Special report: slow down on 20mph 'victory for common sense'

The Argus: Special report: slow down on 20mph 'victory for common sense' Special report: slow down on 20mph 'victory for common sense'

The brakes have been put on plans to roll out 20mph speed limits across the city.

Brighton and Hove’s Green administration was left with a bloody nose yesterday after opposition councillors forced it to make concessions on a key element of its transport strategy.

It means major roads across the city will remain at 30mph instead of the lower limit the Greens had hoped for.

Last night, pro-motoring campaigners described it as a “victory for common sense”.

JOHN KEENAN reports.

According to the Green Party’s map for the future of Brighton and Hove, yesterday should have seen it change gear towards 20mph limits across nine new swathes of the city.

But opposition Labour and Conservative councillors had other ideas about where the journey should be headed.

They jammed the brake on the plans which could have seen more traffic forced to reduce speed and left the Greens’ plans frayed around the edges.

When councillors met to discuss the second phase of the speed limit roll-out, some expert advice from the council’s officers was ignored, leaving Green members to ponder if this is the end of the road for their radical ideas.

Speed limits were reined in for the first time in April this year when 20mph limits were implemented in Brighton and Hove city centre.

The second part of the scheme considered yesterday was bidding for the boundaries to be stretched from Portslade in the west of the city to Moulsecoomb and Whitehawk in the east and to Patcham in the north.

A spirited campaign from unions, taxi firms and tourism bosses called for some of the city’s main routes to be cut out of the plans.

Yesterday everything on their Christmas lists landed in their laps when the council officers’ advice was overturned and lower traffic speeds in all four areas were thrown out.

Portland Road, Surrenden Road, Preston Drove and Stanford Avenue, as well as a large areas of Patcham and Hollingbury, will remain at 30mph.

But a special meeting of the environment, transport and sustainability com- mittee at Brighton and Hove City Council yesterday gave the go-ahead to 20mph limits on a large swathe of the city stretching from the centre to the suburbs.

Residents will be given the chance to comment on the plans in the new year before a final decision is made in March 2014.

The council said introducing more 20mph speed limits would improve safety and the street environment for all road users, including car drivers, by reducing the number and severity of collisions and casualties on the city’s roads.

According to the Department for Transport road safety comparison figures, there were 35.5 casualties per 10,000 residents in Brighton and Hove in 2012, compared to 43.60 in Blackpool and 27.50 in Reading.

And the council has already allocated £350,000 for the introduction of 20mph speed reductions in the city, as part of the Local Transport Plan capital budget for 2013-14.

But the Labour and Tory councillors tussled with the Green Party members, rejecting claims from Green councillor Christopher Hawtree that opposing the scheme would leave city roads unsafe.

The rival councillors insisted 30mph limits must be kept so buses and taxis run on time.

Excluding the main roads from 20mph, they claimed, would keep the city running smoothly.

Tory councillor Garry Peltzer Dunn, whose constituency includes Portland Road, said it was “logical that all the main arterial routes in the city should have a speed limit of 30 miles per hour”.

The Green administration slammed the successful move by Labour and Tory to derail parts of the plans and itemised the reasons they wanted to include main roads in the consultation.

A spokesman said: “As a result of today’s decision, more of the city’s residents will in the future be able to benefit from slower speeds and safer streets where they live, work, shop, play and go to school.

“Left out of the scheme is Portland Road – a busy shopping street with one of the largest primary schools in the city.

“In the last three years there have been 44 collisions and 50 casualties, meaning it has the worst road safety record in the whole of the Phase Two area.

“Surrenden Road – a road where residents have been campaigning for safer streets for years. Approximately 5,000 children attend the nearby schools including Varndean, Dorothy Stringer and Balfour Junior.

‘Common sense’

“Preston Drove and Stanford Avenue – which include busy residential areas adjoining two busy community parks, Blakers Park and Preston Park.

“A large swathe of Patcham and Hollingbury including the area around Carden Primary School.”

Representatives from lobby group Unchain the Motorist, set up amid concerns about the council’s transport policies on the city, attended the meeting at Hove Town hall yesterday to see their key demands met.

Unchain member John Streeter, from Streamline Taxis, said: “This was a victory for common sense. All we ever wanted was a long-term sustainable transport strategy for the city.

“We are so pleased the Labour and Conservative groups at the council acted in the best interest of the resi- dents. Long may it continue.”

Fellow Unchain member Andy Cheesman, boss at City Cabs, said: “We have come a long way in 16 weeks.

“We have tried to work with everybody and we are very pleased with the way the Labour and Conservative administrations have come out with a common sense transport policy which looks after residential roads but keeps the main arterial routes flowing.

“We support 20mph in all residential roads near schools and hospitals.”

After the meeting, Elliot Raggio, from the Traders Need Transport Group, said the fight must continue.

He said: “Today is a good day but it’s certainly not over.

“I want to thank those who put their heads above the parapet and to thank those who have supported the Unchain the Brighton Motorist campaign – not forgetting all the councillors that joined forces to stop this horrendous scheme.

“We must continue to make a stand and make the council see sense.”

Councillor Gill Mitchell, leader of the Labour group at the council, said that the Labour group was pleased that the key routes for public transport would remain outside the scheme so buses and taxis could run to time.

Councillor Geoffrey Theobald, leader of the Conservative group, insisted there was no clear public mandate for changing the speed limit in Patcham and Hollingbury to 20mph.

But Councillor Ian Davey, the administration’s lead member for transport, accused the Conservative and Labour councillors of carving up the proposals and disregarding residents’ views and the safety statistics.

He added: “The majority of our proposals were untouched and as a result most areas will get what they asked for.

“However thanks to the Tories and Labour, some residents near schools and accident hotspots have been left high and dry.”

Comments (47)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:03am Thu 12 Dec 13

Cgull says...

Expert report, you are having a laugh.

Biased and full of mistruths is a much better definition.

Any report that recommends Royal Crescent is 30mph and Freshfield Road is 20mph is as daft as a very big brush.

How many months is there before this Green madness is over?
Expert report, you are having a laugh. Biased and full of mistruths is a much better definition. Any report that recommends Royal Crescent is 30mph and Freshfield Road is 20mph is as daft as a very big brush. How many months is there before this Green madness is over? Cgull

8:20am Thu 12 Dec 13

roystony says...

The results of the survey were very bias. They worded the questions in a way the results or stats could be manipulated in favour of the green policy. Comi **********.
The results of the survey were very bias. They worded the questions in a way the results or stats could be manipulated in favour of the green policy. Comi **********. roystony

8:35am Thu 12 Dec 13

Quiterie says...

