Cycle and pedestrian crashes on the rise in new Brighton and Hove 20 mph zone

The Argus: Cycle and pedestrian crashes on the rise in new Brighton and Hove 20 mph zone Cycle and pedestrian crashes on the rise in new Brighton and Hove 20 mph zone

The number of crashes involving pedestrians and cyclists on city centre roads has gone up since 20mph restrictions were introduced.

Figures obtained by The Argus also show the number of serious accidents in 2013 is also higher than two out of the three previous years.

Meanwhile, the drop in accidents on city centre roads has slowed since the new speed restrictions were introduced in more than 500 city centre streets in April.

Motoring campaigners said the outcomes failed to justify the cost of introducing the scheme and called on the council to reconsider bringing 20mph restrictions to other streets in the city.

But Green councillors said it was “not realistic” for accident numbers to continue to drop at the same rate and that the past six months had seen the lowest accident figures in the past four years.

In the first six months of the 20mph zone this year there were 129 accidents compared to 145 for the same period in 2012 and 168 in 2011.

This means accidents dropped by 11% this year but by almost 14% in 2012.

The number of accidents involving cyclists increased from 44 last year to 48 in the first six months of the 20mph limits, while accidents involving pedestrians also jumped from 35 to 40.

There were also 28 serious accidents involving motorists, cyclists and pedestrians this year compared to 29 in 2012, 15 in 2011 and 25 in 2010.

Steve Percy, of the People’s Parking Protest, said: “The argument for these zones was that it would protect people, but these figures show it doesn’t seem to have done that.”

He added: “It seems these figures cannot justify the amount of money spent on introducing the scheme.

“The council should consider not bringing in the other phases because on this evidence it will achieve very little if anything at all.”

Councillor Ian Davey, lead member for transport, said: “It is impossible to know what would have happened if we hadn’t done anything.

“But we do know that measures have been taken over the last few years including lower speed limits and that the number of people killed and injured on roads in the city are going down.

“It’s not realistic for the rate of collisions to continue declining at an increasing pace.

“20mph is not an idea peculiar to Brighton and Hove, one in six UK residents live in a 20mph street.”

The figures in full:

  Motor vehicle only Pedestrian casualty involved Pedal cycle involved All collisions
April 1 2010 - September 30 2010    
Fatal 0 0 0 0
Serious 15 15 6 25
Slight 102 38 39 149
Total 117 53 45 174
April 1 2011 - September 30 2011    
Fatal 0 0 0 0
Serious 4 5 9 15
Slight 102 39 39 153
Total 106 44 48

168

01 April 2012 - 30 September 2012    
Fatal 1 0 0 1
Serious 20 13 9 29
Slight 80 22 35 115
Total 101 35 44 145
01 April 2013 - 30 September 2013    
Fatal 0 0 0 0
Serious 18 16 10 28
Slight 64 24 38 101
Total 82 40 48 129
Note: All collisions may not match sum of the other three categories if there were any collisions involving both a pedestrian and a pedal cyclist

Comments (92)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:01am Tue 17 Dec 13

fred clause says...

How long before Hjarss appears to claim its all a conspiracy against His Beloved Greens this proves what we all knew all along
How long before Hjarss appears to claim its all a conspiracy against His Beloved Greens this proves what we all knew all along fred clause

6:30am Tue 17 Dec 13

I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! says...

The figures must be wrong and should not be believed.
The figures must be wrong and should not be believed. I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars!

6:42am Tue 17 Dec 13

Grumpy Old Cyclist says...

I now believe in Father Christmas. Up yours HJarrs and all the other Green Slime.
I now believe in Father Christmas. Up yours HJarrs and all the other Green Slime. Grumpy Old Cyclist

6:51am Tue 17 Dec 13

Old Ale Man says...

Stop bickering, it is the season to be jolly and jolly nice toward each other.
Stop bickering, it is the season to be jolly and jolly nice toward each other. Old Ale Man

7:12am Tue 17 Dec 13

Brightonlad86 says...

More facts and figures!!

1 simple fact, if everybody took responsibility for themselves on the road there would be far fewer accidents.

I remember, as a child, I was taught that roads were dangerous. This made me extremely cautious when crossing a road. The attitude these days seem to be 'if you hit me at 30 there is an 80% chance I will sue'. Quite often I've seen kids run in in front of cars having no sense of the danger. Then having the cheek to give the 'salute' to the driver and scream 'that's what you brakes are for'. Surley this is something cyclists also experience?
More facts and figures!! 1 simple fact, if everybody took responsibility for themselves on the road there would be far fewer accidents. I remember, as a child, I was taught that roads were dangerous. This made me extremely cautious when crossing a road. The attitude these days seem to be 'if you hit me at 30 there is an 80% chance I will sue'. Quite often I've seen kids run in in front of cars having no sense of the danger. Then having the cheek to give the 'salute' to the driver and scream 'that's what you brakes are for'. Surley this is something cyclists also experience? Brightonlad86

7:17am Tue 17 Dec 13

HJarrs says...

Accidents down overall, so why are accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians up? Are there more pedestrians and cyclists? Lack of enforcement? What is the breakdown? Is the severity lower, are there fewer killed or seriously injured? What can be done to improve road safety further? One thing is certain, you won't find out in the Argus.
Accidents down overall, so why are accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians up? Are there more pedestrians and cyclists? Lack of enforcement? What is the breakdown? Is the severity lower, are there fewer killed or seriously injured? What can be done to improve road safety further? One thing is certain, you won't find out in the Argus. HJarrs

7:29am Tue 17 Dec 13

Helen Ariel says...

Misleading headline designed to reel in the click bait. Where in the stats does it actually mention accidents involving pedestrians and cyclists together? Accidents overall have fallen. A few more accidents for bikes and separately more accidents for pedestrians because more people are walking and cycling.
Misleading headline designed to reel in the click bait. Where in the stats does it actually mention accidents involving pedestrians and cyclists together? Accidents overall have fallen. A few more accidents for bikes and separately more accidents for pedestrians because more people are walking and cycling. Helen Ariel

7:56am Tue 17 Dec 13

DC Brighton says...

Ian Davey was more than happy to claim credit for last week's spurious data on traffic flow on Lewes Road.

This week's seemingly slightly more robust accident numbers don't suit him. When are we going going to replace him with someone who understands transport and, ideally, statistics too?
Ian Davey was more than happy to claim credit for last week's spurious data on traffic flow on Lewes Road. This week's seemingly slightly more robust accident numbers don't suit him. When are we going going to replace him with someone who understands transport and, ideally, statistics too? DC Brighton

8:06am Tue 17 Dec 13

DC Brighton says...

Brightonlad86 wrote:
More facts and figures!!

1 simple fact, if everybody took responsibility for themselves on the road there would be far fewer accidents.

I remember, as a child, I was taught that roads were dangerous. This made me extremely cautious when crossing a road. The attitude these days seem to be 'if you hit me at 30 there is an 80% chance I will sue'. Quite often I've seen kids run in in front of cars having no sense of the danger. Then having the cheek to give the 'salute' to the driver and scream 'that's what you brakes are for'. Surley this is something cyclists also experience?
Absolutely agree, although the absurd traffic light phasing does not help.

I am currently teaching my two-year old to wait for the green man. The crossings around Churchill Square are, frankly, dangerous. You wait for absolutely ages to make it across just one part and then have to walk pretty quickly to make it across in time. As a result, it's usually only me and my son still at the kerb by the time the green man arrives.

And don't get me started on the ludicrous crossings themselves - I have to hold my son up to see the red/green man now they are to the side and not straight ahead. I understand the reasoning for this but it doesn't work at busy crossings or for those shorter than average!

The culmination of all this is that barely a week goes by when someone doesn't get clipped by a bus/cab at this crossing.
[quote][p][bold]Brightonlad86[/bold] wrote: More facts and figures!! 1 simple fact, if everybody took responsibility for themselves on the road there would be far fewer accidents. I remember, as a child, I was taught that roads were dangerous. This made me extremely cautious when crossing a road. The attitude these days seem to be 'if you hit me at 30 there is an 80% chance I will sue'. Quite often I've seen kids run in in front of cars having no sense of the danger. Then having the cheek to give the 'salute' to the driver and scream 'that's what you brakes are for'. Surley this is something cyclists also experience?[/p][/quote]Absolutely agree, although the absurd traffic light phasing does not help. I am currently teaching my two-year old to wait for the green man. The crossings around Churchill Square are, frankly, dangerous. You wait for absolutely ages to make it across just one part and then have to walk pretty quickly to make it across in time. As a result, it's usually only me and my son still at the kerb by the time the green man arrives. And don't get me started on the ludicrous crossings themselves - I have to hold my son up to see the red/green man now they are to the side and not straight ahead. I understand the reasoning for this but it doesn't work at busy crossings or for those shorter than average! The culmination of all this is that barely a week goes by when someone doesn't get clipped by a bus/cab at this crossing. DC Brighton

8:25am Tue 17 Dec 13

kopite_rob says...

Brightonlad86 wrote:
More facts and figures!!

1 simple fact, if everybody took responsibility for themselves on the road there would be far fewer accidents.

I remember, as a child, I was taught that roads were dangerous. This made me extremely cautious when crossing a road. The attitude these days seem to be 'if you hit me at 30 there is an 80% chance I will sue'. Quite often I've seen kids run in in front of cars having no sense of the danger. Then having the cheek to give the 'salute' to the driver and scream 'that's what you brakes are for'. Surley this is something cyclists also experience?
Totally agree.
Stop Look Listen.
I resorted to writing to the local schools and the council road safety team out of frustration about this last year after several really near misses with school kids on the way to work.
On my road bike I do near 30mph without much effort and despite the 98db horn had young kids step out in front of me, but many adults don't seem to remember anymore either. What with the prerequisite ear plugs and smart phone attached 3 inches from their faces its no wonder.
Ipods & Facebook have a lot to answer for.
It's a vicious circle though.
Traffics too dangerous, so parents drive kids to school, kids don't get any road sense or exercise, drivers complain about traffic, council tries to slow traffic down, drivers ignore limits, so parents think its too dangerous, so drive kids to school, create more traffic.
[quote][p][bold]Brightonlad86[/bold] wrote: More facts and figures!! 1 simple fact, if everybody took responsibility for themselves on the road there would be far fewer accidents. I remember, as a child, I was taught that roads were dangerous. This made me extremely cautious when crossing a road. The attitude these days seem to be 'if you hit me at 30 there is an 80% chance I will sue'. Quite often I've seen kids run in in front of cars having no sense of the danger. Then having the cheek to give the 'salute' to the driver and scream 'that's what you brakes are for'. Surley this is something cyclists also experience?[/p][/quote]Totally agree. Stop Look Listen. I resorted to writing to the local schools and the council road safety team out of frustration about this last year after several really near misses with school kids on the way to work. On my road bike I do near 30mph without much effort and despite the 98db horn had young kids step out in front of me, but many adults don't seem to remember anymore either. What with the prerequisite ear plugs and smart phone attached 3 inches from their faces its no wonder. Ipods & Facebook have a lot to answer for. It's a vicious circle though. Traffics too dangerous, so parents drive kids to school, kids don't get any road sense or exercise, drivers complain about traffic, council tries to slow traffic down, drivers ignore limits, so parents think its too dangerous, so drive kids to school, create more traffic. kopite_rob

8:33am Tue 17 Dec 13

Brightonlad86 says...

