20 mph

[Peter T]

I was at the same meeting as Rod and Paul and I don't know what Paul is on about either.

 

 

Sounds like a Labour chums together comment.

[Dizzy]

I have always considered Clr K to be a chap with brains and also one who is not afraid to air his views openly and honestly so I find it hard to believe that he would say or refer to something that hadn't happened or been said Geoff.

 

Of course the paper could have always got it wrong but had they done that then I would have thought Clr K would have asked for a correction.

[Dizzy]

Wow Diz, on a roll? I like it.

 

Thank you Peter

[Geoffrey Settle]

Hogwash - since when has Rod ever expressed a political view point I don't know what his politics or nor do i need to know it is irrelevant in this context - 20mph is not a political issue. For me it's largely about safety - pure and simple.

[observer]

Are you really that fick Geoff; of course it's "a political" issue - anything involving two or more points of view IS "political".

[Geoffrey Settle]

I'd have thought that it was an independent political issue - unless one party is for cars, one for bike, one for motor bikes, one for pedestrians, one for bus users, etc

[observer]

Still "political" - all "party politics" will do is jump on the bigger bandwagon.

[AdrianR]

Id love to know how many accidents that Rod K thinks the council will be brought in as an additional party in view of the speed limit as opposed to the negligent driver / pedestrian causing the said accident? In 23 years of dealing with the outcome of accidents, i havent seen that happen. Now in light of that was such a comment designed to worry the council or was it a tactic I wonder.

[Dizzy]

23 years is a long time Adrian but then again claimants jump on every newly available bandwaggon these days so only time will tell

 

At which point though your honours, I would like to draw attention to my ealier comment of .....

 

If the local council reduces the local limits, which in turn results in a death or injury due to a false sense of security and feeling of safeness by a pedestrian/adult/child/cyclist/driver/whoever then couldn't the same arguement be used there against them (or even against yourselves)? ie if you hadn’t reduced them then this may not have happened as the young cyclist would not have been riding on the road or playing on the street etc etc etc?

 

 

With your knowledge Adrian... could that actually happen too (god forbid that any injury or death did occur because of any changes of course which make people believe that our roads will be (or now are, for those that have already been changed)) now a safer place to drive, ride, walk, cycle and play.

 

Threat, tactic or truth I would have thought the council's own solicitor would be asked to look into it and any possible implications and should be advising accordingly having looked at all possible scenarios .... perhaps... 'allegidely' !

[Peter T]

 

Threat, tactic or truth I would have thought the council's own solicitor would be asked to look into it and any possible implications and should be advising accordingly having looked at all possible scenarios .... perhaps... 'allegidely' !

 

 

Perhaps the fear/threat of redundancies brought the rubber stamp out?

[AdrianR]

I wouldn't say never, but most judges ive been before wouldn't entertain it. It would take a huge accident causing horrific injuries mainly caused by the victim themselves rather than an insured driver to have a go at a council for a speed limit issue. Most first instance and indeed regional appeal courts wouldn't entertain it on the vat majority of cases when an insured driver is easier to blame. Its only when you are talking multi million pound cases might an insurer / claimant seek to try to off load some onto the council. However the current Appeal judiciary both loath to make new law which opens floodgates and don't like trivial or speculative arguments.

 

I would hope the councils legal advice team would also form this view.

[rodk]

A few comments.

 

The "false sense of security" argument has been alive ever since speed limits were introduced.

 

Before 1934 there was no speed limit for light motor vehicles and the same argument was put by those who were against implementing the 30mph limit in buil-up areas.

 

A speed limit is a very clear indication to motor vehicle drivers of the maximum speed that society expects them to use on that road. It endorses that with making it an offence to exceed it. This both can incur direct consequences in terms of penalties for speeding and also will be taken into account when apportioning liability of any driver involved in a collision.

 

The "false sense of security" argument against implmenting appropriate speed limits or traffic control could equally be applied to 30mph, 40mph, 50mph, 60mph and 70mph limits.