I find it very hard to understand what the Greens stand for any more. They've got themselves in a real mess over this. It was them for example who proposed that large parts of Patcham were excluded from the 20 mph scheme in the consultation document recently issued. They set the precedent. The Tories and Labour are just following their lead. Completely clueless. All very sad.
I find it very hard to understand what the Greens stand for any more. They've got themselves in a real mess over this. It was them for example who proposed that large parts of Patcham were excluded from the 20 mph scheme in the consultation document recently issued. They set the precedent. The Tories and Labour are just following their lead. Completely clueless. All very sad. Quiterie

8:44am Thu 12 Dec 13

Eugenius says...

Data from the first 6 months of 20mph in the city centre is showing a 20% reduction in collisions and a 19% drop in casualties, for a negligible reduction in journey times (some journeys one minute longer). Shame that Labour and Tories caved into pressure from the taxi lobby group instead of helping to prevent some of the accidents and injuries on our roads.
Data from the first 6 months of 20mph in the city centre is showing a 20% reduction in collisions and a 19% drop in casualties, for a negligible reduction in journey times (some journeys one minute longer). Shame that Labour and Tories caved into pressure from the taxi lobby group instead of helping to prevent some of the accidents and injuries on our roads. Eugenius

8:51am Thu 12 Dec 13

kopite_rob says...

I can understand the argument for buses wanting to run on time, but Taxis?
Since when do they have a timetable?
Perhaps now the Police and Road Safety Partnership can start ticketing all those Taxis and other drivers who think 30 is a minimum goal to be reached as quickly as possible.
Last night I was undertaken by a Taxi on Mareine Parade not far from the Hospital. I was doing 30 and he carved past like a complete moron.
If I'd had my wits about me, I wish I'd caught his plate number.
I can understand the argument for buses wanting to run on time, but Taxis? Since when do they have a timetable? Perhaps now the Police and Road Safety Partnership can start ticketing all those Taxis and other drivers who think 30 is a minimum goal to be reached as quickly as possible. Last night I was undertaken by a Taxi on Mareine Parade not far from the Hospital. I was doing 30 and he carved past like a complete moron. If I'd had my wits about me, I wish I'd caught his plate number. kopite_rob

8:55am Thu 12 Dec 13

Eugenius says...

roystony wrote:
The results of the survey were very bias. They worded the questions in a way the results or stats could be manipulated in favour of the green policy. Comi **********.
The questions were pretty simple: "do you support 20mph in your street?" and "do you support the 20mph proposals in your area?" and this genuinely did determine the proposals that went to committee - see complaint above about parts of Patcham being being withdrawn from the scheme. But in a few cases (like Portland Road) the accident statistics were so bad, or concern about nearby schools meant officers held to the 20mph recommendations.
[quote][p][bold]roystony[/bold] wrote: The results of the survey were very bias. They worded the questions in a way the results or stats could be manipulated in favour of the green policy. Comi **********.[/p][/quote]The questions were pretty simple: "do you support 20mph in your street?" and "do you support the 20mph proposals in your area?" and this genuinely did determine the proposals that went to committee - see complaint above about parts of Patcham being being withdrawn from the scheme. But in a few cases (like Portland Road) the accident statistics were so bad, or concern about nearby schools meant officers held to the 20mph recommendations. Eugenius

8:57am Thu 12 Dec 13

Fight_Back says...

The Greens act like petulant children when they don't get their way it appears.
The Greens act like petulant children when they don't get their way it appears. Fight_Back

9:07am Thu 12 Dec 13

roystony says...

Eugenius wrote:
roystony wrote:
The results of the survey were very bias. They worded the questions in a way the results or stats could be manipulated in favour of the green policy. Comi **********.
The questions were pretty simple: "do you support 20mph in your street?" and "do you support the 20mph proposals in your area?" and this genuinely did determine the proposals that went to committee - see complaint above about parts of Patcham being being withdrawn from the scheme. But in a few cases (like Portland Road) the accident statistics were so bad, or concern about nearby schools meant officers held to the 20mph recommendations.
Not saying they were hard!!
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]roystony[/bold] wrote: The results of the survey were very bias. They worded the questions in a way the results or stats could be manipulated in favour of the green policy. Comi **********.[/p][/quote]The questions were pretty simple: "do you support 20mph in your street?" and "do you support the 20mph proposals in your area?" and this genuinely did determine the proposals that went to committee - see complaint above about parts of Patcham being being withdrawn from the scheme. But in a few cases (like Portland Road) the accident statistics were so bad, or concern about nearby schools meant officers held to the 20mph recommendations.[/p][/quote]Not saying they were hard!! roystony

9:10am Thu 12 Dec 13

roystony says...

Eugenius wrote:
Data from the first 6 months of 20mph in the city centre is showing a 20% reduction in collisions and a 19% drop in casualties, for a negligible reduction in journey times (some journeys one minute longer). Shame that Labour and Tories caved into pressure from the taxi lobby group instead of helping to prevent some of the accidents and injuries on our roads.
Maybe because most of the main routes in the city had road works. Love the stats. You must work for the green council as this is how they talk. Stats stats stats.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: Data from the first 6 months of 20mph in the city centre is showing a 20% reduction in collisions and a 19% drop in casualties, for a negligible reduction in journey times (some journeys one minute longer). Shame that Labour and Tories caved into pressure from the taxi lobby group instead of helping to prevent some of the accidents and injuries on our roads.[/p][/quote]Maybe because most of the main routes in the city had road works. Love the stats. You must work for the green council as this is how they talk. Stats stats stats. roystony

9:13am Thu 12 Dec 13

pachallis says...

Perhaps the council can now repeat the exercise and have a poll in Hove and Portslade and potentially get the main bus routes here back to 30mph as well.
Perhaps the council can now repeat the exercise and have a poll in Hove and Portslade and potentially get the main bus routes here back to 30mph as well. pachallis

9:56am Thu 12 Dec 13

Tetsugaku-San says...

What a hate filled rag the argus is, quite how stupid they think their readers are, if they think they can spin this story into a defeat, astounds me.

It passed, almost unscathed. The zones are an actual success that save lives. Actual lives and don't affect journey times at all.

All this story should be about is backward council members going against the wishes if their voters who have overwhelmingly, 65%in many cases! asked for 20mph.

If you can't see the staggering bias, what do you think the argus really thinks of your reasoning powers?
What a hate filled rag the argus is, quite how stupid they think their readers are, if they think they can spin this story into a defeat, astounds me. It passed, almost unscathed. The zones are an actual success that save lives. Actual lives and don't affect journey times at all. All this story should be about is backward council members going against the wishes if their voters who have overwhelmingly, 65%in many cases! asked for 20mph. If you can't see the staggering bias, what do you think the argus really thinks of your reasoning powers? Tetsugaku-San

10:14am Thu 12 Dec 13

Brighton Living says...