DC Brighton wrote:
Brightonlad86 wrote:
More facts and figures!!

1 simple fact, if everybody took responsibility for themselves on the road there would be far fewer accidents.

I remember, as a child, I was taught that roads were dangerous. This made me extremely cautious when crossing a road. The attitude these days seem to be 'if you hit me at 30 there is an 80% chance I will sue'. Quite often I've seen kids run in in front of cars having no sense of the danger. Then having the cheek to give the 'salute' to the driver and scream 'that's what you brakes are for'. Surley this is something cyclists also experience?
Absolutely agree, although the absurd traffic light phasing does not help.

I am currently teaching my two-year old to wait for the green man. The crossings around Churchill Square are, frankly, dangerous. You wait for absolutely ages to make it across just one part and then have to walk pretty quickly to make it across in time. As a result, it's usually only me and my son still at the kerb by the time the green man arrives.

And don't get me started on the ludicrous crossings themselves - I have to hold my son up to see the red/green man now they are to the side and not straight ahead. I understand the reasoning for this but it doesn't work at busy crossings or for those shorter than average!

The culmination of all this is that barely a week goes by when someone doesn't get clipped by a bus/cab at this crossing.
Its re-assuring to know kids are still taugh the dangers of the road.

Crossings are becoming less pedestrian friendly. I took a trip to London recently. When your not familiar with the area, the crossings can be extremely confusing, even for those with a bit of commen sense.
[quote][p][bold]DC Brighton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brightonlad86[/bold] wrote: More facts and figures!! 1 simple fact, if everybody took responsibility for themselves on the road there would be far fewer accidents. I remember, as a child, I was taught that roads were dangerous. This made me extremely cautious when crossing a road. The attitude these days seem to be 'if you hit me at 30 there is an 80% chance I will sue'. Quite often I've seen kids run in in front of cars having no sense of the danger. Then having the cheek to give the 'salute' to the driver and scream 'that's what you brakes are for'. Surley this is something cyclists also experience?[/p][/quote]Absolutely agree, although the absurd traffic light phasing does not help. I am currently teaching my two-year old to wait for the green man. The crossings around Churchill Square are, frankly, dangerous. You wait for absolutely ages to make it across just one part and then have to walk pretty quickly to make it across in time. As a result, it's usually only me and my son still at the kerb by the time the green man arrives. And don't get me started on the ludicrous crossings themselves - I have to hold my son up to see the red/green man now they are to the side and not straight ahead. I understand the reasoning for this but it doesn't work at busy crossings or for those shorter than average! The culmination of all this is that barely a week goes by when someone doesn't get clipped by a bus/cab at this crossing.[/p][/quote]Its re-assuring to know kids are still taugh the dangers of the road. Crossings are becoming less pedestrian friendly. I took a trip to London recently. When your not familiar with the area, the crossings can be extremely confusing, even for those with a bit of commen sense. Brightonlad86

8:55am Tue 17 Dec 13

CivicMan says...

In my opinion, the removal of the railings around the new Seven Dials roundabout seems to encourage the pedestrians to cross where they like and often ignore the Zebra crossings. I have had on more than one occasion while trying to creep forward on to the roundabout, people walking in front of my car.
In my opinion, the removal of the railings around the new Seven Dials roundabout seems to encourage the pedestrians to cross where they like and often ignore the Zebra crossings. I have had on more than one occasion while trying to creep forward on to the roundabout, people walking in front of my car. CivicMan

9:27am Tue 17 Dec 13

Morpheus says...

DC Brighton wrote:
Brightonlad86 wrote:
More facts and figures!!

1 simple fact, if everybody took responsibility for themselves on the road there would be far fewer accidents.

I remember, as a child, I was taught that roads were dangerous. This made me extremely cautious when crossing a road. The attitude these days seem to be 'if you hit me at 30 there is an 80% chance I will sue'. Quite often I've seen kids run in in front of cars having no sense of the danger. Then having the cheek to give the 'salute' to the driver and scream 'that's what you brakes are for'. Surley this is something cyclists also experience?
Absolutely agree, although the absurd traffic light phasing does not help.

I am currently teaching my two-year old to wait for the green man. The crossings around Churchill Square are, frankly, dangerous. You wait for absolutely ages to make it across just one part and then have to walk pretty quickly to make it across in time. As a result, it's usually only me and my son still at the kerb by the time the green man arrives.

And don't get me started on the ludicrous crossings themselves - I have to hold my son up to see the red/green man now they are to the side and not straight ahead. I understand the reasoning for this but it doesn't work at busy crossings or for those shorter than average!

The culmination of all this is that barely a week goes by when someone doesn't get clipped by a bus/cab at this crossing.
I agree completely about the new "Puffin" crossings. The fact is that they were designed to speed up traffic and not for the benefit of pedestrians. There is little evidence to show that they have achieved anything. Try complaining to the council or the Department of Transport and you get nothing of any substance back to justify this. However, it seems in central London that they have all vanished as the mistake is realised. The traffic lights at the Clock tower and Churchill Square call out for a complete stop to all traffic and a diagonal crossing to allow people to get about quickly.
[quote][p][bold]DC Brighton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brightonlad86[/bold] wrote: More facts and figures!! 1 simple fact, if everybody took responsibility for themselves on the road there would be far fewer accidents. I remember, as a child, I was taught that roads were dangerous. This made me extremely cautious when crossing a road. The attitude these days seem to be 'if you hit me at 30 there is an 80% chance I will sue'. Quite often I've seen kids run in in front of cars having no sense of the danger. Then having the cheek to give the 'salute' to the driver and scream 'that's what you brakes are for'. Surley this is something cyclists also experience?[/p][/quote]Absolutely agree, although the absurd traffic light phasing does not help. I am currently teaching my two-year old to wait for the green man. The crossings around Churchill Square are, frankly, dangerous. You wait for absolutely ages to make it across just one part and then have to walk pretty quickly to make it across in time. As a result, it's usually only me and my son still at the kerb by the time the green man arrives. And don't get me started on the ludicrous crossings themselves - I have to hold my son up to see the red/green man now they are to the side and not straight ahead. I understand the reasoning for this but it doesn't work at busy crossings or for those shorter than average! The culmination of all this is that barely a week goes by when someone doesn't get clipped by a bus/cab at this crossing.[/p][/quote]I agree completely about the new "Puffin" crossings. The fact is that they were designed to speed up traffic and not for the benefit of pedestrians. There is little evidence to show that they have achieved anything. Try complaining to the council or the Department of Transport and you get nothing of any substance back to justify this. However, it seems in central London that they have all vanished as the mistake is realised. The traffic lights at the Clock tower and Churchill Square call out for a complete stop to all traffic and a diagonal crossing to allow people to get about quickly. Morpheus

9:29am Tue 17 Dec 13

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Shame on the Greens. Almost as shameful as the 40 per cent increase in taxis on the Lewes Road and the fact the traffic flow monitors on the rat runs off the Lewes Road were installed during half term to ensure lower rates of traffic were recorded. No sooner has the party attempted to squeeze people out of cars, the party announces plans to allow 550 parking spaces for student homes on the Preston Barracks site despite telling local residents to get out of their cars. Feathering the nests of their own voters.
Does anyone beleive a word Ian Davey and HJarrs says. I wonder if their wives think they are dreadful individuals.
Shame on the Greens. Almost as shameful as the 40 per cent increase in taxis on the Lewes Road and the fact the traffic flow monitors on the rat runs off the Lewes Road were installed during half term to ensure lower rates of traffic were recorded. No sooner has the party attempted to squeeze people out of cars, the party announces plans to allow 550 parking spaces for student homes on the Preston Barracks site despite telling local residents to get out of their cars. Feathering the nests of their own voters. Does anyone beleive a word Ian Davey and HJarrs says. I wonder if their wives think they are dreadful individuals. Maxwell's Ghost

9:30am Tue 17 Dec 13

All 9 of me says...

HJarrs wrote:
Accidents down overall, so why are accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians up? Are there more pedestrians and cyclists? Lack of enforcement? What is the breakdown? Is the severity lower, are there fewer killed or seriously injured? What can be done to improve road safety further? One thing is certain, you won't find out in the Argus.
You're the green sock puppet, perhaps you should know this already, no ?
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Accidents down overall, so why are accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians up? Are there more pedestrians and cyclists? Lack of enforcement? What is the breakdown? Is the severity lower, are there fewer killed or seriously injured? What can be done to improve road safety further? One thing is certain, you won't find out in the Argus.[/p][/quote]You're the green sock puppet, perhaps you should know this already, no ? All 9 of me

10:00am Tue 17 Dec 13

Brightonlad86 says...

All 9 of me wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Accidents down overall, so why are accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians up? Are there more pedestrians and cyclists? Lack of enforcement? What is the breakdown? Is the severity lower, are there fewer killed or seriously injured? What can be done to improve road safety further? One thing is certain, you won't find out in the Argus.
You're the green sock puppet, perhaps you should know this already, no ?
Maybe, just maybe, the reasons behind increased accidents is because there is a greater complacency amoungst pedestrians and cyclists?
[quote][p][bold]All 9 of me[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Accidents down overall, so why are accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians up? Are there more pedestrians and cyclists? Lack of enforcement? What is the breakdown? Is the severity lower, are there fewer killed or seriously injured? What can be done to improve road safety further? One thing is certain, you won't find out in the Argus.[/p][/quote]You're the green sock puppet, perhaps you should know this already, no ?[/p][/quote]Maybe, just maybe, the reasons behind increased accidents is because there is a greater complacency amoungst pedestrians and cyclists? Brightonlad86

10:10am Tue 17 Dec 13

Fight_Back says...

So accidents were already in a downward trend before the introduction of the 20mph zone and the trend has slowed since the introduction. The Greens kept that quiet didn't they ! That's £1.5m of taxpayers money wasted that could have been better spent on the elderly or youth services that the same Greens are cutting. It would appear they have their priorities wrong.
So accidents were already in a downward trend before the introduction of the 20mph zone and the trend has slowed since the introduction. The Greens kept that quiet didn't they ! That's £1.5m of taxpayers money wasted that could have been better spent on the elderly or youth services that the same Greens are cutting. It would appear they have their priorities wrong. Fight_Back

10:26am Tue 17 Dec 13

Totally Provincial says...

Fight_Back wrote:
So accidents were already in a downward trend before the introduction of the 20mph zone and the trend has slowed since the introduction. The Greens kept that quiet didn't they ! That's £1.5m of taxpayers money wasted that could have been better spent on the elderly or youth services that the same Greens are cutting. It would appear they have their priorities wrong.
But the Greens aren't interested in real people, particularly the vulnerable: they're only interested in pushing through their expensive pet vanity projects, even when there is no evidence that they have any positive impact whatsoever for real people.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: So accidents were already in a downward trend before the introduction of the 20mph zone and the trend has slowed since the introduction. The Greens kept that quiet didn't they ! That's £1.5m of taxpayers money wasted that could have been better spent on the elderly or youth services that the same Greens are cutting. It would appear they have their priorities wrong.[/p][/quote]But the Greens aren't interested in real people, particularly the vulnerable: they're only interested in pushing through their expensive pet vanity projects, even when there is no evidence that they have any positive impact whatsoever for real people. Totally Provincial

10:28am Tue 17 Dec 13

redwing says...