 

With regard to comments made about "labour chums", then recognition should be made of the fact that wide-area 20mph limits are being implemented by local authorities under all varieties of party control. The largest implementation is being completed by Conservative controlled Lancashire. In Warrington it was a LibDeb/Conservative coalition (with Labour support) that made the decision to roll it out across the whole borough in october 2010.

 

In Liverpool it is a Labour controlled council implementing their 20mph limits. And in Bright & Hove it is a Green led council. This is one initiative that attracts support and an imperative for action from all political parties.

 

Coming back to the issue of setting speed limits, this is a responsibility of the particular Traffic Authority and in Warrington this is Warrington Borough Council. The DfT and government have said many times that central government is NOT responsible for speed limits and this is entirely the responsibility of local Traffic authorities. However, it does provide guidance and this includes support for 20mph for residential streets which are not "major though routes". In setting speed limits (as almost any other policy) the local Traffic authority will need to be aware of all the appropriate government guidance and potential for liability. In needs to take account of a wide range of needs, particularly for "vulnerable road users" (as specified by DfT guidance and its own Local Transport Plan).

 

 

My best regards

 

 

 

Rod

[observer]

... and how much will all this cost? Just so we know how much public money is to be wasted.

[rodk]

It was Oscar Wilde in "Lady Windermere's Fan" who gave the following line to Lord Darlington :-

 

"What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing."

 

and so for a cynic any cost associated with an initiative that he perceives will be wasted is bound to be too much.

 

Clearly if any rational debate is to be had on 20mph limits and road danger reduction in general then this must include an objective assessment of "value" as well as "cost".

 

Well the pilot exercise involving the experimental traffic orders in Orford give us some indication of both the costs and the benefits. These were presented to the council on October 2010 and helped inform the members in making their decision to roll 20mph limits out across the borough.

 

 

Whilst not being the only benefit, costs of collisions and casualties are the most identifiable and there already exists mechanisms for placing a value on any reduction. The results also took account of a borough wide reduction in casualties over the same period. Even taking this into account there was a net reduction in collisions from 28.2 to 17 and a reduction in casualties from 29 to 23. The casualty reductions were 1.5 serious and 4.5 slight.

 

The community cost of casualties is estimated by DfT to be £189,210 for each serious casualty and £14,590 for any slight casualty. The community saving from the Orford reduction was therefore £350,000. This cost is borne by emergency services, local employers, health services, etc.

 

The Council calculated that for the whole pilot then an average First Year Rate of Return in terms of first year casualty reduction benefit against costs of implementation was 547%. That means that for every £100 of cost of implementation there was a £547 benefit to the community in the first year alone.

 

The cost of road casualties across the whole of Warrington come to some £39m per annum based on 2009 casualty figures. The cost of implementing 20mph limits on the 510km of current 30mph roads in the borough would be £740,000. Whilst there would be some exception to this 510km for roads to be left at 30mph this would not reduce the total cost as exceptions require increased gateway signage at junctions with 20mph roads.

 

The council concluded that having a brough wide 20mph policy would increase compliance and therefore potential benefits.

 

Hence any assessment of the above figures would lead to a conclusion that reducing speed limit has a clear and measurable benefit to the community in casulaty reduction. That is why councillors are so positive about the case for implementing 20mph limits.

 

However, if we are to properly asses the benefits then we should also take into account many other factors such as taking away barriers to active travel with benefits to independent child mobility, aged person mobilty, more economic mobility, etc.

 

There could also be benefits from mode swith from the use of motor vehciles which results in lower pollution levels and indirect health benefits from this.

 

All of these are additional benefits beyond the casualty cost savings.

 

With regard to the disbenefits, then these are minimal. Taking a few extra seconds to get out of a residential area, or even a minute or so crossing Warrington are not going to make a lot of difference to our productivity as a community.

 

Another way of looking at the cost is perhaps to compare it to how much we "waste" on car crashes each year. With £39m for reported casualties and probably another £39m on damage only collisions each year then the £740,000 one-off cost of implementing 20mph limits throughout Warrington is 0.94% of what we "waste" on crashes each and every year.