This is getting so boring keep reading about this stupid 20MPH the greens waste to much time on this crap! Get a party who know what its doing and stop wasting tax payers money once and for all because there is nothing good or green about the green party they are just a group of incompetent students!
This is getting so boring keep reading about this stupid 20MPH the greens waste to much time on this crap! Get a party who know what its doing and stop wasting tax payers money once and for all because there is nothing good or green about the green party they are just a group of incompetent students! Brighton Living

10:27am Thu 12 Dec 13

Fight_Back says...

Tetsugaku-San wrote:
What a hate filled rag the argus is, quite how stupid they think their readers are, if they think they can spin this story into a defeat, astounds me.

It passed, almost unscathed. The zones are an actual success that save lives. Actual lives and don't affect journey times at all.

All this story should be about is backward council members going against the wishes if their voters who have overwhelmingly, 65%in many cases! asked for 20mph.

If you can't see the staggering bias, what do you think the argus really thinks of your reasoning powers?
Along with your post and these quotes from above :

"The Green administration slammed the successful move by Labour and Tory to derail parts of the plans"

"But Councillor Ian Davey, the administration’s lead member for transport, accused the Conservative and Labour councillors of carving up the proposals and disregarding residents’ views and the safety statistics."

Rather shows the bitterness the Greens have when the democratic process goes against them. You only needed to watch the idiotic "speech" from Jason Kitcat when the first Green budget was carved up to see what a bitter bunch of sour faced loonies they really are. Roll on 2015 when they really will have something to **** about.
[quote][p][bold]Tetsugaku-San[/bold] wrote: What a hate filled rag the argus is, quite how stupid they think their readers are, if they think they can spin this story into a defeat, astounds me. It passed, almost unscathed. The zones are an actual success that save lives. Actual lives and don't affect journey times at all. All this story should be about is backward council members going against the wishes if their voters who have overwhelmingly, 65%in many cases! asked for 20mph. If you can't see the staggering bias, what do you think the argus really thinks of your reasoning powers?[/p][/quote]Along with your post and these quotes from above : "The Green administration slammed the successful move by Labour and Tory to derail parts of the plans" "But Councillor Ian Davey, the administration’s lead member for transport, accused the Conservative and Labour councillors of carving up the proposals and disregarding residents’ views and the safety statistics." Rather shows the bitterness the Greens have when the democratic process goes against them. You only needed to watch the idiotic "speech" from Jason Kitcat when the first Green budget was carved up to see what a bitter bunch of sour faced loonies they really are. Roll on 2015 when they really will have something to **** about. Fight_Back

10:28am Thu 12 Dec 13

Fight_Back says...

Wow - a female dog word is blocked by the Argus - how pathetic.
Wow - a female dog word is blocked by the Argus - how pathetic. Fight_Back

10:58am Thu 12 Dec 13

Skidrow says...

Do the Portland Road stats include within the casualty figures Tony Magdi, murdered by a cyclist?
Do the Portland Road stats include within the casualty figures Tony Magdi, murdered by a cyclist? Skidrow

11:03am Thu 12 Dec 13

gheese77 says...

Skidrow wrote:
Do the Portland Road stats include within the casualty figures Tony Magdi, murdered by a cyclist?
It was manslaughter not murder
[quote][p][bold]Skidrow[/bold] wrote: Do the Portland Road stats include within the casualty figures Tony Magdi, murdered by a cyclist?[/p][/quote]It was manslaughter not murder gheese77

11:33am Thu 12 Dec 13

Skidrow says...

Murder manslaughter whatever, he was still killed by a cyclist.
Murder manslaughter whatever, he was still killed by a cyclist. Skidrow

11:39am Thu 12 Dec 13

Rock_UK says...

I don't think I've ever looked forward to a local election with more relish. There seems to be no end to the relentless cut backs in expenditure here as elsewhere but the council seems to always have money for its pet (and arguably fringe) policies. The bizarre thing is that even though every recent opinion poll shows them slumping in popularity, and currently in third place, they still these policies. Can’t wait for democracy to render its verdict.
I don't think I've ever looked forward to a local election with more relish. There seems to be no end to the relentless cut backs in expenditure here as elsewhere but the council seems to always have money for its pet (and arguably fringe) policies. The bizarre thing is that even though every recent opinion poll shows them slumping in popularity, and currently in third place, they still these policies. Can’t wait for democracy to render its verdict. Rock_UK

11:55am Thu 12 Dec 13

panniers says...

kopite_rob wrote:
I can understand the argument for buses wanting to run on time, but Taxis?
Since when do they have a timetable?
Perhaps now the Police and Road Safety Partnership can start ticketing all those Taxis and other drivers who think 30 is a minimum goal to be reached as quickly as possible.
Last night I was undertaken by a Taxi on Mareine Parade not far from the Hospital. I was doing 30 and he carved past like a complete moron.
If I'd had my wits about me, I wish I'd caught his plate number.
The taxis also use the bus lanes to carry take away meals from various restaurants. This makes a whole mockery of the system. Two years ago I was nearly knocked over by a taxi driver turning into a side street at speed. I was then sworn at. having taken the registration number after great difficulty I managed to contact the taxi company concerned. Their response "The driver is not aware of this incident" despite the fact I had two witnesses to the incident!
[quote][p][bold]kopite_rob[/bold] wrote: I can understand the argument for buses wanting to run on time, but Taxis? Since when do they have a timetable? Perhaps now the Police and Road Safety Partnership can start ticketing all those Taxis and other drivers who think 30 is a minimum goal to be reached as quickly as possible. Last night I was undertaken by a Taxi on Mareine Parade not far from the Hospital. I was doing 30 and he carved past like a complete moron. If I'd had my wits about me, I wish I'd caught his plate number.[/p][/quote]The taxis also use the bus lanes to carry take away meals from various restaurants. This makes a whole mockery of the system. Two years ago I was nearly knocked over by a taxi driver turning into a side street at speed. I was then sworn at. having taken the registration number after great difficulty I managed to contact the taxi company concerned. Their response "The driver is not aware of this incident" despite the fact I had two witnesses to the incident! panniers

11:56am Thu 12 Dec 13

Rock_UK says...

As regards, the survey, the response rate was appalling . I accept the principle that people who don't vote have thrown away their right to be heard, but nevertheless the council's interpretation of the results is puerile.
An example from the survey:
A road with 87 properties,had 15 responses (17.2%) with 11 response in favour means that 73.3% of the residents support the proposal according to the council.
As regards, the survey, the response rate was appalling . I accept the principle that people who don't vote have thrown away their right to be heard, but nevertheless the council's interpretation of the results is puerile. An example from the survey: A road with 87 properties,had 15 responses (17.2%) with 11 response in favour means that 73.3% of the residents support the proposal according to the council. Rock_UK

12:25pm Thu 12 Dec 13

thevoiceoftruth says...