Brightonlad86 wrote:
More facts and figures!!

1 simple fact, if everybody took responsibility for themselves on the road there would be far fewer accidents.

I remember, as a child, I was taught that roads were dangerous. This made me extremely cautious when crossing a road. The attitude these days seem to be 'if you hit me at 30 there is an 80% chance I will sue'. Quite often I've seen kids run in in front of cars having no sense of the danger. Then having the cheek to give the 'salute' to the driver and scream 'that's what you brakes are for'. Surley this is something cyclists also experience?
You may be right that some people need to pay more attention when road crossing (not least because of the distraction of ear pieces, mobile phones etc.) and there needs to be more emphasis on teaching road safety. However, don't forget that the road traffic pedestrians (including children) have to contend with these days is many times that of a few decades ago. In terms of practice at road crossing it probably doesn't help children that they are so shepherded by parents and some are driven everywhere, so it's a bit of a vicious circle with car use compounding the problem.
[quote][p][bold]Brightonlad86[/bold] wrote: More facts and figures!! 1 simple fact, if everybody took responsibility for themselves on the road there would be far fewer accidents. I remember, as a child, I was taught that roads were dangerous. This made me extremely cautious when crossing a road. The attitude these days seem to be 'if you hit me at 30 there is an 80% chance I will sue'. Quite often I've seen kids run in in front of cars having no sense of the danger. Then having the cheek to give the 'salute' to the driver and scream 'that's what you brakes are for'. Surley this is something cyclists also experience?[/p][/quote]You may be right that some people need to pay more attention when road crossing (not least because of the distraction of ear pieces, mobile phones etc.) and there needs to be more emphasis on teaching road safety. However, don't forget that the road traffic pedestrians (including children) have to contend with these days is many times that of a few decades ago. In terms of practice at road crossing it probably doesn't help children that they are so shepherded by parents and some are driven everywhere, so it's a bit of a vicious circle with car use compounding the problem. redwing

10:35am Tue 17 Dec 13

lavenderman says...

If there are more people cycling & walking, due to the 20mph limit, it is very possible there will be a slight increase in accidents. Motor accidents are down, so mission accomplished on both counts.
If there are more people cycling & walking, due to the 20mph limit, it is very possible there will be a slight increase in accidents. Motor accidents are down, so mission accomplished on both counts. lavenderman

11:13am Tue 17 Dec 13

gheese77 says...

As pedestrians feel safer with slow moving traffic, they are more likely to walk into the road without looking properly. This is not a reason to speed everything up again to make it more dangerous.
As pedestrians feel safer with slow moving traffic, they are more likely to walk into the road without looking properly. This is not a reason to speed everything up again to make it more dangerous. gheese77

11:13am Tue 17 Dec 13

Old Ladys Gin says...

Brightonlad86 wrote:
More facts and figures!!

1 simple fact, if everybody took responsibility for themselves on the road there would be far fewer accidents.

I remember, as a child, I was taught that roads were dangerous. This made me extremely cautious when crossing a road. The attitude these days seem to be 'if you hit me at 30 there is an 80% chance I will sue'. Quite often I've seen kids run in in front of cars having no sense of the danger. Then having the cheek to give the 'salute' to the driver and scream 'that's what you brakes are for'. Surley this is something cyclists also experience?
Road casualties 40 years ago were three times what they are today.
Zebra crossing were introduced because we were killing thousands of children each year.
Ah yes! The good old days ;)
If in doubt here is a reference:

http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/File:Killed
_on_British_Roads.pn
g
[quote][p][bold]Brightonlad86[/bold] wrote: More facts and figures!! 1 simple fact, if everybody took responsibility for themselves on the road there would be far fewer accidents. I remember, as a child, I was taught that roads were dangerous. This made me extremely cautious when crossing a road. The attitude these days seem to be 'if you hit me at 30 there is an 80% chance I will sue'. Quite often I've seen kids run in in front of cars having no sense of the danger. Then having the cheek to give the 'salute' to the driver and scream 'that's what you brakes are for'. Surley this is something cyclists also experience?[/p][/quote]Road casualties 40 years ago were three times what they are today. Zebra crossing were introduced because we were killing thousands of children each year. Ah yes! The good old days ;) If in doubt here is a reference: http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/File:Killed _on_British_Roads.pn g Old Ladys Gin

11:14am Tue 17 Dec 13

roystony says...

Shame this didn't come out sooner, it goes against what the greens say for 20mph..
Shame this didn't come out sooner, it goes against what the greens say for 20mph.. roystony

11:29am Tue 17 Dec 13

Ambo Guy says...

The sooner this joke of a party with their lies and spin that could put the Tories to shame are booted out of my town the better.

Roll on 2015.
The sooner this joke of a party with their lies and spin that could put the Tories to shame are booted out of my town the better. Roll on 2015. Ambo Guy

11:36am Tue 17 Dec 13

Old Ladys Gin says...

The trouble is they have done a half way house faff job of it.
What is needed is a legal change in priorities along the lines of most of our neighbouring countries.
Priority for pedestrians over all types of wheeled traffic in very many places - road junctions and every pinch point and shopping street.
Instead of a few highly expensive light controlled crossings there should (in the opinion of some) many more simple places where both pedestrians and wheeled users (which includes cyclists) can expect people to be crossing.
On the mainland it is common for vehicles turning at a green light to have to give way to pedestrians crossing the road they are turning into. It is also usual to have to waiting for pedestrians crossing at any road junction or pinch point or shared space; and wait they do patiently and for as long as it takes.
Until we go down that 'road' legally the old british attitude of car first won't change.
This comment by the AA though old is still pertinent IMO:

http://www.theaa.com
/public_affairs/news
/aa-pedestrian-cross
ings-in-europe-surve
y.html
The trouble is they have done a half way house faff job of it. What is needed is a legal change in priorities along the lines of most of our neighbouring countries. Priority for pedestrians over all types of wheeled traffic in very many places - road junctions and every pinch point and shopping street. Instead of a few highly expensive light controlled crossings there should (in the opinion of some) many more simple places where both pedestrians and wheeled users (which includes cyclists) can expect people to be crossing. On the mainland it is common for vehicles turning at a green light to have to give way to pedestrians crossing the road they are turning into. It is also usual to have to waiting for pedestrians crossing at any road junction or pinch point or shared space; and wait they do patiently and for as long as it takes. Until we go down that 'road' legally the old british attitude of car first won't change. This comment by the AA though old is still pertinent IMO: http://www.theaa.com /public_affairs/news /aa-pedestrian-cross ings-in-europe-surve y.html Old Ladys Gin

12:01pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Old Ladys Gin says...

Morpheus wrote:
DC Brighton wrote:
Brightonlad86 wrote:
More facts and figures!!

1 simple fact, if everybody took responsibility for themselves on the road there would be far fewer accidents.

I remember, as a child, I was taught that roads were dangerous. This made me extremely cautious when crossing a road. The attitude these days seem to be 'if you hit me at 30 there is an 80% chance I will sue'. Quite often I've seen kids run in in front of cars having no sense of the danger. Then having the cheek to give the 'salute' to the driver and scream 'that's what you brakes are for'. Surley this is something cyclists also experience?
Absolutely agree, although the absurd traffic light phasing does not help.

I am currently teaching my two-year old to wait for the green man. The crossings around Churchill Square are, frankly, dangerous. You wait for absolutely ages to make it across just one part and then have to walk pretty quickly to make it across in time. As a result, it's usually only me and my son still at the kerb by the time the green man arrives.

And don't get me started on the ludicrous crossings themselves - I have to hold my son up to see the red/green man now they are to the side and not straight ahead. I understand the reasoning for this but it doesn't work at busy crossings or for those shorter than average!

The culmination of all this is that barely a week goes by when someone doesn't get clipped by a bus/cab at this crossing.
I agree completely about the new "Puffin" crossings. The fact is that they were designed to speed up traffic and not for the benefit of pedestrians. There is little evidence to show that they have achieved anything. Try complaining to the council or the Department of Transport and you get nothing of any substance back to justify this. However, it seems in central London that they have all vanished as the mistake is realised. The traffic lights at the Clock tower and Churchill Square call out for a complete stop to all traffic and a diagonal crossing to allow people to get about quickly.
I could agree more with your last statement and this is common practice in other countries; but no here in the UK we soldier ahead with our island mentality never learning from others and continually reinventing the wheel yet forgetting to put the spokes on :)
[quote][p][bold]Morpheus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DC Brighton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brightonlad86[/bold] wrote: More facts and figures!! 1 simple fact, if everybody took responsibility for themselves on the road there would be far fewer accidents. I remember, as a child, I was taught that roads were dangerous. This made me extremely cautious when crossing a road. The attitude these days seem to be 'if you hit me at 30 there is an 80% chance I will sue'. Quite often I've seen kids run in in front of cars having no sense of the danger. Then having the cheek to give the 'salute' to the driver and scream 'that's what you brakes are for'. Surley this is something cyclists also experience?[/p][/quote]Absolutely agree, although the absurd traffic light phasing does not help. I am currently teaching my two-year old to wait for the green man. The crossings around Churchill Square are, frankly, dangerous. You wait for absolutely ages to make it across just one part and then have to walk pretty quickly to make it across in time. As a result, it's usually only me and my son still at the kerb by the time the green man arrives. And don't get me started on the ludicrous crossings themselves - I have to hold my son up to see the red/green man now they are to the side and not straight ahead. I understand the reasoning for this but it doesn't work at busy crossings or for those shorter than average! The culmination of all this is that barely a week goes by when someone doesn't get clipped by a bus/cab at this crossing.[/p][/quote]I agree completely about the new "Puffin" crossings. The fact is that they were designed to speed up traffic and not for the benefit of pedestrians. There is little evidence to show that they have achieved anything. Try complaining to the council or the Department of Transport and you get nothing of any substance back to justify this. However, it seems in central London that they have all vanished as the mistake is realised. The traffic lights at the Clock tower and Churchill Square call out for a complete stop to all traffic and a diagonal crossing to allow people to get about quickly.[/p][/quote]I could agree more with your last statement and this is common practice in other countries; but no here in the UK we soldier ahead with our island mentality never learning from others and continually reinventing the wheel yet forgetting to put the spokes on :) Old Ladys Gin

12:15pm Tue 17 Dec 13

bikerjimbo says...

Having read the article it now appears the Greens are going to try to spin the 20mph into a success. I think this just shows that the whole scheme has been a waste of our money. I think they should stop now and the other parties use common sense and vote against any blanket 20mph proposals. I am hoping that sanity will prevail!!
Having read the article it now appears the Greens are going to try to spin the 20mph into a success. I think this just shows that the whole scheme has been a waste of our money. I think they should stop now and the other parties use common sense and vote against any blanket 20mph proposals. I am hoping that sanity will prevail!! bikerjimbo

12:33pm Tue 17 Dec 13

billy goat-gruff says...

So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?
So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents? billy goat-gruff

12:33pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Brightonlad86 says...

Old Ladys Gin wrote:
Brightonlad86 wrote:
More facts and figures!!

1 simple fact, if everybody took responsibility for themselves on the road there would be far fewer accidents.

