20 mph

[P J]

I firmly believe that slowing to 20 will increase the potential for accidents because the pedestrians will take more risks thinking that cars will be slower thus giving them time to dash across the road.

it happens at 30, so it's definitely going to happen at 20.

Also, being hit by a car at any speed is dangerous, can break bones and even kill if hit in the right place.

And when you have drivers texting and using their mobiles at 30 plus, what will they be doing at 20? Reading War and Peace?

 

Do you know there have been some stupid posts regarding this subject and a great many sensiblbe ones, sadly Peter yours falls into neither category it belongs with the truly moronic..... to suggest that the pedestrians will take more care if the drivers are going hell for leather , which is the the reverse logic of your gob***te statement, is beyond me. Make 30 roads 70s theyll keep their whits about them then. Have a think.

[Bill]

No there is some logic behind what Peter says. It?s rather like driving on the motorway where it gets tiring when constantly driving at a set speed.

 

Bill

[observer]

Do they still give the kids the green cross code? Perhaps adult classes would help too?!

[Bill]

I don?t recall seeing anything on TV these days that resembles the Green Cross Code campaign.

 

Maybe they do have something like it in the schools?

 

Bill

[P J]

I don?t recall seeing anything on TV these days that resembles the Green Cross Code campaign.

 

Bill

 

So how quick exactly could Tuffty run, and if memory serves the Tuffty club didn't do Billy Badger any favours

[rodk]

The biggest reduction in casualties in Portsmouth was 37% for passengers.

 

Rod

[Bazj]

The biggest reduction in casualties in Portsmouth was 37% for passengers.

 

Rod

 

car passengers, bus passengers, train passengers, two-on-a-bike-with-no-lights passengers???

[rodk]

Car and bus.

[Bazj]

ahhhh...... (the last one was for PJ Callands though!!)

[P J]

He bothered his arse and won.

 

 

the last one was for the terminal whingers, not my place to point you out just to suggest next time you take a more active stance.

[Peter T]

I don?t recall seeing anything on TV these days that resembles the Green Cross Code campaign.

 

Bill

 

So how quick exactly could Tuffty run, and if memory serves the Tuffty club didn't do Billy Badger any favours

 

And you criticise my post?

 

I assume that where you live/drive, that all pedestrians use the crossings and never take a chance crossing the road?

Also that you never see drivers using their mobiles or changing their radio station or changing a CD?

Sounds like utopia to me. Just a point, YOU said 70, not me. I would be quite happy if drivers obeyed the 30, and that pedestrians were educated in awareness.

[P J]

s

[disgusted]

I see Rod has managed to escape the clutches of the NE authority that was relyng on his "expertise" long enough to put up a couple of three word answers.

 

Quite amazing really, that he has always been so quick to post long diatrabes in the past, yet since his major points have been so easily and coherently rubbished lately, he resorts to "being busy"

 

I think the term is "busted"

[rodk]

All

 

I was on the train using a mobile phone for my responses. Hence the brevity of my replies.

 

WBC now has a policy of rolling out 20mph limits in residential roads across the borough.

 

The government and most establishment organisations recognise the benefits of 20mph speed limits and support them.

 

Town halls around the country see 20mph speed limits for residential roads as a key intervention to save lives and money, increase active travel, reduce pollution and noise, and make all our streets a better place to be.

 

Directors of Public Health see it as a key factor in freeing up beds and resources for other users and making our streets more favourable for active and healthy travel.

 

Most people on this newsgroup do accept that 20mph is the right speed limit for residential streets with exceptions for roads where a 30mph or 40mph limit can be justified.

 

There may be disagreement about the exceptions but this is a matter for the local traffic authorities to decide on the basis of the evidence available. In doing so they will take responsibility for any consequences of those decisions.

 

What is there to argue about?

 

Best regards

 

 

 

Rod

[Peter T]

The problem being, that every time a crusade starts, (political correctness being an example), it snowballs for the simple reason that those who would be opposed to it are usually unaware or don't believe it will happen and therefore ignore it.

As it escalates, the politicians start to think that it will be a vote winner and so start to support it.

And now we have a situation where the council (employed by "us")

have made all this a rule to do as they see fit regardless of the public.

Not exactly democratic.

 

And you wonder why people question your comments. The days of obeying without question are long gone, unless you are a politician.

 

I have a question though. Have the red signs showing accident stats, made any difference?

[rodk]

Peter

 

This topic has been debated on this forum for several years. Most of those posting now have taken part in that debate.

 

In that time they have had access to their elected councillors and I am aware that many of the councillors have been following the debate on this newsgroup.

 

The politicians are in touch with their constituents and know that the speed of motor veicles on residential roads is a concern.

 

In our polls we find that 80% of people asked at random are in favour.

 

For my part I have always found councillors interested in what their constituents think and need.