Eugenius wrote:
roystony wrote:
The results of the survey were very bias. They worded the questions in a way the results or stats could be manipulated in favour of the green policy. Comi **********.
The questions were pretty simple: "do you support 20mph in your street?" and "do you support the 20mph proposals in your area?" and this genuinely did determine the proposals that went to committee - see complaint above about parts of Patcham being being withdrawn from the scheme. But in a few cases (like Portland Road) the accident statistics were so bad, or concern about nearby schools meant officers held to the 20mph recommendations.
You never answered my question left on a previous thread about why the consultation figures and the bar charts did not add up in the consultation results. In many areas, the majority did not want 20mph but the bar charts said they did. Explanation, please.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]roystony[/bold] wrote: The results of the survey were very bias. They worded the questions in a way the results or stats could be manipulated in favour of the green policy. Comi **********.[/p][/quote]The questions were pretty simple: "do you support 20mph in your street?" and "do you support the 20mph proposals in your area?" and this genuinely did determine the proposals that went to committee - see complaint above about parts of Patcham being being withdrawn from the scheme. But in a few cases (like Portland Road) the accident statistics were so bad, or concern about nearby schools meant officers held to the 20mph recommendations.[/p][/quote]You never answered my question left on a previous thread about why the consultation figures and the bar charts did not add up in the consultation results. In many areas, the majority did not want 20mph but the bar charts said they did. Explanation, please. thevoiceoftruth

1:05pm Thu 12 Dec 13

fredaj says...

Rock_UK wrote:
As regards, the survey, the response rate was appalling . I accept the principle that people who don't vote have thrown away their right to be heard, but nevertheless the council's interpretation of the results is puerile.
An example from the survey:
A road with 87 properties,had 15 responses (17.2%) with 11 response in favour means that 73.3% of the residents support the proposal according to the council.
Indeed - and an advertiser would be legally banned from presenting such information in that way.
[quote][p][bold]Rock_UK[/bold] wrote: As regards, the survey, the response rate was appalling . I accept the principle that people who don't vote have thrown away their right to be heard, but nevertheless the council's interpretation of the results is puerile. An example from the survey: A road with 87 properties,had 15 responses (17.2%) with 11 response in favour means that 73.3% of the residents support the proposal according to the council.[/p][/quote]Indeed - and an advertiser would be legally banned from presenting such information in that way. fredaj

1:15pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Bob_The_Ferret says...

Eugenius wrote:
Data from the first 6 months of 20mph in the city centre is showing a 20% reduction in collisions and a 19% drop in casualties, for a negligible reduction in journey times (some journeys one minute longer). Shame that Labour and Tories caved into pressure from the taxi lobby group instead of helping to prevent some of the accidents and injuries on our roads.
No data has been presented to show that these variations correlate with a change in vehicle speeds.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: Data from the first 6 months of 20mph in the city centre is showing a 20% reduction in collisions and a 19% drop in casualties, for a negligible reduction in journey times (some journeys one minute longer). Shame that Labour and Tories caved into pressure from the taxi lobby group instead of helping to prevent some of the accidents and injuries on our roads.[/p][/quote]No data has been presented to show that these variations correlate with a change in vehicle speeds. Bob_The_Ferret

1:15pm Thu 12 Dec 13

gheese77 says...

Good to know which councillors place higher importance on the profits of taxi firms than the safety of the 500 or so children who attend the school on portland road
Good to know which councillors place higher importance on the profits of taxi firms than the safety of the 500 or so children who attend the school on portland road gheese77

2:03pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Eugenius says...

thevoiceoftruth wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
roystony wrote:
The results of the survey were very bias. They worded the questions in a way the results or stats could be manipulated in favour of the green policy. Comi **********.
The questions were pretty simple: "do you support 20mph in your street?" and "do you support the 20mph proposals in your area?" and this genuinely did determine the proposals that went to committee - see complaint above about parts of Patcham being being withdrawn from the scheme. But in a few cases (like Portland Road) the accident statistics were so bad, or concern about nearby schools meant officers held to the 20mph recommendations.
You never answered my question left on a previous thread about why the consultation figures and the bar charts did not add up in the consultation results. In many areas, the majority did not want 20mph but the bar charts said they did. Explanation, please.
Missed this at the time but I believe the answer is that the consultation broke down the results into responses from within each area and outside. For the consultation, greater weight was given to the views of people in their own area, which I think is fair enough. There was a strange kind of reverse NIMBYism - people were generally keen for their own street to be 20mph, less keen on the total proposals for their area (but still positive overall), and negative on proposals outside their area. That could be seen as an effect of the strong anti campaign to get residents to complete the consultation city-wide but hey, that's democracy.
[quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]roystony[/bold] wrote: The results of the survey were very bias. They worded the questions in a way the results or stats could be manipulated in favour of the green policy. Comi **********.[/p][/quote]The questions were pretty simple: "do you support 20mph in your street?" and "do you support the 20mph proposals in your area?" and this genuinely did determine the proposals that went to committee - see complaint above about parts of Patcham being being withdrawn from the scheme. But in a few cases (like Portland Road) the accident statistics were so bad, or concern about nearby schools meant officers held to the 20mph recommendations.[/p][/quote]You never answered my question left on a previous thread about why the consultation figures and the bar charts did not add up in the consultation results. In many areas, the majority did not want 20mph but the bar charts said they did. Explanation, please.[/p][/quote]Missed this at the time but I believe the answer is that the consultation broke down the results into responses from within each area and outside. For the consultation, greater weight was given to the views of people in their own area, which I think is fair enough. There was a strange kind of reverse NIMBYism - people were generally keen for their own street to be 20mph, less keen on the total proposals for their area (but still positive overall), and negative on proposals outside their area. That could be seen as an effect of the strong anti campaign to get residents to complete the consultation city-wide but hey, that's democracy. Eugenius

2:54pm Thu 12 Dec 13

gheese77 says...

Skidrow wrote:
Murder manslaughter whatever, he was still killed by a cyclist.
I know the facts , I used to shop in Mr Magdis shop. Mr Magdi opened his car door and and knocked a cyclist off his bike. Another cyclist apparently not connected with the other one took offence to this and punched him. Mr Magdi died as a result of hitting his head on the kerb/floor. A tragic incident
I don't know what you think this has to do with 20 mph limits apart from showing your obvious prejudice against cyclists.
The fact is it is very rare for a cyclist to kill a motorist, even if its deliberate.
Sadly cyclists and pedestrians and other motorists being killed by bad drivers is not uncommon
[quote][p][bold]Skidrow[/bold] wrote: Murder manslaughter whatever, he was still killed by a cyclist.[/p][/quote]I know the facts , I used to shop in Mr Magdis shop. Mr Magdi opened his car door and and knocked a cyclist off his bike. Another cyclist apparently not connected with the other one took offence to this and punched him. Mr Magdi died as a result of hitting his head on the kerb/floor. A tragic incident I don't know what you think this has to do with 20 mph limits apart from showing your obvious prejudice against cyclists. The fact is it is very rare for a cyclist to kill a motorist, even if its deliberate. Sadly cyclists and pedestrians and other motorists being killed by bad drivers is not uncommon gheese77

3:39pm Thu 12 Dec 13

thevoiceoftruth says...