I remember, as a child, I was taught that roads were dangerous. This made me extremely cautious when crossing a road. The attitude these days seem to be 'if you hit me at 30 there is an 80% chance I will sue'. Quite often I've seen kids run in in front of cars having no sense of the danger. Then having the cheek to give the 'salute' to the driver and scream 'that's what you brakes are for'. Surley this is something cyclists also experience?
Road casualties 40 years ago were three times what they are today.
Zebra crossing were introduced because we were killing thousands of children each year.
Ah yes! The good old days ;)
If in doubt here is a reference:

http://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/File:Killed

_on_British_Roads.pn

g
There is no secret that RTC's have been reduced massively over the years and were still in decline before the crack pot greens got into power.

Some of the reasons for reduced accidents could be down to the following;
Better standard of driving
Safer vehicles
ANPR cameras catching unlicensed/uninsured
/untaxed drivers
Tighter drink drive laws
Tighter laws restricting mobile phone use

I am not trying to remove the blame for accidents on drivers. I have seen some very poor drivers and it angers me that they are allowed to be on the road. But, when people step into the road without looking, when cyclists go through red lights, is it the fault of the motorist? No! Accidents are caused by idiots. Unfortunately, what ever laws get brought in/changed these idiots will still exist and they will put themselves and others in danger by not paying attention, disobeying laws etc...

Personally, whether I cycle, walk or drive, I am fairly confident that I will not be involved in an accident. Why? Because I see EVERYONE as a potential idiot and I do everything I can to avoid being another statistic.
[quote][p][bold]Old Ladys Gin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brightonlad86[/bold] wrote: More facts and figures!! 1 simple fact, if everybody took responsibility for themselves on the road there would be far fewer accidents. I remember, as a child, I was taught that roads were dangerous. This made me extremely cautious when crossing a road. The attitude these days seem to be 'if you hit me at 30 there is an 80% chance I will sue'. Quite often I've seen kids run in in front of cars having no sense of the danger. Then having the cheek to give the 'salute' to the driver and scream 'that's what you brakes are for'. Surley this is something cyclists also experience?[/p][/quote]Road casualties 40 years ago were three times what they are today. Zebra crossing were introduced because we were killing thousands of children each year. Ah yes! The good old days ;) If in doubt here is a reference: http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/File:Killed _on_British_Roads.pn g[/p][/quote]There is no secret that RTC's have been reduced massively over the years and were still in decline before the crack pot greens got into power. Some of the reasons for reduced accidents could be down to the following; Better standard of driving Safer vehicles ANPR cameras catching unlicensed/uninsured /untaxed drivers Tighter drink drive laws Tighter laws restricting mobile phone use I am not trying to remove the blame for accidents on drivers. I have seen some very poor drivers and it angers me that they are allowed to be on the road. But, when people step into the road without looking, when cyclists go through red lights, is it the fault of the motorist? No! Accidents are caused by idiots. Unfortunately, what ever laws get brought in/changed these idiots will still exist and they will put themselves and others in danger by not paying attention, disobeying laws etc... Personally, whether I cycle, walk or drive, I am fairly confident that I will not be involved in an accident. Why? Because I see EVERYONE as a potential idiot and I do everything I can to avoid being another statistic. Brightonlad86

12:39pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Fight_Back says...

billy goat-gruff wrote:
So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?
Where has anyone said that - or even implied it ?

No, the common sense argument is that the Greens spent £1.5m of taxpayers money to try and achieve something that was already happening - i.e. less accidents. That £1.5m could have been better spent on services for the vulnerable, keeping the mobile library or housing the homeless.
[quote][p][bold]billy goat-gruff[/bold] wrote: So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?[/p][/quote]Where has anyone said that - or even implied it ? No, the common sense argument is that the Greens spent £1.5m of taxpayers money to try and achieve something that was already happening - i.e. less accidents. That £1.5m could have been better spent on services for the vulnerable, keeping the mobile library or housing the homeless. Fight_Back

12:41pm Tue 17 Dec 13

bluemonday says...

HJarrs wrote:
Accidents down overall, so why are accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians up? Are there more pedestrians and cyclists? Lack of enforcement? What is the breakdown? Is the severity lower, are there fewer killed or seriously injured? What can be done to improve road safety further? One thing is certain, you won't find out in the Argus.
if people would get off there phones or take there earphones out they might actually hear/see traffic coming,that mght help
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Accidents down overall, so why are accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians up? Are there more pedestrians and cyclists? Lack of enforcement? What is the breakdown? Is the severity lower, are there fewer killed or seriously injured? What can be done to improve road safety further? One thing is certain, you won't find out in the Argus.[/p][/quote]if people would get off there phones or take there earphones out they might actually hear/see traffic coming,that mght help bluemonday

12:50pm Tue 17 Dec 13

tom servo says...

If figures had been down the Greens would have been the first to shout it from the rooftops, now the accident figures have increased they spin it the other way (in quite a sheepish manner), let's be honest here, there is only one winner and we aren't it.
If figures had been down the Greens would have been the first to shout it from the rooftops, now the accident figures have increased they spin it the other way (in quite a sheepish manner), let's be honest here, there is only one winner and we aren't it. tom servo

12:57pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Mr.Logical1 says...

HJarrs wrote:
Accidents down overall, so why are accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians up? Are there more pedestrians and cyclists? Lack of enforcement? What is the breakdown? Is the severity lower, are there fewer killed or seriously injured? What can be done to improve road safety further? One thing is certain, you won't find out in the Argus.
maybe like many schemes, the new schemes implemented make the pedestrians and cyclists feel even more invulnerable than previously and they don't take road usage seriously enough. There's a reason that you don't allow young children to cross the road on their own...
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Accidents down overall, so why are accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians up? Are there more pedestrians and cyclists? Lack of enforcement? What is the breakdown? Is the severity lower, are there fewer killed or seriously injured? What can be done to improve road safety further? One thing is certain, you won't find out in the Argus.[/p][/quote]maybe like many schemes, the new schemes implemented make the pedestrians and cyclists feel even more invulnerable than previously and they don't take road usage seriously enough. There's a reason that you don't allow young children to cross the road on their own... Mr.Logical1

1:02pm Tue 17 Dec 13

roystony says...

billy goat-gruff wrote:
So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?
No, its about lowering the speed limit to 20mph! So its about 30mph you fool
[quote][p][bold]billy goat-gruff[/bold] wrote: So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?[/p][/quote]No, its about lowering the speed limit to 20mph! So its about 30mph you fool roystony

1:23pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Mark63 says...

1 in 6 people?! Is he mad?! Apart from outside schools, I've never seen a 20mph zone anywhere in the last 10 years of travelling around! They are the ugliest thing to happen to Brighton roads since (fill in the gap) himself!
1 in 6 people?! Is he mad?! Apart from outside schools, I've never seen a 20mph zone anywhere in the last 10 years of travelling around! They are the ugliest thing to happen to Brighton roads since (fill in the gap) himself! Mark63

1:26pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Brighton1000 says...

billy goat-gruff wrote:
So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?
No I believe the common sense argument is that the Greens have and continue to waste money on vanity projects, that simply arent working. Take away all the spin and made up stats, and you have the bare truth. We cant wait til 2015, we need the opposition parties to grow some balls, stand shoulder to shoulder and force a vote of no confidence. Before they completely ruin our city.
[quote][p][bold]billy goat-gruff[/bold] wrote: So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?[/p][/quote]No I believe the common sense argument is that the Greens have and continue to waste money on vanity projects, that simply arent working. Take away all the spin and made up stats, and you have the bare truth. We cant wait til 2015, we need the opposition parties to grow some balls, stand shoulder to shoulder and force a vote of no confidence. Before they completely ruin our city. Brighton1000

1:28pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Get the Greens out of Brighton says...

How many cyclists and pedestrians know what the highway code is and that they have to stop, look and listen before crossing the road?

If this is true then make it 30mph speed limit again and common sense prevail.

Only 17 more months until these clowns are voted out!
How many cyclists and pedestrians know what the highway code is and that they have to stop, look and listen before crossing the road? If this is true then make it 30mph speed limit again and common sense prevail. Only 17 more months until these clowns are voted out! Get the Greens out of Brighton

2:21pm Tue 17 Dec 13

gheese77 says...

billy goat-gruff wrote:
So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?
Yes - and I think some of them actually believe it !
[quote][p][bold]billy goat-gruff[/bold] wrote: So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?[/p][/quote]Yes - and I think some of them actually believe it ! gheese77

2:40pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Iain Chambers says...

So let me get this straight: since 20mph zone has been in effect there are fewer fatalities, fewer serious incidents, fewer slight incidents, and fewer incidents overall. And the Argus headlines this with Cycle & Pedestrian Crashes on the Rise in 20 MPH Zone?
So let me get this straight: since 20mph zone has been in effect there are fewer fatalities, fewer serious incidents, fewer slight incidents, and fewer incidents overall. And the Argus headlines this with Cycle & Pedestrian Crashes on the Rise in 20 MPH Zone? Iain Chambers

2:55pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Dave At Home says...

Anyone can massage the figures to show how they want it to be, even the Police are massaging the crime figures for the LAT meetings to look like they are on top of things..... it's a shame they think all of us are idiots.
Anyone can massage the figures to show how they want it to be, even the Police are massaging the crime figures for the LAT meetings to look like they are on top of things..... it's a shame they think all of us are idiots. Dave At Home

2:57pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Bill in Hanover says...

But Jason Kit-e-Kat in an interview in the B&H Independent has said that lowering the speed limit WILL (not could) reduce accidents, surely he wouldn't manipulate data to prove another of their loony schemes is going wrong. p.s. I imagine that some of the bike/pedestrian accidents are on the pavement of Lewes Rd. between the college and the gyratory where students still prefer the pavement to the cycle lanes.
But Jason Kit-e-Kat in an interview in the B&H Independent has said that lowering the speed limit WILL (not could) reduce accidents, surely he wouldn't manipulate data to prove another of their loony schemes is going wrong. p.s. I imagine that some of the bike/pedestrian accidents are on the pavement of Lewes Rd. between the college and the gyratory where students still prefer the pavement to the cycle lanes. Bill in Hanover

3:13pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Automaton says...

DC Brighton wrote:
Brightonlad86 wrote:
More facts and figures!!

1 simple fact, if everybody took responsibility for themselves on the road there would be far fewer accidents.

I remember, as a child, I was taught that roads were dangerous. This made me extremely cautious when crossing a road. The attitude these days seem to be 'if you hit me at 30 there is an 80% chance I will sue'. Quite often I've seen kids run in in front of cars having no sense of the danger. Then having the cheek to give the 'salute' to the driver and scream 'that's what you brakes are for'. Surley this is something cyclists also experience?
Absolutely agree, although the absurd traffic light phasing does not help.

I am currently teaching my two-year old to wait for the green man. The crossings around Churchill Square are, frankly, dangerous. You wait for absolutely ages to make it across just one part and then have to walk pretty quickly to make it across in time. As a result, it's usually only me and my son still at the kerb by the time the green man arrives.

And don't get me started on the ludicrous crossings themselves - I have to hold my son up to see the red/green man now they are to the side and not straight ahead. I understand the reasoning for this but it doesn't work at busy crossings or for those shorter than average!

