grey_man Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 Rod. Your own pilot schemes in Warrington showed no reductions in casualties. The police have told you they're not interested. And you haven't set any targets for reductions in casualties for a very good reason. Meanwhile cars are not efficient at the speeds you and the council wants them to run. They are on the road for longer. And the local bus company has told you that the new limits will increase pollution. I prefer it when you just argue that the reason you want these limits introduced is because you know what's best for everybody else. At least that's true. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodk Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 Grey Man Rather than just telling us your thoughts as if they were facts, can you please present some evidence for your claims. I prefer it when you argue with facts that have references rather than mere opinions. So just taking your statements in the last post please provide references if you want a response. Rod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodk Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 PS They weren't my pilot schemes, but the council's. They did them in order to find out whether they should implement across the whole town. Their opinion and decision was that they should. This was supportted by the previous Lib/dem/Conservative coalition and the current Labour administration. Rod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey_man Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 Rod You've read the results of the pilot schemes as well as I have. There was no statistically significant overall reduction in casualties in spite of significant reductions in traffic as people sought to avoid the zones and in one of the three trial areas there was an increase. FACT. Get it yourself off the council website. And even though they weren't your trials, you got a nice mention for your trouble. Cars emit about 10% more CO2 at 20 mph than at 30 mph and have a fuel consumption of around 5.8 miles per gallon less according to the AA. And yes I know they campaign on behalf of motorists but if you won't accept the arguments of campaign groups, you'll have to disappear in a puff of logic. Remember to start your reply with 'yeah but no but' then go on to tell us about how the police are going to enforce the 20 mph limit when they can't stop idiots breaking the 30mph limit in residential streets, tell us what your targets are for Warrington in terms of casualty reductions and how you came up with a figure of £5.9 million in savings when the council's own pilot showed the limits didn't reduce serious casualties and the police have told you they are not interested in trying to enforce them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted January 8, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 Rod, I have a better idea that will both reduce road accidents and also cut polution almost completely, if all motorists remove the engines from their vehicles and fit bars across the rear and front of the vehicles they can then push the cars along the roads, the only unforunate negative side effect from this will be the cost to the NHS dealing with back and muscle strain problems, Hey!, but you can't win em all!. :D PS. I forgot to mention the bar across the front of the vehicle will be required for reversing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 Hey you also forgot to mention all the added exercise 'motorists' would gain from that way too Algy. Would all roads have to be straight to for any lone drivers though ?.... ......ahh ignore that, I forgot that CAR SHARE is promoted these days too so one (or more) pushes and one steers eh ? I wonder what penalties could be imposed on those pushing too slow or too fast though. My mind is just about to go into overdrive now so I will stop You gotta laugh though eh or life just gets tooooo serious and drives you mad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey_man Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 * Pops by to see if Rod has responded to those points. Realises he never will. Pops out* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodk Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 Grey Man * Pops by to see if Rod has responded to those points. Realises he never will. Pops out* Why respond. They haven't included any references and have been refuted before. I have better things to do with my time than repeating the same known and referenced information to you over and over again. Bye Bye 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey_man Posted January 12, 2013 Report Share Posted January 12, 2013 Oh Rod. You big spoilsport. Just explain why the council pilot showed no reduction in casualties and what the police think then. You're the one who wants the rest of us to spend three quarters of a million pounds on road signs rather than social care or schools. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Which one was Rod? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey_man Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Just for a second I thought he might have responded. Come on Rod. Forget the question about the police then. Just answer the one about the 18 month pilots showing no reductions in casualties despite the fact that tens of thousands of car journeys were diverted elsewhere. Go on, give it a go. You might feel better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 the signs are going up all around whitecross and near St Barnabas church now ready for the next bit of money wasting that could have been spent on schools or the elderly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wahl Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Just like the cycle tracks being dumped on Lingley Green avenue to facilitate the thousands of cyclists and millions of pedestrians who will use them For a council who claims to have a twelve million shortage it seems someone in the council has not been told to save money. The causes of congestion are not being tackled, just enhanced by a few more useless traffic lights, cycle paths on main roads and divertionary road graffitti courtesy of cllr dirir and her mismanagers . Perhaps sacking them all would go some way to reducing the sghortage. What a bunch of uselessness there is now in wbc td 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freeborn John Posted January 19, 2013 Report Share Posted January 19, 2013 I was once told that councils have a financial stock take at this time of year with an eye on next years funding from central government. And that while they prudently keep a little cash for unexpected costs during the year, come this time they often deem it wise to get it spent before the government spot it and adjust the councils funding downwards for the coming financial year. I thought this was doubtful at the time, but more years than not I've noticed these lightweight projects popping up in the new year. They tarmacked every bus stop in the town red one year. Another time it was cycle paths to nowhere, or those funny flat knock down signs on centre reservations, or ivy fencing at bad roundabouts. It does make me wonder... 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.