Eugenius wrote:
thevoiceoftruth wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
roystony wrote:
The results of the survey were very bias. They worded the questions in a way the results or stats could be manipulated in favour of the green policy. Comi **********.
The questions were pretty simple: "do you support 20mph in your street?" and "do you support the 20mph proposals in your area?" and this genuinely did determine the proposals that went to committee - see complaint above about parts of Patcham being being withdrawn from the scheme. But in a few cases (like Portland Road) the accident statistics were so bad, or concern about nearby schools meant officers held to the 20mph recommendations.
You never answered my question left on a previous thread about why the consultation figures and the bar charts did not add up in the consultation results. In many areas, the majority did not want 20mph but the bar charts said they did. Explanation, please.
Missed this at the time but I believe the answer is that the consultation broke down the results into responses from within each area and outside. For the consultation, greater weight was given to the views of people in their own area, which I think is fair enough. There was a strange kind of reverse NIMBYism - people were generally keen for their own street to be 20mph, less keen on the total proposals for their area (but still positive overall), and negative on proposals outside their area. That could be seen as an effect of the strong anti campaign to get residents to complete the consultation city-wide but hey, that's democracy.
Thanks for getting back to me. I expected that type of NIMBYism so when I filled it in I kept my street at 30mph. However, overall including the results from everyone who filled it in - by that I mean Brighton residents only - how many were pro 20mph and how many against? I can't face going through that long PDF again to try and work it out!
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]roystony[/bold] wrote: The results of the survey were very bias. They worded the questions in a way the results or stats could be manipulated in favour of the green policy. Comi **********.[/p][/quote]The questions were pretty simple: "do you support 20mph in your street?" and "do you support the 20mph proposals in your area?" and this genuinely did determine the proposals that went to committee - see complaint above about parts of Patcham being being withdrawn from the scheme. But in a few cases (like Portland Road) the accident statistics were so bad, or concern about nearby schools meant officers held to the 20mph recommendations.[/p][/quote]You never answered my question left on a previous thread about why the consultation figures and the bar charts did not add up in the consultation results. In many areas, the majority did not want 20mph but the bar charts said they did. Explanation, please.[/p][/quote]Missed this at the time but I believe the answer is that the consultation broke down the results into responses from within each area and outside. For the consultation, greater weight was given to the views of people in their own area, which I think is fair enough. There was a strange kind of reverse NIMBYism - people were generally keen for their own street to be 20mph, less keen on the total proposals for their area (but still positive overall), and negative on proposals outside their area. That could be seen as an effect of the strong anti campaign to get residents to complete the consultation city-wide but hey, that's democracy.[/p][/quote]Thanks for getting back to me. I expected that type of NIMBYism so when I filled it in I kept my street at 30mph. However, overall including the results from everyone who filled it in - by that I mean Brighton residents only - how many were pro 20mph and how many against? I can't face going through that long PDF again to try and work it out! thevoiceoftruth

8:19pm Thu 12 Dec 13

PETE OF QUEENS PARK says...

Why the hell is Grand Parade 20mph.
Why the hell is Grand Parade 20mph. PETE OF QUEENS PARK

8:25pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Idontbelieveit1948 says...

gheese77 wrote:
Skidrow wrote:
Do the Portland Road stats include within the casualty figures Tony Magdi, murdered by a cyclist?
It was manslaughter not murder
He's dead and a cyclist did it !
[quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Skidrow[/bold] wrote: Do the Portland Road stats include within the casualty figures Tony Magdi, murdered by a cyclist?[/p][/quote]It was manslaughter not murder[/p][/quote]He's dead and a cyclist did it ! Idontbelieveit1948

8:36pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Idontbelieveit1948 says...

gheese77 wrote:
Skidrow wrote:
Murder manslaughter whatever, he was still killed by a cyclist.
I know the facts , I used to shop in Mr Magdis shop. Mr Magdi opened his car door and and knocked a cyclist off his bike. Another cyclist apparently not connected with the other one took offence to this and punched him. Mr Magdi died as a result of hitting his head on the kerb/floor. A tragic incident
I don't know what you think this has to do with 20 mph limits apart from showing your obvious prejudice against cyclists.
The fact is it is very rare for a cyclist to kill a motorist, even if its deliberate.
Sadly cyclists and pedestrians and other motorists being killed by bad drivers is not uncommon
So, are the motorists killing people deliberately then ?

You have a sad strange brain
[quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Skidrow[/bold] wrote: Murder manslaughter whatever, he was still killed by a cyclist.[/p][/quote]I know the facts , I used to shop in Mr Magdis shop. Mr Magdi opened his car door and and knocked a cyclist off his bike. Another cyclist apparently not connected with the other one took offence to this and punched him. Mr Magdi died as a result of hitting his head on the kerb/floor. A tragic incident I don't know what you think this has to do with 20 mph limits apart from showing your obvious prejudice against cyclists. The fact is it is very rare for a cyclist to kill a motorist, even if its deliberate. Sadly cyclists and pedestrians and other motorists being killed by bad drivers is not uncommon[/p][/quote]So, are the motorists killing people deliberately then ? You have a sad strange brain Idontbelieveit1948

8:48pm Thu 12 Dec 13

BiggerH says...

"So, are the motorists killing people deliberately then ?"

not deliberately, but they are killing people
"So, are the motorists killing people deliberately then ?" not deliberately, but they are killing people BiggerH

8:55pm Thu 12 Dec 13

whoee! says...

Eugenius wrote:
Data from the first 6 months of 20mph in the city centre is showing a 20% reduction in collisions and a 19% drop in casualties, for a negligible reduction in journey times (some journeys one minute longer). Shame that Labour and Tories caved into pressure from the taxi lobby group instead of helping to prevent some of the accidents and injuries on our roads.
You are talking absolute bo11ocks
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: Data from the first 6 months of 20mph in the city centre is showing a 20% reduction in collisions and a 19% drop in casualties, for a negligible reduction in journey times (some journeys one minute longer). Shame that Labour and Tories caved into pressure from the taxi lobby group instead of helping to prevent some of the accidents and injuries on our roads.[/p][/quote]You are talking absolute bo11ocks whoee!