The culmination of all this is that barely a week goes by when someone doesn't get clipped by a bus/cab at this crossing.
Just out of interest what is the reasoning for the pedestrian crossing indicator being adjacent to the pedestrian?
[quote][p][bold]DC Brighton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brightonlad86[/bold] wrote: More facts and figures!! 1 simple fact, if everybody took responsibility for themselves on the road there would be far fewer accidents. I remember, as a child, I was taught that roads were dangerous. This made me extremely cautious when crossing a road. The attitude these days seem to be 'if you hit me at 30 there is an 80% chance I will sue'. Quite often I've seen kids run in in front of cars having no sense of the danger. Then having the cheek to give the 'salute' to the driver and scream 'that's what you brakes are for'. Surley this is something cyclists also experience?[/p][/quote]Absolutely agree, although the absurd traffic light phasing does not help. I am currently teaching my two-year old to wait for the green man. The crossings around Churchill Square are, frankly, dangerous. You wait for absolutely ages to make it across just one part and then have to walk pretty quickly to make it across in time. As a result, it's usually only me and my son still at the kerb by the time the green man arrives. And don't get me started on the ludicrous crossings themselves - I have to hold my son up to see the red/green man now they are to the side and not straight ahead. I understand the reasoning for this but it doesn't work at busy crossings or for those shorter than average! The culmination of all this is that barely a week goes by when someone doesn't get clipped by a bus/cab at this crossing.[/p][/quote]Just out of interest what is the reasoning for the pedestrian crossing indicator being adjacent to the pedestrian? Automaton

3:20pm Tue 17 Dec 13

lawrence18uk says...

Alas, the numbers in the statistics are too small to be significant - ask a proper statistician and they'll explain better than I can. For instance, was the 2011 figure for 'serious injuries' an anomaly? It was 15, whereas 2010 and 2012 were roughly double. Now if these figures had been for a geographical area ten times as big, and were 300, 150, 300, then that would make the fall in 2011 much more significant, even though in both cases you could say "accidents halved in 2011". I'd say you need 5 years of figures to make out anything truly significant. Neither side can claim anything conclusively at the moment. Blame the French - their mathematicians formulated most of the theory behind it all...
Alas, the numbers in the statistics are too small to be significant - ask a proper statistician and they'll explain better than I can. For instance, was the 2011 figure for 'serious injuries' an anomaly? It was 15, whereas 2010 and 2012 were roughly double. Now if these figures had been for a geographical area ten times as big, and were 300, 150, 300, then that would make the fall in 2011 much more significant, even though in both cases you could say "accidents halved in 2011". I'd say you need 5 years of figures to make out anything truly significant. Neither side can claim anything conclusively at the moment. Blame the French - their mathematicians formulated most of the theory behind it all... lawrence18uk

3:22pm Tue 17 Dec 13

roystony says...

gheese77 wrote:
billy goat-gruff wrote:
So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?
Yes - and I think some of them actually believe it !
fool
[quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]billy goat-gruff[/bold] wrote: So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?[/p][/quote]Yes - and I think some of them actually believe it ![/p][/quote]fool roystony

3:50pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Jim Davis says...

This is quite unbelievable negative, biased spin on what's actually a very positive story. The figures certainly indicate that more people are using their feet and pedaling with a consistent year on year drop in overall collisions. To suggest otherwise means poor journalism and a lobby group that takes the views of Top Gear seriously and wants to selfishly drive with unfettered speed despite a very large amount of residents not having access to a car in B&H.

*sits and waits for the impotent mob to mark the 'score' down on this comment* :)
This is quite unbelievable negative, biased spin on what's actually a very positive story. The figures certainly indicate that more people are using their feet and pedaling with a consistent year on year drop in overall collisions. To suggest otherwise means poor journalism and a lobby group that takes the views of Top Gear seriously and wants to selfishly drive with unfettered speed despite a very large amount of residents not having access to a car in B&H. *sits and waits for the impotent mob to mark the 'score' down on this comment* :) Jim Davis

4:08pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Maxwell's Ghost says...

This council has tried to suggest that reducing speed limits reduces accidents. That is incorrect. Reducing speed 'may' reduce the seriousness of injuries sustained but not the number of accidents as the root cause of accidents has not been disclosed by the data.
Therefore, action to prevent accidents ocurring in the first place is better than reducing the likelihood of the injuries being serious.
Interestingly, if you travel along the congested Lewes Road, there are more chidlren standing between cars and lanes of traffic on the carriageway than I ever saw when the road was free flowing. I have also seen an increase in bus passengers stepping in front of the buses and into the central line of traffic now the stops are away from the main pavement.
Observations which raise risks around safety. If you sense a risk, there is a risk.
This council has tried to suggest that reducing speed limits reduces accidents. That is incorrect. Reducing speed 'may' reduce the seriousness of injuries sustained but not the number of accidents as the root cause of accidents has not been disclosed by the data. Therefore, action to prevent accidents ocurring in the first place is better than reducing the likelihood of the injuries being serious. Interestingly, if you travel along the congested Lewes Road, there are more chidlren standing between cars and lanes of traffic on the carriageway than I ever saw when the road was free flowing. I have also seen an increase in bus passengers stepping in front of the buses and into the central line of traffic now the stops are away from the main pavement. Observations which raise risks around safety. If you sense a risk, there is a risk. Maxwell's Ghost

4:19pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Jim Davis says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
This council has tried to suggest that reducing speed limits reduces accidents. That is incorrect. Reducing speed 'may' reduce the seriousness of injuries sustained but not the number of accidents as the root cause of accidents has not been disclosed by the data.
Therefore, action to prevent accidents ocurring in the first place is better than reducing the likelihood of the injuries being serious.
Interestingly, if you travel along the congested Lewes Road, there are more chidlren standing between cars and lanes of traffic on the carriageway than I ever saw when the road was free flowing. I have also seen an increase in bus passengers stepping in front of the buses and into the central line of traffic now the stops are away from the main pavement.
Observations which raise risks around safety. If you sense a risk, there is a risk.
Then that would imply that one would address the main source of the risk which would be the large metal boxes moving at speed where people live, work and go to school. It's the elephant in the room that's never addressed. We prefer everything else to be wrapped in cotton wool and reflective clothing but heaven forbid we actually tackle the actual main cause. There are people out there that even accept the deaths of pedestrians and people on bicycles as 'collateral damage' in some weird notion of economic 'progress'. Bizarre.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: This council has tried to suggest that reducing speed limits reduces accidents. That is incorrect. Reducing speed 'may' reduce the seriousness of injuries sustained but not the number of accidents as the root cause of accidents has not been disclosed by the data. Therefore, action to prevent accidents ocurring in the first place is better than reducing the likelihood of the injuries being serious. Interestingly, if you travel along the congested Lewes Road, there are more chidlren standing between cars and lanes of traffic on the carriageway than I ever saw when the road was free flowing. I have also seen an increase in bus passengers stepping in front of the buses and into the central line of traffic now the stops are away from the main pavement. Observations which raise risks around safety. If you sense a risk, there is a risk.[/p][/quote]Then that would imply that one would address the main source of the risk which would be the large metal boxes moving at speed where people live, work and go to school. It's the elephant in the room that's never addressed. We prefer everything else to be wrapped in cotton wool and reflective clothing but heaven forbid we actually tackle the actual main cause. There are people out there that even accept the deaths of pedestrians and people on bicycles as 'collateral damage' in some weird notion of economic 'progress'. Bizarre. Jim Davis

4:38pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Old Ladys Gin says...

Bill in Hanover wrote:
But Jason Kit-e-Kat in an interview in the B&H Independent has said that lowering the speed limit WILL (not could) reduce accidents, surely he wouldn't manipulate data to prove another of their loony schemes is going wrong. p.s. I imagine that some of the bike/pedestrian accidents are on the pavement of Lewes Rd. between the college and the gyratory where students still prefer the pavement to the cycle lanes.
Mr Kitkat has probably not heard of the experiment in Barcelona when they reduced the maximum speed on the city's many ring roads to 80kph (50mph +-).
The stated aim was to reduce pollution and injury.
In the two years the experiment was running pollution was hardly affected and fatal collisions went up by over 40 percent.
Make of it what you will.
[quote][p][bold]Bill in Hanover[/bold] wrote: But Jason Kit-e-Kat in an interview in the B&H Independent has said that lowering the speed limit WILL (not could) reduce accidents, surely he wouldn't manipulate data to prove another of their loony schemes is going wrong. p.s. I imagine that some of the bike/pedestrian accidents are on the pavement of Lewes Rd. between the college and the gyratory where students still prefer the pavement to the cycle lanes.[/p][/quote]Mr Kitkat has probably not heard of the experiment in Barcelona when they reduced the maximum speed on the city's many ring roads to 80kph (50mph +-). The stated aim was to reduce pollution and injury. In the two years the experiment was running pollution was hardly affected and fatal collisions went up by over 40 percent. Make of it what you will. Old Ladys Gin

5:05pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Jim, there are roads and there are pavements. There is a clear definition.
Would you walk on a motorway? An airport runway? Do you teach your kids not to touch the kettle?
Jim, there are roads and there are pavements. There is a clear definition. Would you walk on a motorway? An airport runway? Do you teach your kids not to touch the kettle? Maxwell's Ghost

5:10pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Jim Davis says...

Old Ladys Gin wrote:
Bill in Hanover wrote:
But Jason Kit-e-Kat in an interview in the B&H Independent has said that lowering the speed limit WILL (not could) reduce accidents, surely he wouldn't manipulate data to prove another of their loony schemes is going wrong. p.s. I imagine that some of the bike/pedestrian accidents are on the pavement of Lewes Rd. between the college and the gyratory where students still prefer the pavement to the cycle lanes.
Mr Kitkat has probably not heard of the experiment in Barcelona when they reduced the maximum speed on the city's many ring roads to 80kph (50mph +-).
The stated aim was to reduce pollution and injury.
In the two years the experiment was running pollution was hardly affected and fatal collisions went up by over 40 percent.
Make of it what you will.
' Traffic management: In 2008 an 80 kph (50 mph) speed limit was introduced on fast roads leading into the city. This reduced NOx emissions in the city of Barcelona by 1.6%, a 0.3% reduction in particles and a 1.3% reduction in accident rates (figures for 2008-2009). - EU ENVIRONMENTAL BEST PRACTICE & BENCHMARKING REPORT 2012-2013
[quote][p][bold]Old Ladys Gin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bill in Hanover[/bold] wrote: But Jason Kit-e-Kat in an interview in the B&H Independent has said that lowering the speed limit WILL (not could) reduce accidents, surely he wouldn't manipulate data to prove another of their loony schemes is going wrong. p.s. I imagine that some of the bike/pedestrian accidents are on the pavement of Lewes Rd. between the college and the gyratory where students still prefer the pavement to the cycle lanes.[/p][/quote]Mr Kitkat has probably not heard of the experiment in Barcelona when they reduced the maximum speed on the city's many ring roads to 80kph (50mph +-). The stated aim was to reduce pollution and injury. In the two years the experiment was running pollution was hardly affected and fatal collisions went up by over 40 percent. Make of it what you will.[/p][/quote]'[Barcelona] Traffic management: In 2008 an 80 kph (50 mph) speed limit was introduced on fast roads leading into the city. This reduced NOx emissions in the city of Barcelona by 1.6%, a 0.3% reduction in particles and a 1.3% reduction in accident rates (figures for 2008-2009). - EU ENVIRONMENTAL BEST PRACTICE & BENCHMARKING REPORT 2012-2013 Jim Davis

5:46pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Brighton Living says...

