Evil Sid Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 It could also be due to people being lulled into a false sense of security. Because the roads are listed as 20mph people may tend to think that they have more time to cross them and that it is safer for the little ones to play in them. An accident at any speed can be fatal if you happen to fall the wrong way. What is needed is for EVERYONE to obey the rules of the road. That said motorist who habitually speed in thirty limits are not really going to take much notice of twenty limits. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 I completely agree Evils !! Interesting links Baz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 Is Lt Kije an alias for Rodk? Same sort of logic and denial of popular opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodk Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 Rod.... I'll be putting that "clutching at straws" picture up if you carry on!! the overall casualty figures for York show a substantial increase not only in deaths, but also serious casualties..... and that is with a 20mph limit in force on many residential roads..... I thought you said the 20 limits would reduce casualties???? Baz York hasn't rolled out its wide-area 20mph limits yet! Hence it is not possible to attribute any increase in casualties to an intervention not yet implemented. Regards Rod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 ....OK, may be so in York. But on your own website in the press releases, a "Celebratory" Rod King stated "In Portsmouth casualties fell 22% when roads went from 30 to 20mph.".... you never stated then if that figure only included 30mph roads that fell to 20mph roads.... if the 22% you stated includes ALL roads then you can't claim that the 20 limits contibuted to the drop in casualties Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodk Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 ....OK, may be so in York. But on your own website in the press releases, a "Celebratory" Rod King stated "In Portsmouth casualties fell 22% when roads went from 30 to 20mph.".... you never stated then if that figure only included 30mph roads that fell to 20mph roads.... if the 22% you stated includes ALL roads then you can't claim that the 20 limits contibuted to the drop in casualties Baz Just to clarify the 22% reduction in Portsmouth was on the roads which were previously 30mph and were then set to 20mph. The similar reduction in Warrington was on the roads which were previously 30mph and were then set to 20mph. Rod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdrianR Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 However the drop in Warrington might have been connected with the drop in vehicles actually using the same. Where did those cars go? Was the drop in percentage terms the same as the drop in vehicular traffic overrall? In which case in real terms there was no drop. Did the non 20mph roads see an increase in casualties to reflect the higher percentage of road use of those avoiding the 20mph zones? if so then all that has happened is that the same has moved. When everywhere is 20mph, then thats the time to tell if its made a contribution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodk Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 Adrian and other "straw clutchers" We have been over this before. If you care to ask Warrington officers, read the on-line reports, speak to councillors or whatever, you will find that the reduction in Warrington 20mph pilot casualties was compared to other areas over the same time period in Warrington. In London they found no increase in casualty on adjacent roads when implementing 20mph limits so the idea of "casualty migration" to other roads is not substantiated. The fact is that the debate in Warrington has already been had and councillors from all parties and officers were in agreement with the roll-out of 20mph limits as default for residential roads. This was further enhanced by the LSTF which provides central government funding and part of this was 20mph limits. Even further supported by DfT changes to make it easier for local authorities to put in 20mph limits. Surveys consistently support 20mph limits for residential roads. Now 8m people live in authorities committed to 20mph limits for residential roads. Regards Rod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 If there is "a pilot" in Portsmouth; why don't they await the full analysis of the results? Meanwhile, Warrington could be using their scarce financial resources to resurface our pot holed road system. I'm convincerd folk will just ignore these new signs anyway, and can't see the Police having the resources to monitor compliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdrianR Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 Not straw clutching at all. In the 20mph pilot, there were a reduced number of casualties. However there was also reduced traffic volume. less cars = less casualties makes perfect sense. This therefore questions wether the reduction was as a result of 20mph or as a result of people taking alternative routes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodk Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 Not straw clutching at all. In the 20mph pilot, there were a reduced number of casualties. However there was also reduced traffic volume. less cars = less casualties makes perfect sense. This therefore questions wether the reduction was as a result of 20mph or as a result of people taking alternative routes. From the Warrington report :- 5.19 Overall the data collected would indicate that the presence of 20mph speed limits on the three key areas has not encouraged drivers to divert onto the network surrounding the trial roads. Rod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 but since the introduction of 20 limits across the country, casualty figures may well have increased according to the DpT "The DpT report also makes gloomy reading for those who believe that 20 mph speed limits may be the solution to the problem. The biggest increase in accident numbers nationally occurred in 20 mph zones where there were 25% more accidents than in 2010. All other built up areas – with speed limits of 30 and 40 mph – showed a small fall in accident rates." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wahl Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 AdrianR In the 20mph pilot, there were a reduced number of casualties. However there was also reduced traffic volume. less cars = less casualties makes perfect sense. This therefore questions wether the reduction was as a result of 20mph or as a result of people taking alternative routes true 5.19 Overall the data collected would indicate that the presence of 20mph speed limits on the three key areas has not encouraged drivers to divert onto the network surrounding the trial roads this was a false statement as drivers did divert ...the council did not measure the traffic flow. neither did they conduct a full residents survey. they succumbed to the fiction generated by certain parties. 20 schemes are proven to be costly, unmanageable, ignored by most including police and only imposed as they are seen as politically correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodk Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 Whal Are you claiming that the council did not measure traffic flows and that statement 5.19 in their report is false? If so it could be a case of "mal-administration" and potentially a criminal offence. May I suggest that you either take this up with the council as a serious matter or retract your claim. Regards Rod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RingoDave Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 All I can say is that I, and others I know, avoided Long Lane while the 20 mph limit was in force. As I never used it in that time, I don't know whether the traffic flow fell or increased, but suspect the former. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted July 19, 2012 Report Share Posted July 19, 2012 At the time of the trial (and for a few years before); I had an office on Warrington Business Park which is on Long Lane and I can say for certain that traffic was a lot lighter than it was before the trial (I moved the office a month before it ended so don't use it much now).... the trip from my house in Westbrook did get easier towards the end as there did appear to be less traffic using it. I used to use cruise control set at 20 going down there and was overtaken on more than one occasion by other impatient car drivers including one Police car (without lights and sirens) and never once saw any form of speed checking or Police prescence trying to catch anyone going over 20...... personally I still reckon that Long Lane (and Park Road) was included in the pilot to hide the actual number of road signs (and the costs involved) during the trial..... instead of a 20 "Zone" as it was during the trial; we ended up with 20 "streets" each with the need for seperate sets of expensive road signs where they met up with the 30 through roads Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted July 19, 2012 Report Share Posted July 19, 2012 Just out of interest.... how much does one 20/30 mph road sign cost, anyone know ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wahl Posted July 19, 2012 Report Share Posted July 19, 2012 WBC report that “the end of trial traffic flow data in the town centre cannot be used as a quantifiable value for assessment.” WBC report also stated that “11 of the Town Centre collisions involved buses (approximately half), with 6 of these incidents resulting in 11 bus passenger casualties. In total 20 of the 37 casualties recorded during the trial period were injured in a collision that involved a bus, with the remaining 9 casualties being vulnerable road users or car occupants. It would appear that multiple injuries to bus passengers have therefore skewed the injury figures, leading to a marked increase in injured parties”. This effectively rules out any assessment of the trial in the town centre. So the only reason for inclusion in the scheme appears to be political. WBC report states that “There has been an overall reduction of 13.7 collisions over and above that which might have been expected, which was mainly achieved in the Orford trial area where there was a reduction of 11.2 injury collisions and 6 casualties. …… Park Road area also showed a slight reduction, however; there was a low number of injury collisions in the before study period, therefore changes are sensitive to minor variations.” The WBC report acknowledges that “Park Road did show some changes in that westbound at the Lingley Road end showed a 10.5% increase in traffic flow whereas the eastbound an 18.6% reduction. “ This was only to be expected and the reduction in incidents at Park Road can probably be attributed to traffic avoiding the area. The report stated “On Park Road there was a significant reduction in cycle injuries prior to the start of the trial. This has resulted in little change in the number of cyclist injuries during the trial itself; however it is very encouraging to note that there were no cyclist injuries in the Park Road area during the 20mph trial period.“ This indicates that the lack of vehicular traffic from the road may be a contributing factor. However there were no statistics about cycle injuries on roads outside the trial area that could be used to assess the validity of the trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodk Posted July 20, 2012 Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 Wahl,Baz Very much last year's news I am afraid, or even the year before last. Rod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey_man Posted July 20, 2012 Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 The thing is though Rod that you continue to ignore every single piece of evidence that points to the fact that 20mph limits seem to have little or no impact on road safety. Idiots will drive around like idiots no matter what the speed limit. Traffic is displaced because of the schemes. And in some cases accidents increase. Those are the facts and you can continue to claim they are irrelevant as much as you like but they won't go away. I'd have a lot more sympathy for the whole idea if it had clear objectives in terms of reductions in accidents but you appear not to have any, so it's impossible to gauge whether the schemes will be successful. We're all for road safety but this seems to be an expensive red herring. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted July 20, 2012 Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 It would appear to be a pity that the trials weren't a bit longer and we could have saved an awful lot of unecessary expense now that the data is pointing towards the 20mph limits not making much difference.... Of course things may change in the future, but still an expensive risk.... Now how about a campaign to get bikes to have insurance and to use the bike lanes that are also expensively provided that most seem not to want to use??