10:23pm Thu 12 Dec 13

winewomenandsong says...

roystony wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
Data from the first 6 months of 20mph in the city centre is showing a 20% reduction in collisions and a 19% drop in casualties, for a negligible reduction in journey times (some journeys one minute longer). Shame that Labour and Tories caved into pressure from the taxi lobby group instead of helping to prevent some of the accidents and injuries on our roads.
Maybe because most of the main routes in the city had road works. Love the stats. You must work for the green council as this is how they talk. Stats stats stats.
Whether it was as a result of road works or result of any other traffic calming measure the fact remains that these obstacles reduced the number of collisions and casulties, proving what common sense people
know, less speed = less of the aforementioned manufactured mishaps.
[quote][p][bold]roystony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: Data from the first 6 months of 20mph in the city centre is showing a 20% reduction in collisions and a 19% drop in casualties, for a negligible reduction in journey times (some journeys one minute longer). Shame that Labour and Tories caved into pressure from the taxi lobby group instead of helping to prevent some of the accidents and injuries on our roads.[/p][/quote]Maybe because most of the main routes in the city had road works. Love the stats. You must work for the green council as this is how they talk. Stats stats stats.[/p][/quote]Whether it was as a result of road works or result of any other traffic calming measure the fact remains that these obstacles reduced the number of collisions and casulties, proving what common sense people know, less speed = less of the aforementioned manufactured mishaps. winewomenandsong

10:36pm Thu 12 Dec 13

tradebooker says...

Eugenius wrote:
thevoiceoftruth wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
roystony wrote:
The results of the survey were very bias. They worded the questions in a way the results or stats could be manipulated in favour of the green policy. Comi **********.
The questions were pretty simple: "do you support 20mph in your street?" and "do you support the 20mph proposals in your area?" and this genuinely did determine the proposals that went to committee - see complaint above about parts of Patcham being being withdrawn from the scheme. But in a few cases (like Portland Road) the accident statistics were so bad, or concern about nearby schools meant officers held to the 20mph recommendations.
You never answered my question left on a previous thread about why the consultation figures and the bar charts did not add up in the consultation results. In many areas, the majority did not want 20mph but the bar charts said they did. Explanation, please.
Missed this at the time but I believe the answer is that the consultation broke down the results into responses from within each area and outside. For the consultation, greater weight was given to the views of people in their own area, which I think is fair enough. There was a strange kind of reverse NIMBYism - people were generally keen for their own street to be 20mph, less keen on the total proposals for their area (but still positive overall), and negative on proposals outside their area. That could be seen as an effect of the strong anti campaign to get residents to complete the consultation city-wide but hey, that's democracy.
I've got the results per street from Cox.. So to summarise and therefore generalise is that certain areas pushed the weighting for do u want 20 in ur streets to over 60% some tho were hugely against (mainly hove). Listen your administration screwed this up totally and this is the underlying problem with the very fabric of the Greens.. B+H is a collection of villages, indeed a merger of 2 very different political trains of thought - obviously in narrow terraced young 2+2 family streets it's difficult to argue against tenants that want 20mph.. Indeed most people would slow down anyway and just cos there's a red circle with the number 20 at the beginning end and middle isn't going to slow down those people that look left and right and take a decision to drive at the speed they feel is necessary at the time whether that be 10 or 20 or 30.

What the problem is, the Greens came along with blanket proposals.. We already saw that in phase 1 where your own independent scrutiny panel advised for the A roads and some B's like Cromwell/Davigdor to be removed .... But ok it would cost too much.. Or it would go against our principles.. Basically no compromise for the common sense... I.e v bad governing.

Upshot is the greens will pursue a pre defined set of policies that they believe in.. Not what us the public necessary believe in in Brighton.. Not without a care of impact to he wider masses... Not with a thought to how they will implement their policy with majority ( and I don't mean 50.1%) support.

I'm glad they pushed this policy through - as watered down as it is - because what it's down is shown how divided their support is across the City. Moreover, that people have started to realise they got in on a protest vote that has gone horribly wrong.. And that the social experiments and mass dictatorial uncompromising governing style is not for us... Yeah Brighton is ripe for alternative, change, new etc etc but I'll tell you one thing - we are a proud bunch who love are city.. Well connected, savvy, economically influential who have started to turn on the greens.. I'm afraid your middle class pot friendly coffee shop classes of Preston and Golsmid that got you in last time can't save you next time... The big question on people's minds now is are you relevant as a party... Adios... Xx
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]roystony[/bold] wrote: The results of the survey were very bias. They worded the questions in a way the results or stats could be manipulated in favour of the green policy. Comi **********.[/p][/quote]The questions were pretty simple: "do you support 20mph in your street?" and "do you support the 20mph proposals in your area?" and this genuinely did determine the proposals that went to committee - see complaint above about parts of Patcham being being withdrawn from the scheme. But in a few cases (like Portland Road) the accident statistics were so bad, or concern about nearby schools meant officers held to the 20mph recommendations.[/p][/quote]You never answered my question left on a previous thread about why the consultation figures and the bar charts did not add up in the consultation results. In many areas, the majority did not want 20mph but the bar charts said they did. Explanation, please.[/p][/quote]Missed this at the time but I believe the answer is that the consultation broke down the results into responses from within each area and outside. For the consultation, greater weight was given to the views of people in their own area, which I think is fair enough. There was a strange kind of reverse NIMBYism - people were generally keen for their own street to be 20mph, less keen on the total proposals for their area (but still positive overall), and negative on proposals outside their area. That could be seen as an effect of the strong anti campaign to get residents to complete the consultation city-wide but hey, that's democracy.[/p][/quote]I've got the results per street from Cox.. So to summarise and therefore generalise is that certain areas pushed the weighting for do u want 20 in ur streets to over 60% some tho were hugely against (mainly hove). Listen your administration screwed this up totally and this is the underlying problem with the very fabric of the Greens.. B+H is a collection of villages, indeed a merger of 2 very different political trains of thought - obviously in narrow terraced young 2+2 family streets it's difficult to argue against tenants that want 20mph.. Indeed most people would slow down anyway and just cos there's a red circle with the number 20 at the beginning end and middle isn't going to slow down those people that look left and right and take a decision to drive at the speed they feel is necessary at the time whether that be 10 or 20 or 30. What the problem is, the Greens came along with blanket proposals.. We already saw that in phase 1 where your own independent scrutiny panel advised for the A roads and some B's like Cromwell/Davigdor to be removed .... But ok it would cost too much.. Or it would go against our principles.. Basically no compromise for the common sense... I.e v bad governing. Upshot is the greens will pursue a pre defined set of policies that they believe in.. Not what us the public necessary believe in in Brighton.. Not without a care of impact to he wider masses... Not with a thought to how they will implement their policy with majority ( and I don't mean 50.1%) support. I'm glad they pushed this policy through - as watered down as it is - because what it's down is shown how divided their support is across the City. Moreover, that people have started to realise they got in on a protest vote that has gone horribly wrong.. And that the social experiments and mass dictatorial uncompromising governing style is not for us... Yeah Brighton is ripe for alternative, change, new etc etc but I'll tell you one thing - we are a proud bunch who love are city.. Well connected, savvy, economically influential who have started to turn on the greens.. I'm afraid your middle class pot friendly coffee shop classes of Preston and Golsmid that got you in last time can't save you next time... The big question on people's minds now is are you relevant as a party... Adios... Xx tradebooker

8:57am Fri 13 Dec 13

p a t r i c k says...