OH my god your kidding, really, oh no......... BORING!!!!!!!
OH my god your kidding, really, oh no......... BORING!!!!!!! Brighton Living

6:21pm Tue 17 Dec 13

thevoiceoftruth says...

billy goat-gruff wrote:
So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?
Statistics show there are fewer accidents on the motorways per mile travelled, so there is an element of truth to that!

Oh dear, how will the Green Party spin this one? They can't even conduct a survey at half term to swing the results, like they did on Lewes Road. Talking of which, Argus, why don't you find out when they took the Lewes Road data with an FOI request? I'm sure we would all love to know the results!
[quote][p][bold]billy goat-gruff[/bold] wrote: So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?[/p][/quote]Statistics show there are fewer accidents on the motorways per mile travelled, so there is an element of truth to that! Oh dear, how will the Green Party spin this one? They can't even conduct a survey at half term to swing the results, like they did on Lewes Road. Talking of which, Argus, why don't you find out when they took the Lewes Road data with an FOI request? I'm sure we would all love to know the results! thevoiceoftruth

6:34pm Tue 17 Dec 13

DC Brighton says...

Automaton wrote:
DC Brighton wrote:
Brightonlad86 wrote:
More facts and figures!!

1 simple fact, if everybody took responsibility for themselves on the road there would be far fewer accidents.

I remember, as a child, I was taught that roads were dangerous. This made me extremely cautious when crossing a road. The attitude these days seem to be 'if you hit me at 30 there is an 80% chance I will sue'. Quite often I've seen kids run in in front of cars having no sense of the danger. Then having the cheek to give the 'salute' to the driver and scream 'that's what you brakes are for'. Surley this is something cyclists also experience?
Absolutely agree, although the absurd traffic light phasing does not help.

I am currently teaching my two-year old to wait for the green man. The crossings around Churchill Square are, frankly, dangerous. You wait for absolutely ages to make it across just one part and then have to walk pretty quickly to make it across in time. As a result, it's usually only me and my son still at the kerb by the time the green man arrives.

And don't get me started on the ludicrous crossings themselves - I have to hold my son up to see the red/green man now they are to the side and not straight ahead. I understand the reasoning for this but it doesn't work at busy crossings or for those shorter than average!

The culmination of all this is that barely a week goes by when someone doesn't get clipped by a bus/cab at this crossing.
Just out of interest what is the reasoning for the pedestrian crossing indicator being adjacent to the pedestrian?
It is apparently to force you to look in the direction of the oncoming traffic. Given that these have been placed on crossings with two-way traffic, that's of limited help. Misleading even... I spend a lot of time in central London and, as another writer notes, these were rolled out and have since been changed back in may places.
[quote][p][bold]Automaton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DC Brighton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brightonlad86[/bold] wrote: More facts and figures!! 1 simple fact, if everybody took responsibility for themselves on the road there would be far fewer accidents. I remember, as a child, I was taught that roads were dangerous. This made me extremely cautious when crossing a road. The attitude these days seem to be 'if you hit me at 30 there is an 80% chance I will sue'. Quite often I've seen kids run in in front of cars having no sense of the danger. Then having the cheek to give the 'salute' to the driver and scream 'that's what you brakes are for'. Surley this is something cyclists also experience?[/p][/quote]Absolutely agree, although the absurd traffic light phasing does not help. I am currently teaching my two-year old to wait for the green man. The crossings around Churchill Square are, frankly, dangerous. You wait for absolutely ages to make it across just one part and then have to walk pretty quickly to make it across in time. As a result, it's usually only me and my son still at the kerb by the time the green man arrives. And don't get me started on the ludicrous crossings themselves - I have to hold my son up to see the red/green man now they are to the side and not straight ahead. I understand the reasoning for this but it doesn't work at busy crossings or for those shorter than average! The culmination of all this is that barely a week goes by when someone doesn't get clipped by a bus/cab at this crossing.[/p][/quote]Just out of interest what is the reasoning for the pedestrian crossing indicator being adjacent to the pedestrian?[/p][/quote]It is apparently to force you to look in the direction of the oncoming traffic. Given that these have been placed on crossings with two-way traffic, that's of limited help. Misleading even... I spend a lot of time in central London and, as another writer notes, these were rolled out and have since been changed back in may places. DC Brighton

6:46pm Tue 17 Dec 13

thevoiceoftruth says...

HJarrs wrote:
Accidents down overall, so why are accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians up? Are there more pedestrians and cyclists? Lack of enforcement? What is the breakdown? Is the severity lower, are there fewer killed or seriously injured? What can be done to improve road safety further? One thing is certain, you won't find out in the Argus.
Three of your questions are answered in the article. So you will find some of your questions answered in the Argus, should you bother to read it before you comment eg. breakdown, severity and whether fewer have been killed or injured.

Your question 'are there more pedestrians and cyclists?' would require a survey. However, although I may cycle during fair weather, in the winter I would be more likely to drive, walk or take public transport. There are so many different options on what I may choose to do on one day or another - subject to weather and where I need to be - that this question is effectively pointless.

How is lack of enforcement responsible for accidents? Unless it is a car travelling at speed, in which case the police can usually judge what speed the car was travelling at and prosecute accordingly.

I'm sure the greens will now carry out an expensive survey to show it has all been a huge success. Perhaps they will measure the average speed of traffic during heavy snow and then say everyone is sticking to 20mph. Anything is possible.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Accidents down overall, so why are accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians up? Are there more pedestrians and cyclists? Lack of enforcement? What is the breakdown? Is the severity lower, are there fewer killed or seriously injured? What can be done to improve road safety further? One thing is certain, you won't find out in the Argus.[/p][/quote]Three of your questions are answered in the article. So you will find some of your questions answered in the Argus, should you bother to read it before you comment eg. breakdown, severity and whether fewer have been killed or injured. Your question 'are there more pedestrians and cyclists?' would require a survey. However, although I may cycle during fair weather, in the winter I would be more likely to drive, walk or take public transport. There are so many different options on what I may choose to do on one day or another - subject to weather and where I need to be - that this question is effectively pointless. How is lack of enforcement responsible for accidents? Unless it is a car travelling at speed, in which case the police can usually judge what speed the car was travelling at and prosecute accordingly. I'm sure the greens will now carry out an expensive survey to show it has all been a huge success. Perhaps they will measure the average speed of traffic during heavy snow and then say everyone is sticking to 20mph. Anything is possible. thevoiceoftruth

7:37pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Spx says...

Ambumgay's not doing 20, neither are most of these anti green posters (or so they have claimed). These figures have been released too soon to show the benefits of 20mph. Look at the faces of the people following the speed limit - serenity, peace and the knowledge that they are improving brightons roads.
Ambumgay's not doing 20, neither are most of these anti green posters (or so they have claimed). These figures have been released too soon to show the benefits of 20mph. Look at the faces of the people following the speed limit - serenity, peace and the knowledge that they are improving brightons roads. Spx

7:39pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Spx says...

Although I don't believe Ambos mobility scooter can reach 6mph
Although I don't believe Ambos mobility scooter can reach 6mph Spx

7:46pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Iain Chambers says...

thevoiceoftruth wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Accidents down overall, so why are accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians up? Are there more pedestrians and cyclists? Lack of enforcement? What is the breakdown? Is the severity lower, are there fewer killed or seriously injured? What can be done to improve road safety further? One thing is certain, you won't find out in the Argus.
Three of your questions are answered in the article. So you will find some of your questions answered in the Argus, should you bother to read it before you comment eg. breakdown, severity and whether fewer have been killed or injured.

Your question 'are there more pedestrians and cyclists?' would require a survey. However, although I may cycle during fair weather, in the winter I would be more likely to drive, walk or take public transport. There are so many different options on what I may choose to do on one day or another - subject to weather and where I need to be - that this question is effectively pointless.

How is lack of enforcement responsible for accidents? Unless it is a car travelling at speed, in which case the police can usually judge what speed the car was travelling at and prosecute accordingly.

I'm sure the greens will now carry out an expensive survey to show it has all been a huge success. Perhaps they will measure the average speed of traffic during heavy snow and then say everyone is sticking to 20mph. Anything is possible.
If by 'answered in the article' you mean in the table of statistics at the bottom of the article, then it is better for you to know that the table was added after the original article was published. If an article is altered it's good practice to indicate this, particularly if the article is open to comments. We wouldn't want people making stupid comments would we?
[quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Accidents down overall, so why are accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians up? Are there more pedestrians and cyclists? Lack of enforcement? What is the breakdown? Is the severity lower, are there fewer killed or seriously injured? What can be done to improve road safety further? One thing is certain, you won't find out in the Argus.[/p][/quote]Three of your questions are answered in the article. So you will find some of your questions answered in the Argus, should you bother to read it before you comment eg. breakdown, severity and whether fewer have been killed or injured. Your question 'are there more pedestrians and cyclists?' would require a survey. However, although I may cycle during fair weather, in the winter I would be more likely to drive, walk or take public transport. There are so many different options on what I may choose to do on one day or another - subject to weather and where I need to be - that this question is effectively pointless. How is lack of enforcement responsible for accidents? Unless it is a car travelling at speed, in which case the police can usually judge what speed the car was travelling at and prosecute accordingly. I'm sure the greens will now carry out an expensive survey to show it has all been a huge success. Perhaps they will measure the average speed of traffic during heavy snow and then say everyone is sticking to 20mph. Anything is possible.[/p][/quote]If by 'answered in the article' you mean in the table of statistics at the bottom of the article, then it is better for you to know that the table was added after the original article was published. If an article is altered it's good practice to indicate this, particularly if the article is open to comments. We wouldn't want people making stupid comments would we? Iain Chambers

9:10pm Tue 17 Dec 13

ARMANA says...

Grumpy Old Cyclist wrote:
I now believe in Father Christmas. Up yours HJarrs and all the other Green Slime.
Great comment, Grumpy, 100% Green Slime, be careful with the up yours comment though, he might think your trying to chat him up,
[quote][p][bold]Grumpy Old Cyclist[/bold] wrote: I now believe in Father Christmas. Up yours HJarrs and all the other Green Slime.[/p][/quote]Great comment, Grumpy, 100% Green Slime, be careful with the up yours comment though, he might think your trying to chat him up, ARMANA

9:21pm Tue 17 Dec 13

ARMANA says...

I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
The figures must be wrong and should not be believed.
Thats right Gatling Gob, bury your head in the sand,
[quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: The figures must be wrong and should not be believed.[/p][/quote]Thats right Gatling Gob, bury your head in the sand, ARMANA

9:29pm Tue 17 Dec 13

ARMANA says...

I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
The figures must be wrong and should not be believed.
Thats right Gatling Gob, bury your head in the sand,
[quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: The figures must be wrong and should not be believed.[/p][/quote]Thats right Gatling Gob, bury your head in the sand, ARMANA

9:31pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Rita Snatch says...

Council vehicles and Police vehicles travel at 30mph in the 20mph zones...that says a lot to me.
Council vehicles and Police vehicles travel at 30mph in the 20mph zones...that says a lot to me. Rita Snatch

9:48pm Tue 17 Dec 13

brighton bluenose says...

bikerjimbo wrote:
Having read the article it now appears the Greens are going to try to spin the 20mph into a success. I think this just shows that the whole scheme has been a waste of our money. I think they should stop now and the other parties use common sense and vote against any blanket 20mph proposals. I am hoping that sanity will prevail!!
When are people like you going to wake up for christs sake?! Neither the Tories or Labour are going to reverse the 20mph limits or the new bus lanes or the parking charges! The Greens have had the balls to do what they said they would and the Lab/Tory hypocrites will not over-turn these schemes!!!
[quote][p][bold]bikerjimbo[/bold] wrote: Having read the article it now appears the Greens are going to try to spin the 20mph into a success. I think this just shows that the whole scheme has been a waste of our money. I think they should stop now and the other parties use common sense and vote against any blanket 20mph proposals. I am hoping that sanity will prevail!![/p][/quote]When are people like you going to wake up for christs sake?! Neither the Tories or Labour are going to reverse the 20mph limits or the new bus lanes or the parking charges! The Greens have had the balls to do what they said they would and the Lab/Tory hypocrites will not over-turn these schemes!!! brighton bluenose

10:42pm Tue 17 Dec 13

dsvm22 says...

What the report does not say is how many casualty were caused by buses and taxis in the last three years
What the report does not say is how many casualty were caused by buses and taxis in the last three years dsvm22

10:56pm Tue 17 Dec 13

thevoiceoftruth says...

Iain Chambers wrote:
thevoiceoftruth wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Accidents down overall, so why are accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians up? Are there more pedestrians and cyclists? Lack of enforcement? What is the breakdown? Is the severity lower, are there fewer killed or seriously injured? What can be done to improve road safety further? One thing is certain, you won't find out in the Argus.
Three of your questions are answered in the article. So you will find some of your questions answered in the Argus, should you bother to read it before you comment eg. breakdown, severity and whether fewer have been killed or injured.

Your question 'are there more pedestrians and cyclists?' would require a survey. However, although I may cycle during fair weather, in the winter I would be more likely to drive, walk or take public transport. There are so many different options on what I may choose to do on one day or another - subject to weather and where I need to be - that this question is effectively pointless.

How is lack of enforcement responsible for accidents? Unless it is a car travelling at speed, in which case the police can usually judge what speed the car was travelling at and prosecute accordingly.

I'm sure the greens will now carry out an expensive survey to show it has all been a huge success. Perhaps they will measure the average speed of traffic during heavy snow and then say everyone is sticking to 20mph. Anything is possible.
If by 'answered in the article' you mean in the table of statistics at the bottom of the article, then it is better for you to know that the table was added after the original article was published. If an article is altered it's good practice to indicate this, particularly if the article is open to comments. We wouldn't want people making stupid comments would we?
I'm not a time traveller and therefore couldn't possibly know that. Unfortunately, I can't afford a DeLorean. But articles do have a habit of changing on this site, so fair enough.
[quote][p][bold]Iain Chambers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Accidents down overall, so why are accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians up? Are there more pedestrians and cyclists? Lack of enforcement? What is the breakdown? Is the severity lower, are there fewer killed or seriously injured? What can be done to improve road safety further? One thing is certain, you won't find out in the Argus.[/p][/quote]Three of your questions are answered in the article. So you will find some of your questions answered in the Argus, should you bother to read it before you comment eg. breakdown, severity and whether fewer have been killed or injured. Your question 'are there more pedestrians and cyclists?' would require a survey. However, although I may cycle during fair weather, in the winter I would be more likely to drive, walk or take public transport. There are so many different options on what I may choose to do on one day or another - subject to weather and where I need to be - that this question is effectively pointless. How is lack of enforcement responsible for accidents? Unless it is a car travelling at speed, in which case the police can usually judge what speed the car was travelling at and prosecute accordingly. I'm sure the greens will now carry out an expensive survey to show it has all been a huge success. Perhaps they will measure the average speed of traffic during heavy snow and then say everyone is sticking to 20mph. Anything is possible.[/p][/quote]If by 'answered in the article' you mean in the table of statistics at the bottom of the article, then it is better for you to know that the table was added after the original article was published. If an article is altered it's good practice to indicate this, particularly if the article is open to comments. We wouldn't want people making stupid comments would we?[/p][/quote]I'm not a time traveller and therefore couldn't possibly know that. Unfortunately, I can't afford a DeLorean. But articles do have a habit of changing on this site, so fair enough. thevoiceoftruth

12:06am Wed 18 Dec 13

whoee! says...

Spx wrote:
Ambumgay's not doing 20, neither are most of these anti green posters (or so they have claimed). These figures have been released too soon to show the benefits of 20mph. Look at the faces of the people following the speed limit - serenity, peace and the knowledge that they are improving brightons roads.
Yes yes dear...now come along lets get you back into your straight jacket and padded cell lol
[quote][p][bold]Spx[/bold] wrote: Ambumgay's not doing 20, neither are most of these anti green posters (or so they have claimed). These figures have been released too soon to show the benefits of 20mph. Look at the faces of the people following the speed limit - serenity, peace and the knowledge that they are improving brightons roads.[/p][/quote]Yes yes dear...now come along lets get you back into your straight jacket and padded cell lol whoee!

8:29am Wed 18 Dec 13

gheese77 says...

roystony wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
billy goat-gruff wrote:
So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?
Yes - and I think some of them actually believe it !
fool
Who's the fool ? You actually believe faster moving traffic is safer. I suppose you also believe the earth is flat and there are faeries at the bottom of your garden.
[quote][p][bold]roystony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]billy goat-gruff[/bold] wrote: So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?[/p][/quote]Yes - and I think some of them actually believe it ![/p][/quote]fool[/p][/quote]Who's the fool ? You actually believe faster moving traffic is safer. I suppose you also believe the earth is flat and there are faeries at the bottom of your garden. gheese77

9:25am Wed 18 Dec 13

Jim Davis says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Jim, there are roads and there are pavements. There is a clear definition.
Would you walk on a motorway? An airport runway? Do you teach your kids not to touch the kettle?
People don't live, work and shop on motorways, or airport runways. They form part of an exclusive network (geddit?!!) like the cycle lanes that are trying to be implemented here to increase subjective safety for people wanting to get around by bicycle meaning less pavement cycling freeing up that network for pedestrians.

And of course we all teach our children not to touch hot things such as kettles. But the movement of a kettle is far more predictable than the actions of someone behind the wheel of a car refusing to do 20mph believing it to be an exclusively Green policy (it is far from that but let's not let facts interrupt) and on their mobile phones etc etc.

if we keep insisting on keeping children shut away in cars instead of creating safe networks in built up areas to schools, residential areas etc, then that is even more cruel. http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/science-enviro
nment-25316238
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Jim, there are roads and there are pavements. There is a clear definition. Would you walk on a motorway? An airport runway? Do you teach your kids not to touch the kettle?[/p][/quote]People don't live, work and shop on motorways, or airport runways. They form part of an exclusive network (geddit?!!) like the cycle lanes that are trying to be implemented here to increase subjective safety for people wanting to get around by bicycle meaning less pavement cycling freeing up that network for pedestrians. And of course we all teach our children not to touch hot things such as kettles. But the movement of a kettle is far more predictable than the actions of someone behind the wheel of a car refusing to do 20mph believing it to be an exclusively Green policy (it is far from that but let's not let facts interrupt) and on their mobile phones etc etc. if we keep insisting on keeping children shut away in cars instead of creating safe networks in built up areas to schools, residential areas etc, then that is even more cruel. http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/science-enviro nment-25316238 Jim Davis

12:32pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Brighton1000 says...

Jim Davis wrote:
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Jim, there are roads and there are pavements. There is a clear definition.
Would you walk on a motorway? An airport runway? Do you teach your kids not to touch the kettle?
People don't live, work and shop on motorways, or airport runways. They form part of an exclusive network (geddit?!!) like the cycle lanes that are trying to be implemented here to increase subjective safety for people wanting to get around by bicycle meaning less pavement cycling freeing up that network for pedestrians.

And of course we all teach our children not to touch hot things such as kettles. But the movement of a kettle is far more predictable than the actions of someone behind the wheel of a car refusing to do 20mph believing it to be an exclusively Green policy (it is far from that but let's not let facts interrupt) and on their mobile phones etc etc.

if we keep insisting on keeping children shut away in cars instead of creating safe networks in built up areas to schools, residential areas etc, then that is even more cruel. http://www.bbc.co.uk

/news/science-enviro

nment-25316238
Since when has anyone insisted on keeping their kids in cars? Im 38 and when I was growing up, there were no cycle lanes, But I cycled, Cyclists got killed, I crossed the road, People got run over, I touched the kettle, I got burnt. Has common sense really been lost within society, Or do we have councils insisting we be wrapped in cotton wool? My kids use their bikes, play football, rugby, dance, and walk on pavements, use crossings to cross and realise a car is a deadly lump of metal, so they avoid them at all costs. There is a fundemental problem in society these days, where everyone blames the other for causing accidents and deaths and people getting hurt. Its called life, Its a horrible part of life, But its life all the same. You wont stop accidents, humans cause accidents, beacuase we are just that 'Human' and humans make mistakes. Take all the preventative action you like, it'll still happen.

Grenns trying to ban the Speed traisl, as Madeira drive is considered 'unsuitable', Funny how for the past 100 yrs its been suitable. Now there has been 1 death it needs to be cancelled, What is wrong with this council? Close the beaches then, cancel all trains, cancel cars, cancel all bikes, all DIY, as people have all been killed doing all these activities.

Its absolutely absurd, we now live in a nanny state, where we are obviously deemed incapable of making our own decisions on what we wish to do and accept the risks involved.

Anyway Im off to do some base jumping in the himalayas before they ban that too.
[quote][p][bold]Jim Davis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Jim, there are roads and there are pavements. There is a clear definition. Would you walk on a motorway? An airport runway? Do you teach your kids not to touch the kettle?[/p][/quote]People don't live, work and shop on motorways, or airport runways. They form part of an exclusive network (geddit?!!) like the cycle lanes that are trying to be implemented here to increase subjective safety for people wanting to get around by bicycle meaning less pavement cycling freeing up that network for pedestrians. And of course we all teach our children not to touch hot things such as kettles. But the movement of a kettle is far more predictable than the actions of someone behind the wheel of a car refusing to do 20mph believing it to be an exclusively Green policy (it is far from that but let's not let facts interrupt) and on their mobile phones etc etc. if we keep insisting on keeping children shut away in cars instead of creating safe networks in built up areas to schools, residential areas etc, then that is even more cruel. http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/science-enviro nment-25316238[/p][/quote]Since when has anyone insisted on keeping their kids in cars? Im 38 and when I was growing up, there were no cycle lanes, But I cycled, Cyclists got killed, I crossed the road, People got run over, I touched the kettle, I got burnt. Has common sense really been lost within society, Or do we have councils insisting we be wrapped in cotton wool? My kids use their bikes, play football, rugby, dance, and walk on pavements, use crossings to cross and realise a car is a deadly lump of metal, so they avoid them at all costs. There is a fundemental problem in society these days, where everyone blames the other for causing accidents and deaths and people getting hurt. Its called life, Its a horrible part of life, But its life all the same. You wont stop accidents, humans cause accidents, beacuase we are just that 'Human' and humans make mistakes. Take all the preventative action you like, it'll still happen. Grenns trying to ban the Speed traisl, as Madeira drive is considered 'unsuitable', Funny how for the past 100 yrs its been suitable. Now there has been 1 death it needs to be cancelled, What is wrong with this council? Close the beaches then, cancel all trains, cancel cars, cancel all bikes, all DIY, as people have all been killed doing all these activities. Its absolutely absurd, we now live in a nanny state, where we are obviously deemed incapable of making our own decisions on what we wish to do and accept the risks involved. Anyway Im off to do some base jumping in the himalayas before they ban that too. Brighton1000

1:48pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Tring says...