 

 

 

Best regards

 

Rod

[observer]

I didn't ask for the notional savings, but the actual financial outlay.

[Evil Sid]

There could also be benefits from mode swith from the use of motor vehciles which results in lower pollution levels and indirect health benefits from this.

 

But if the motor vehicles are going slower then they are in the area for a longer period which would actually increase the overall pollution level would it not?

[rodk]

But if the motor vehicles are going slower then they are in the area for a longer period which would actually increase the overall pollution level would it not?

 

See http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/BriefingSheets/pollutionbriefing.pdf

 

for an explanation of how 20mph limits reduce pollution.

 

You may also like to have a look at this Telegrah article on how driving slower can save your money.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2109539/Fuel-prices-Slower-driving-can-save-motorists-500-a-year.html

 

Its not about steady-state fuel consumption which is about 70-100mpg for most cars but about the acceleration and deceleration in real world urban driving. Accelerating to 30mph uses 2.5 times as much fuel as accelerating up to 20mph. Every accleration from 20 up to 30 therefore uses far more fuel than capping the speed at 20mph.

 

 

Regards

 

 

Rod

[Geoffrey Settle]

OBS - Rod did write

The cost of implementing 20mph limits on the 510km of current 30mph roads in the borough would be £740,000

I believe this would be spread over 10 years.

[Bazj]

OBS - Rod did write I believe this would be spread over 10 years.

 

How can you spread the cost of buying and installing signs over 10 years? do we guess until they are bought and paid for then?

 

and as for the usual retorts from Rod.... I would like to borrow one of your phrases if I may Councillor..... "HOGWASH"

[Peter T]

Geoff, such an ardent fan. Could lose you an awful lot of votes. Not exactly paragons of virtue on your patch.

[rodk]

Geoff

 

Well the 10 year period was if only £75,000 being available each year from the road safety budget. It was viewed as a "worst case" scenario. That's why the council is looking for funding from other sources so that it can be rolled out over a much shorter time scale. Most local authorities are managing to do it over 3 years. It is recognised that faster and wider implementation reduces costs and increases compliance. So given the high rate of return on community benefit for expenditure it is very worth while.

 

And of course it is very popular with consituents, See :-

 

http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/BriefingSheets/20mph_are_popular_vote_winners.pdf

 

Best regards

 

Rod

[Bazj]

Did any of our local politicians campaign on a 20 mph ticket at any of our local elections??

[wahl]

Just reading the comments, looks like a repetition of all the old arguments both pro and anti.

 

Basics are propaganda and dubious statistics from minority seems to sway the weak councillors.

No way of actually enforcing reduced sppeds so cost is a waste of money.

How this council can even consider spending money on an unenforceable cause is beyond belief.

there are far more important matters to be dealt with including repairs to road surfaces before the traffic starts to utilise the unused motorway sized paths , better traffic light system to alleviate the multiple congestion gradually overcoming the town, and review of the constrictions and other "safety" measures that actually make the roads more dangerous.

Strikes me a new way of thinking is needed in the town hall.

[observer]

Perhaps "thinking" in that context is an oxymoron?!

[disgusted]

See http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/BriefingSheets/pollutionbriefing.pdf

 

for an explanation of how 20mph limits reduce pollution.

 

You may also like to have a look at this Telegrah article on how driving slower can save your money.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2109539/Fuel-prices-Slower-driving-can-save-motorists-500-a-year.html

 

Its not about steady-state fuel consumption which is about 70-100mpg for most cars but about the acceleration and deceleration in real world urban driving. Accelerating to 30mph uses 2.5 times as much fuel as accelerating up to 20mph. Every accleration from 20 up to 30 therefore uses far more fuel than capping the speed at 20mph.

 

 

Regards

 

 

Rod

Of course the actual accelration is but a small part of a journey, whereas travelling in a lower gear at 20mph will more than outweigh the savings from the loss of accelaration, but then that's not quite such a friendly soundbite eh Rod?

 

Of course been a while since this has been brought up, so Rod once again takes everyone for an idiot, and thinks if he keeps repeating the same rubbish people will start to believe him!