Eugenius wrote:
Data from the first 6 months of 20mph in the city centre is showing a 20% reduction in collisions and a 19% drop in casualties, for a negligible reduction in journey times (some journeys one minute longer). Shame that Labour and Tories caved into pressure from the taxi lobby group instead of helping to prevent some of the accidents and injuries on our roads.
Yes the benefits of the 20 mph speed limits are very great.

Although I am a Labour guy I 100% support the Green party in the lowering of speed limits.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: Data from the first 6 months of 20mph in the city centre is showing a 20% reduction in collisions and a 19% drop in casualties, for a negligible reduction in journey times (some journeys one minute longer). Shame that Labour and Tories caved into pressure from the taxi lobby group instead of helping to prevent some of the accidents and injuries on our roads.[/p][/quote]Yes the benefits of the 20 mph speed limits are very great. Although I am a Labour guy I 100% support the Green party in the lowering of speed limits. p a t r i c k

8:59am Fri 13 Dec 13

p a t r i c k says...

Tetsugaku-San wrote:
What a hate filled rag the argus is, quite how stupid they think their readers are, if they think they can spin this story into a defeat, astounds me.

It passed, almost unscathed. The zones are an actual success that save lives. Actual lives and don't affect journey times at all.

All this story should be about is backward council members going against the wishes if their voters who have overwhelmingly, 65%in many cases! asked for 20mph.

If you can't see the staggering bias, what do you think the argus really thinks of your reasoning powers?
Yes the Argus is extremely biased against the Green party.

I am a Labour guy but I have decided to vote Green for the first time in the next local council elections because of the 20 mph speed limits.

These 20 mph speed limits are great things and should be in place in every part of the city.
[quote][p][bold]Tetsugaku-San[/bold] wrote: What a hate filled rag the argus is, quite how stupid they think their readers are, if they think they can spin this story into a defeat, astounds me. It passed, almost unscathed. The zones are an actual success that save lives. Actual lives and don't affect journey times at all. All this story should be about is backward council members going against the wishes if their voters who have overwhelmingly, 65%in many cases! asked for 20mph. If you can't see the staggering bias, what do you think the argus really thinks of your reasoning powers?[/p][/quote]Yes the Argus is extremely biased against the Green party. I am a Labour guy but I have decided to vote Green for the first time in the next local council elections because of the 20 mph speed limits. These 20 mph speed limits are great things and should be in place in every part of the city. p a t r i c k

9:02am Fri 13 Dec 13

p a t r i c k says...

Rock_UK wrote:
I don't think I've ever looked forward to a local election with more relish. There seems to be no end to the relentless cut backs in expenditure here as elsewhere but the council seems to always have money for its pet (and arguably fringe) policies. The bizarre thing is that even though every recent opinion poll shows them slumping in popularity, and currently in third place, they still these policies. Can’t wait for democracy to render its verdict.
I will be voting for the Greens in the local election for the first time.

The 20 mph limits are excellent.
[quote][p][bold]Rock_UK[/bold] wrote: I don't think I've ever looked forward to a local election with more relish. There seems to be no end to the relentless cut backs in expenditure here as elsewhere but the council seems to always have money for its pet (and arguably fringe) policies. The bizarre thing is that even though every recent opinion poll shows them slumping in popularity, and currently in third place, they still these policies. Can’t wait for democracy to render its verdict.[/p][/quote]I will be voting for the Greens in the local election for the first time. The 20 mph limits are excellent. p a t r i c k

9:07am Fri 13 Dec 13

p a t r i c k says...

Rock_UK wrote:
As regards, the survey, the response rate was appalling . I accept the principle that people who don't vote have thrown away their right to be heard, but nevertheless the council's interpretation of the results is puerile.
An example from the survey:
A road with 87 properties,had 15 responses (17.2%) with 11 response in favour means that 73.3% of the residents support the proposal according to the council.
That is a perfectly reasonable statistical conclusion.

In opinion polls for voting intentions at the general election the percentage of the population polled is a tiny fraction of 1%.

You just don't like a survey which comes up with a result you don't like.

They asked 15 people in a street and 11 are in favour of lower speed limits. Well that is a good clear signal.
[quote][p][bold]Rock_UK[/bold] wrote: As regards, the survey, the response rate was appalling . I accept the principle that people who don't vote have thrown away their right to be heard, but nevertheless the council's interpretation of the results is puerile. An example from the survey: A road with 87 properties,had 15 responses (17.2%) with 11 response in favour means that 73.3% of the residents support the proposal according to the council.[/p][/quote]That is a perfectly reasonable statistical conclusion. In opinion polls for voting intentions at the general election the percentage of the population polled is a tiny fraction of 1%. You just don't like a survey which comes up with a result you don't like. They asked 15 people in a street and 11 are in favour of lower speed limits. Well that is a good clear signal. p a t r i c k

9:08am Fri 13 Dec 13

p a t r i c k says...

Brighton Living wrote:
This is getting so boring keep reading about this stupid 20MPH the greens waste to much time on this crap! Get a party who know what its doing and stop wasting tax payers money once and for all because there is nothing good or green about the green party they are just a group of incompetent students!
The lowering of the speed limit to 20 mph saves lives.
[quote][p][bold]Brighton Living[/bold] wrote: This is getting so boring keep reading about this stupid 20MPH the greens waste to much time on this crap! Get a party who know what its doing and stop wasting tax payers money once and for all because there is nothing good or green about the green party they are just a group of incompetent students![/p][/quote]The lowering of the speed limit to 20 mph saves lives. p a t r i c k

9:10am Fri 13 Dec 13

roystony says...

p a t r i c k wrote:
Brighton Living wrote:
This is getting so boring keep reading about this stupid 20MPH the greens waste to much time on this crap! Get a party who know what its doing and stop wasting tax payers money once and for all because there is nothing good or green about the green party they are just a group of incompetent students!
The lowering of the speed limit to 20 mph saves lives.
patrick is Kitcat
[quote][p][bold]p a t r i c k[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton Living[/bold] wrote: This is getting so boring keep reading about this stupid 20MPH the greens waste to much time on this crap! Get a party who know what its doing and stop wasting tax payers money once and for all because there is nothing good or green about the green party they are just a group of incompetent students![/p][/quote]The lowering of the speed limit to 20 mph saves lives.[/p][/quote]patrick is Kitcat roystony

9:10am Fri 13 Dec 13

p a t r i c k says...

Skidrow wrote:
Murder manslaughter whatever, he was still killed by a cyclist.
In the UK someone is killed by a car or lorry driver every two hours during daylight hours.