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodk Posted July 20, 2012 Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 The thing is though Rod that you continue to ignore every single piece of evidence that points to the fact that 20mph limits seem to have little or no impact on road safety. Idiots will drive around like idiots no matter what the speed limit. Traffic is displaced because of the schemes. And in some cases accidents increase. Those are the facts and you can continue to claim they are irrelevant as much as you like but they won't go away. I'd have a lot more sympathy for the whole idea if it had clear objectives in terms of reductions in accidents but you appear not to have any, so it's impossible to gauge whether the schemes will be successful. We're all for road safety but this seems to be an expensive red herring. Grey man. Well where is the evidence? I see lots of opinion but very little evidence. If you are wishing to dispute the laws of physics then it had better be pretty good! Rod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodk Posted July 20, 2012 Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 Now how about a campaign to get bikes to have insurance and to use the bike lanes that are also expensively provided that most seem not to want to use??? I think if you want to start such a campaign then you would need to address this at Parliament because changing legislation is a national government issue. Best regards Rod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey_man Posted July 20, 2012 Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 Rod. The evidence from existing schemes is that it makes no difference or makes things worse. Those are certainly the reports from Portsmouth and most recently York. That is not my opinion but hard fact. So it is up to you to provide evidence that it will achieve any reductions in accidents and also down to you to set objectives to make a case for the scheme. And you simply haven't. What reductions would you expect to see in Warrington? How many serious accidents are there on Warrington's residential roads under a 30 mph regime? How many do you foresee there will be after the introduction of the scheme? What is the current average speed on Warrington's residential roads and what will it be after? Evidence from York would suggest that it was below 24 mph before the scheme there was introduced and fell by around 1mph. Will Warrington be any different? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodk Posted July 20, 2012 Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 Well Grey Man Lets take a look at exactly what you have said :- The evidence from existing schemes is that it makes no difference or makes things worse. Those are certainly the reports from Portsmouth and most recently York. That is not my opinion but hard fact. The evidence from Portsmouth is that on roads which were previously 30mph there was a reduction in casualties when they were set to 20mph. This is clearly stated in the independent report by Atkins for DfT. This has also been referenced by DfT. The only reported casualties in Portsmouth for 2011 from the DfT have been for the whole of Portsmouth this includes the M27, M275, A27 and countless other roads which have a 30mph, 40mph, 50mph, 60mph and 70mph limit. To be frank, I do not know what whether there was an increase in casualties between 2010 and 2011 on Portsmouth 20mph roads. Even if there was one, then it would be important to understand the possible causes rather than immediatley jumping to any specific conclusion. Hence on the FACTS presented so far there is no evidence that there has been an increase in casualties on 20mph limited roads in Portsmouth Your comment about York supporting your theory is completely ridiculous because quite simply York has not started its roll-out of wide area 20mph limits. In fact as the phasing of the roll-out was only decided by the council recently it seems rather far fetched to say that a decision made in 2012 to implement 20mph limits could be responsible for casualties in 2011. Or am I missing something? Let's take the next comment :- So it is up to you to provide evidence that it will achieve any reductions in accidents and also down to you to set objectives to make a case for the scheme. And you simply haven't. Well this has already been done by the council with its pilots which showed a substantial decrease in casualties. It also demonstrated reductions in speed and these met the objectives for creating a better environment with no disbenefits Your next comment asks :- What reductions would you expect to see in Warrington? How many serious accidents are there on Warrington's residential roads under a 30 mph regime? How many do you foresee there will be after the introduction of the scheme? What is the current average speed on Warrington's residential roads and what will it be after? Evidence from York would suggest that it was below 24 mph before the scheme there was introduced and fell by around 1mph. Will Warrington be any different? Well it is you that seems to want to challenge a policy that has been developed over the last 5 years in Warrington. During that time it has been well debated, tested with substantial pilots and supported by all three parties. If you can point to any other council initiative that has been developed with as much care and attention then I would be very pleased for you to point it out. The fact is that you and the others who constantly oppose the idea of travelling just a little slower between the congestion points on our roads have failed to convince sufficient people of the merits of your opinions. Looking at the way you interpret second or third hand information then I am not surprised. This initiative and strategy has been developed and decided and now is being implemented. I don't need to defend anything and certainly not against your questionable opinions. The pilots showed that 20mph limits will bring speed reductions. That will make our communities better places to be and will have a wide set of benefits beyond casualty reduction. At least one good sign is that you have not resorted to your usual cycling comments when posting about this subject. Goodness, anyone would think that the idea of Brits using two wheels on roads (even French ones) is becoming popular. Best regards 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.