 

People living in the pilot areas also voted with their feet by slowing down when driving as evidenced by the reported change in speeds and also the experience of residents and posters here.

 

Total 20 works because it does follow the due democratic process. This is not something handed down as a rule from central government, but a Warrington aspiration, being decided by Warrington people through that democratic process and through their own actions.

 

Most importantly it recognises the democracy that is implicit in residents having a say on how the space outside their house is shared.

 

So, if you really do have problems with democracy as it has been shown to be working in this case, then maybe start another Topic on Democracy, or stand for election as a councillor yourself.

 

For me and many who want to have a better quality of life on their and our streets we will use the current democratic process to influence outcomes that meet those aspirations.

 

Best regards

 

 

Rod

[disgusted]

What is there to argue about?

 

Best regards

 

 

 

Rod

Rod, I would doubt there are more than a small handful who don't agree on 20mph in residential streets.

 

Sadly you and your vociferous campaign, have turned arterial routes like Long Lane into "residential streets", when they quite clearly are nothing of the kind.

 

THAT is what there is to argue about, it's wrong, and the overwhelming majority totally and 100% disagree with you. You see the level of opposition here, on the news pages, and on the other Warrington forum, and yet still you'll continue to spout your lie that the vast majority agree with you, when they do nothing of the sort.

 

I see you're also still ignoring the rubbishing of your environmental benefits you claimed from 20mph speed limits. I take it that's one argument you do concede defeat on?

[disgusted]

 

In our polls we find that 80% of people asked at random are in favour.

Ah yes, polls eh.

 

I presume the question was - do you favour 20mph on residential streets?

 

Now, as I have said, I think most would agree with that, in fact I'm surprised the figure is as low as 80% tbh.

 

However, ask those same people if they think Long Lane should be 20mph, or Callands Road, or Cromwell Avenue set at 30mph (at least the Winwick to Asda stretch), and I think you'd find a very different answer. But then that would require a degree of honesty from the 20mph nutters, far better to hide it all behind "residential streets" and then use that as a catch all.

[disgusted]

 

In that time they have had access to their elected councillors and I am aware that many of the councillors have been following the debate on this newsgroup.

 

The politicians are in touch with their constituents and know that the speed of motor veicles on residential roads is a concern.

 

Don't even start on the powelessness of councillors, and their inability to listen to the wishes of theeir constituents.

 

See the farce that was the Asda roundabout for one thing. I spent hours emailing back and forth with these powerless and clueless people, even went to one of their weekly meets at Westbrook library.

 

Why did we get that roundabout? Becasue two people complained about having to walk all the way to the red bridge to cross. You know, a matter of 100 metres or so. And for that, council policy in Warrington dictates that pedestrians have priority over cyclists, who have priority over motorists. And when a "problem" is highlighted that goes against this doctrine, then it must be addressed - apparently.

 

So for the sake of two lazy * people*, WBC spent ?1,000,000 on removing a perfectly functional roundabout, and putting in lights that cause chaos instead.

 

That's how responsive to public feelings the council is. So please, don't go there.

 

* * watch your language fats... ta Dizzy

[Dizzy]

Rod ...... could you answer my question that I asked yesterday please)

 

 

Can I ask which Northeast LA is planning on implementing the 'Total 20' plan ?

 

Maybe we should all go back to the beginning as we seem stuck in a rut over the disagreement re pollution/fuel/revs etc.

 

So What WAS the original main objective re the possible implementation of a 20 mph speed limit ?

 

Was polution/noise/fuel consumption etc a consideration in the first place or have these just been brought in as a side arguement in favour of the reduction?

 

Was the original objective just to somehow reduce the number of pedestrians killed or injured by being hit by cars ?

 

I for one am starting to lose all focus on what it's all really about mainly because these other faltering statistics and reasonings are completely clouding the issue

 

Thanks..... I will read and try and comprehend all the other comments fully after I have had a lie down in a dark room

[Bill]

Fatshaft?s comments just about sums up the situation. The poll that I carried out confirms the 80% plus figure but that?s not what the arguments about.

 

People here are not stupid and know how this blanket speed reduction will roll out with key routes like Long Lane being included. From what I?ve read, the council actually wanted to apply the limit there but thankfully, the police have applied some common sense advised them not to do it.

 

The blanket reduction is at the heart of this argument and Rod King, with his carefully chosen words, skirts around this issue, claiming the road planners are ultimately responsible for these decisions. This failure to come out and condemn inappropriate limits affecting the motorist is tantamount to supporting it and explains why there?s so much hostility against his plans.

 

Bill

[Peter T]

There's none as blind as those who don't want to see.

 

The problem Rod, is that every time you find a cyclist/20mph thread on your regular checks of the Forum, you just can't stop yourself from giving your twopen'orth.

 

Just because YOU have cllrs who will listen to your ramblings, doesn't mean that the rest of us do.

No doubt your surveys are loaded to get the right answer, as most surveys are, it doesn't mean that the views that you receive look at the broader picture.

You are like a well worn record churning out the same rhetoric all the time. Start a campaign to get the speed drivers off the road and get one going to teach pedestrians and cyclists to be more careful and look where they are going. Or is that too much like hard work?

You only see what you want to. I don't think anyone has knocked back the "estate" speed of 20. Read the posts.

[Dizzy]

All

 

WBC now has a policy of rolling out 20mph limits in residential roads across the borough.

 

 

ROD

 

THEY HAVE NOT ASKED ALL RESIDENTS FOR THEIR OPINIONS ON A BLANKET ROLLOUT...... THEY HAVE HAD NO FULL CONSULTATION...THEY HAVE NOT EVALUATED ALL THE ROADS FOR SPEED, USAGE, DRIVER HABITS BLAH BLAH LIKE THEY DID WITH THE PILOT STUDY ROADS SO THEY CAN'T AND SHOULDN'T **BLUMMIN **WELL JUST DO IT REGARDLES !!!!!.... regards

 

** Dizzy watch your language ** ... thanks Dizzy

[Dizzy]

caps lock was on by mistake... but I'm not typing it again and I have since deleted my own gentle swear word

[rodk]

Hi Dizzy

 

"Can I ask which Northeast LA is planning on implementing the 'Total 20' plan ?"

 

Well it has already been implemented in Newcastle. They did have advisory 20mph limits on all residential roads but about a year ago decided to convert all of these into mandatory limits.

 

The LA that approached us was Hartlepool B C. About half the size of Warrington.

 

"So What WAS the original main objective re the possible implementation of a 20 mph speed limit ?"

 

Well the main aims were to provide a clear indication that on streets where people live then 30mph was not a "fit for purpose" limit. This was for many reasons, but mainly the risks to vulnerable road users on such roads. Their casualties are usually unclustered and unpredictable, and so cannot be avoided by specific engineering measures.

 

Portsmouth was the first town to introduce this in 2008. They did this because they realised the benefits of 20mph zones which although effective were very expensive. Seeing the need to set 20mph limits on as many roads as possible they used a change in DfT guidance in 2006 to implement on a wide area basis.

 

At the same time it was realised that lower speeds would actually provide additional benefits to residents including lower noise and pollution, less intimidating traffic and could provide the foundation for people to walk or cycle more if they so wished.

 

In Warrington, it was also connected with the experiences in Hilden where in the early 1990's a 30kph limit was introduced across the town.

 

The example of Portsmouth has led many people and local authorities to look at authority-wide implementations of 20mph on residential roads.

 

Of course there is a debate about what should classed as non-residetial. We simply say that the default where people live or are in evidence as vulnerable road users should be 20mph. Exceptions will all be down to local conditions and that this is the ultimate responsibility of the Highway Authority for the street in question.

 

"Was polution/noise/fuel consumption etc a consideration in the first place or have these just been brought in as a side arguement in favour of the reduction?"

 

I think that the primary motivation was reducing road casualties. However over the same period there has been an increased concern about pollution in our towns.

 

Whilst we accept that in steady state driving 20mph is probably the same as 30mph over a mix of cars, on many residential roads the actual speed varies between 0mph and the speed limit. Therefore taking into account a fluctuating speed that one which is capped at 20mph will always use less fuel for acceleration than one capped at 30mph.

 

In addition by drivers being more aware of the need to ravel slower where people are then this results in smoother driving. And of course the biggest opportunity for reduced pollution is modal shift which is far more difficult with 30mph streets.

 

"Was the original objective just to somehow reduce the number of pedestrians killed or injured by being hit by cars ?"

 

I think the primary motivation was reducing pedestrian and cyclist casualties. But it is recognised that the benefits also extend to reducing in-car casualties as well.

 

Certainly it is pedestrians who are the vulnerable road users most often killed or injured. For every one cycle casualty there are 4 pedestrian casualties. hence pedestrains, partiuculary child pedestrians were seen as the primary target of the initiative.

 

But the main outcome of "Total 20" is the debate which surrounds it and the realisation that :-

 

a) Our roads are the biggest cause of death for children

The speed of traffic so often discourages people walking or cycling

c) Journey times are primarily determined by time stopped rather than maximum speed. hence there may may be very few benefits from driving faster and greater disadvantages.

d) That even small drops in the average speed of traffic can result in a reduction in casualties for all road users.

 

I think that most of all it tends to "normalise" our relationship with the motor car. It neither vilifies it (or drivers) or puts it on a pedestal. Its simply an objective look at how we share our streets and how we can do that fairly, equitably and safely.

 

Best regards

 

Rod