People killed by cyclists are very rare. Probably less than one a year.
[quote][p][bold]Skidrow[/bold] wrote: Murder manslaughter whatever, he was still killed by a cyclist.[/p][/quote]In the UK someone is killed by a car or lorry driver every two hours during daylight hours. People killed by cyclists are very rare. Probably less than one a year. p a t r i c k

9:15am Fri 13 Dec 13

pachallis says...

@p a t r i c k - what a lot you have to say!

I say roll on May 2015 when we can (hopefully) get rid of these irresponsible idealistic minority-focused left-wing fools.
@p a t r i c k - what a lot you have to say! I say roll on May 2015 when we can (hopefully) get rid of these irresponsible idealistic minority-focused left-wing fools. pachallis

9:17am Fri 13 Dec 13

p a t r i c k says...

gheese77 wrote:
Skidrow wrote:
Murder manslaughter whatever, he was still killed by a cyclist.
I know the facts , I used to shop in Mr Magdis shop. Mr Magdi opened his car door and and knocked a cyclist off his bike. Another cyclist apparently not connected with the other one took offence to this and punched him. Mr Magdi died as a result of hitting his head on the kerb/floor. A tragic incident
I don't know what you think this has to do with 20 mph limits apart from showing your obvious prejudice against cyclists.
The fact is it is very rare for a cyclist to kill a motorist, even if its deliberate.
Sadly cyclists and pedestrians and other motorists being killed by bad drivers is not uncommon
Each year the number of cyclists killed by car and lorry drivers is about 200.

The total number of people killed in car accidents each year is staggering. Usually over 2000.

Many many more are seriously injured.

The death and destruction brought by the excessive amount of motorised traffic on our roads is simply insanity.

The reduction in speed limit to 20 mph in much of Brighton & Hove has been an excellent thing.
[quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Skidrow[/bold] wrote: Murder manslaughter whatever, he was still killed by a cyclist.[/p][/quote]I know the facts , I used to shop in Mr Magdis shop. Mr Magdi opened his car door and and knocked a cyclist off his bike. Another cyclist apparently not connected with the other one took offence to this and punched him. Mr Magdi died as a result of hitting his head on the kerb/floor. A tragic incident I don't know what you think this has to do with 20 mph limits apart from showing your obvious prejudice against cyclists. The fact is it is very rare for a cyclist to kill a motorist, even if its deliberate. Sadly cyclists and pedestrians and other motorists being killed by bad drivers is not uncommon[/p][/quote]Each year the number of cyclists killed by car and lorry drivers is about 200. The total number of people killed in car accidents each year is staggering. Usually over 2000. Many many more are seriously injured. The death and destruction brought by the excessive amount of motorised traffic on our roads is simply insanity. The reduction in speed limit to 20 mph in much of Brighton & Hove has been an excellent thing. p a t r i c k

9:19am Fri 13 Dec 13

p a t r i c k says...

gheese77 wrote:
Good to know which councillors place higher importance on the profits of taxi firms than the safety of the 500 or so children who attend the school on portland road
Yes I agree with this.

I am a Labour guy but I will be voting Green at the local council elections because of this issue.

This will be the first time I've voted Green.
[quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: Good to know which councillors place higher importance on the profits of taxi firms than the safety of the 500 or so children who attend the school on portland road[/p][/quote]Yes I agree with this. I am a Labour guy but I will be voting Green at the local council elections because of this issue. This will be the first time I've voted Green. p a t r i c k

9:26am Fri 13 Dec 13

p a t r i c k says...

PETE OF QUEENS PARK wrote:
Why the hell is Grand Parade 20mph.
Grand Parade is full of pedestrians and cyclists and they must be free to use the roads without fear of being killed by car and lorry drivers.

All the streets in Brighton & Hove should have 20 mph speed limits.
[quote][p][bold]PETE OF QUEENS PARK[/bold] wrote: Why the hell is Grand Parade 20mph.[/p][/quote]Grand Parade is full of pedestrians and cyclists and they must be free to use the roads without fear of being killed by car and lorry drivers. All the streets in Brighton & Hove should have 20 mph speed limits. p a t r i c k

2:11pm Fri 13 Dec 13

Rock_UK says...

p a t r i c k wrote:
Rock_UK wrote:
As regards, the survey, the response rate was appalling . I accept the principle that people who don't vote have thrown away their right to be heard, but nevertheless the council's interpretation of the results is puerile.
An example from the survey:
A road with 87 properties,had 15 responses (17.2%) with 11 response in favour means that 73.3% of the residents support the proposal according to the council.
That is a perfectly reasonable statistical conclusion.

In opinion polls for voting intentions at the general election the percentage of the population polled is a tiny fraction of 1%.

You just don't like a survey which comes up with a result you don't like.

They asked 15 people in a street and 11 are in favour of lower speed limits. Well that is a good clear signal.
"They asked 15 people in the street"
Errr.... no they didn't, they asked 87.
We don't know what the others think. It is equally erroneous to assume that they would have approved as it is to assume they would have disapproved.
As it happens statistical analysis is part of my job, and I can assure you than no worthwhile statistical conclusions can be drawn from this because the number of responses does not constitute a representative sample.
[quote][p][bold]p a t r i c k[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rock_UK[/bold] wrote: As regards, the survey, the response rate was appalling . I accept the principle that people who don't vote have thrown away their right to be heard, but nevertheless the council's interpretation of the results is puerile. An example from the survey: A road with 87 properties,had 15 responses (17.2%) with 11 response in favour means that 73.3% of the residents support the proposal according to the council.[/p][/quote]That is a perfectly reasonable statistical conclusion. In opinion polls for voting intentions at the general election the percentage of the population polled is a tiny fraction of 1%. You just don't like a survey which comes up with a result you don't like. They asked 15 people in a street and 11 are in favour of lower speed limits. Well that is a good clear signal.[/p][/quote]"They asked 15 people in the street" Errr.... no they didn't, they asked 87. We don't know what the others think. It is equally erroneous to assume that they would have approved as it is to assume they would have disapproved. As it happens statistical analysis is part of my job, and I can assure you than no worthwhile statistical conclusions can be drawn from this because the number of responses does not constitute a representative sample. Rock_UK

6:35pm Mon 16 Dec 13

ARMANA says...

p a t r i c k wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
Good to know which councillors place higher importance on the profits of taxi firms than the safety of the 500 or so children who attend the school on portland road
Yes I agree with this.

I am a Labour guy but I will be voting Green at the local council elections because of this issue.

This will be the first time I've voted Green.
Patrick, DONT DO IT, !! There mad as hatters, !!
[quote][p][bold]p a t r i c k[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: Good to know which councillors place higher importance on the profits of taxi firms than the safety of the 500 or so children who attend the school on portland road[/p][/quote]Yes I agree with this. I am a Labour guy but I will be voting Green at the local council elections because of this issue. This will be the first time I've voted Green.[/p][/quote]Patrick, DONT DO IT, !! There mad as hatters, !! ARMANA

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree