not not a fatality. His/her own fault for not dying a day earlier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdrianR Posted December 6, 2011 Report Share Posted December 6, 2011 As a PI lawyer (defending people before anyone has a go!) I cast serious doubts on these figures (bar fatalities). I have lost count of the number of misrecordings by A&E of injuries both over estimating and under estimating (fractures missed or alternatively diagnosed but werent actually there). Most accidents both minor and surprisingly some serious arent report to the police and most dont attend A&E. I disagree whole heardtely that slow speed means less serious injuries. I have seen car park accident claims (less than 10mph) where the injured party developed a chronic pain syndrome & cant work anymore. Conversley I've seen people forciably thrown out of cars at 70mph+ and walk away with scratches and not gone to A&E. There are way to many factors other than speed which determine a car accident and speed alone is an over simplification of the issue. My view is that driver stadards / training is he biggest issue by far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted December 6, 2011 Report Share Posted December 6, 2011 At last, the voice of reason. 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.