Get the Greens out of Brighton wrote:
How many cyclists and pedestrians know what the highway code is and that they have to stop, look and listen before crossing the road?

If this is true then make it 30mph speed limit again and common sense prevail.

Only 17 more months until these clowns are voted out!
That's right, blame the victims.

Cyclists don't often cross the road, either, as generally speaking they are travelling along it!

Note to Argus - could you change your spellcheck to UK, so it doesn't try to tell me to spell 'travelling' with one l? Thanks ever so
[quote][p][bold]Get the Greens out of Brighton[/bold] wrote: How many cyclists and pedestrians know what the highway code is and that they have to stop, look and listen before crossing the road? If this is true then make it 30mph speed limit again and common sense prevail. Only 17 more months until these clowns are voted out![/p][/quote]That's right, blame the victims. Cyclists don't often cross the road, either, as generally speaking they are travelling along it! Note to Argus - could you change your spellcheck to UK, so it doesn't try to tell me to spell 'travelling' with one l? Thanks ever so Tring

2:07pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Brighton1000 says...

Tring wrote:
Get the Greens out of Brighton wrote:
How many cyclists and pedestrians know what the highway code is and that they have to stop, look and listen before crossing the road?

If this is true then make it 30mph speed limit again and common sense prevail.

Only 17 more months until these clowns are voted out!
That's right, blame the victims.

Cyclists don't often cross the road, either, as generally speaking they are travelling along it!

Note to Argus - could you change your spellcheck to UK, so it doesn't try to tell me to spell 'travelling' with one l? Thanks ever so
Thats nonsense for starters! Cyclists constantly cross the road in front of me, Particularly on Kings Road/Kingsway. They jump red lights, use PEDESTRIAN crossings, and although a generalisation (but hey you lot generalise all motorsists) they have total disregard for their own safety, Assuming that mugs like you, will have pity and call them the victim. The amount I have seen recently with no lights is beyond a joke, They must realise they are dicing with death? In answer to your question, I imagine all pedestrians and cyclists know the GCC, they just choose to ignore it.
[quote][p][bold]Tring[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Get the Greens out of Brighton[/bold] wrote: How many cyclists and pedestrians know what the highway code is and that they have to stop, look and listen before crossing the road? If this is true then make it 30mph speed limit again and common sense prevail. Only 17 more months until these clowns are voted out![/p][/quote]That's right, blame the victims. Cyclists don't often cross the road, either, as generally speaking they are travelling along it! Note to Argus - could you change your spellcheck to UK, so it doesn't try to tell me to spell 'travelling' with one l? Thanks ever so[/p][/quote]Thats nonsense for starters! Cyclists constantly cross the road in front of me, Particularly on Kings Road/Kingsway. They jump red lights, use PEDESTRIAN crossings, and although a generalisation (but hey you lot generalise all motorsists) they have total disregard for their own safety, Assuming that mugs like you, will have pity and call them the victim. The amount I have seen recently with no lights is beyond a joke, They must realise they are dicing with death? In answer to your question, I imagine all pedestrians and cyclists know the GCC, they just choose to ignore it. Brighton1000

4:51pm Thu 19 Dec 13

gheese77 says...

thevoiceoftruth wrote:
billy goat-gruff wrote:
So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?
Statistics show there are fewer accidents on the motorways per mile travelled, so there is an element of truth to that!

Oh dear, how will the Green Party spin this one? They can't even conduct a survey at half term to swing the results, like they did on Lewes Road. Talking of which, Argus, why don't you find out when they took the Lewes Road data with an FOI request? I'm sure we would all love to know the results!
Given that kind of reasoning we should increase the speed limit to 70 mph in town and tolerate people will actually doing 80 - 85 mph.
[quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]billy goat-gruff[/bold] wrote: So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?[/p][/quote]Statistics show there are fewer accidents on the motorways per mile travelled, so there is an element of truth to that! Oh dear, how will the Green Party spin this one? They can't even conduct a survey at half term to swing the results, like they did on Lewes Road. Talking of which, Argus, why don't you find out when they took the Lewes Road data with an FOI request? I'm sure we would all love to know the results![/p][/quote]Given that kind of reasoning we should increase the speed limit to 70 mph in town and tolerate people will actually doing 80 - 85 mph. gheese77

10:40pm Thu 19 Dec 13

I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! says...

gheese77 wrote:
thevoiceoftruth wrote:
billy goat-gruff wrote:
So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?
Statistics show there are fewer accidents on the motorways per mile travelled, so there is an element of truth to that!

Oh dear, how will the Green Party spin this one? They can't even conduct a survey at half term to swing the results, like they did on Lewes Road. Talking of which, Argus, why don't you find out when they took the Lewes Road data with an FOI request? I'm sure we would all love to know the results!
Given that kind of reasoning we should increase the speed limit to 70 mph in town and tolerate people will actually doing 80 - 85 mph.
moron
[quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]billy goat-gruff[/bold] wrote: So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?[/p][/quote]Statistics show there are fewer accidents on the motorways per mile travelled, so there is an element of truth to that! Oh dear, how will the Green Party spin this one? They can't even conduct a survey at half term to swing the results, like they did on Lewes Road. Talking of which, Argus, why don't you find out when they took the Lewes Road data with an FOI request? I'm sure we would all love to know the results![/p][/quote]Given that kind of reasoning we should increase the speed limit to 70 mph in town and tolerate people will actually doing 80 - 85 mph.[/p][/quote]moron I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars!

11:51am Fri 20 Dec 13

gheese77 says...

I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
thevoiceoftruth wrote:
billy goat-gruff wrote:
So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?
Statistics show there are fewer accidents on the motorways per mile travelled, so there is an element of truth to that!

Oh dear, how will the Green Party spin this one? They can't even conduct a survey at half term to swing the results, like they did on Lewes Road. Talking of which, Argus, why don't you find out when they took the Lewes Road data with an FOI request? I'm sure we would all love to know the results!
Given that kind of reasoning we should increase the speed limit to 70 mph in town and tolerate people will actually doing 80 - 85 mph.
moron
Come on HJ its not like you to start name calling especially when we are arguing with ourself. After all your argument are usually so well reasoned.
Anyway when folks start calling me names for the lack of any other response I know I have won the argument.
[quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]billy goat-gruff[/bold] wrote: So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?[/p][/quote]Statistics show there are fewer accidents on the motorways per mile travelled, so there is an element of truth to that! Oh dear, how will the Green Party spin this one? They can't even conduct a survey at half term to swing the results, like they did on Lewes Road. Talking of which, Argus, why don't you find out when they took the Lewes Road data with an FOI request? I'm sure we would all love to know the results![/p][/quote]Given that kind of reasoning we should increase the speed limit to 70 mph in town and tolerate people will actually doing 80 - 85 mph.[/p][/quote]moron[/p][/quote]Come on HJ its not like you to start name calling especially when we are arguing with ourself. After all your argument are usually so well reasoned. Anyway when folks start calling me names for the lack of any other response I know I have won the argument. gheese77

2:59pm Fri 20 Dec 13

ARMANA says...

gheese77 wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
thevoiceoftruth wrote:
billy goat-gruff wrote:
So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?
Statistics show there are fewer accidents on the motorways per mile travelled, so there is an element of truth to that!

Oh dear, how will the Green Party spin this one? They can't even conduct a survey at half term to swing the results, like they did on Lewes Road. Talking of which, Argus, why don't you find out when they took the Lewes Road data with an FOI request? I'm sure we would all love to know the results!
Given that kind of reasoning we should increase the speed limit to 70 mph in town and tolerate people will actually doing 80 - 85 mph.
moron
Come on HJ its not like you to start name calling especially when we are arguing with ourself. After all your argument are usually so well reasoned.
Anyway when folks start calling me names for the lack of any other response I know I have won the argument.
Hes boyfriends probably dumped him, lol,
[quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]billy goat-gruff[/bold] wrote: So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?[/p][/quote]Statistics show there are fewer accidents on the motorways per mile travelled, so there is an element of truth to that! Oh dear, how will the Green Party spin this one? They can't even conduct a survey at half term to swing the results, like they did on Lewes Road. Talking of which, Argus, why don't you find out when they took the Lewes Road data with an FOI request? I'm sure we would all love to know the results![/p][/quote]Given that kind of reasoning we should increase the speed limit to 70 mph in town and tolerate people will actually doing 80 - 85 mph.[/p][/quote]moron[/p][/quote]Come on HJ its not like you to start name calling especially when we are arguing with ourself. After all your argument are usually so well reasoned. Anyway when folks start calling me names for the lack of any other response I know I have won the argument.[/p][/quote]Hes boyfriends probably dumped him, lol, ARMANA

4:00pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Perseus says...

I have done by own research into this in Shoreham.

My conclusions were that overall incidents would increase (mostly unreported) but the injuries and damage would decrease overall. Especially down would be fatal and serious injuries.

Research had 54% incidents down to driver error, and 10% down to cyclist error in cycling, and up to 18% if you include faulty bikes, inappropriate clothing etc.

Buses identified as being the most dangerous vehicle on the road for cyclists by quite a long way over white van drivers and taxis. Mobile phone use was just coming in when I did the research but it was obvious (from near misses) these were an important extra hazard.

Research also identified cycle helmets as not making any difference in 100 incidents recorded. A more formidable helmet like those worn by cricketers would have prevented some injuries though.
I have done by own research into this in Shoreham. My conclusions were that overall incidents would increase (mostly unreported) but the injuries and damage would decrease overall. Especially down would be fatal and serious injuries. Research had 54% incidents down to driver error, and 10% down to cyclist error in cycling, and up to 18% if you include faulty bikes, inappropriate clothing etc. Buses identified as being the most dangerous vehicle on the road for cyclists by quite a long way over white van drivers and taxis. Mobile phone use was just coming in when I did the research but it was obvious (from near misses) these were an important extra hazard. Research also identified cycle helmets as not making any difference in 100 incidents recorded. A more formidable helmet like those worn by cricketers would have prevented some injuries though. Perseus

4:11pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Perseus says...

Addenda: 54% down to motorists error included off road (cyclepath) incidents as well. Taking these out and driver error was up to 66%.

I identified heavy rain as particularly hazardous on roads. Off road: Cycle-cycle collisions were significant upping the cyclist error total.

Pedestrians were a problem as well. The Brighton & Hove coastal cyclepath was particularly hazardous in all respects. Too hazardous to use.

Complicated junctions were another danger area as well as buses and bus stops. But just anything could cause an accident, notably runners, potholes and Staffordshire Bull Terriers (more than three-quarters of dog incidnets..
Addenda: 54% down to motorists error included off road (cyclepath) incidents as well. Taking these out and driver error was up to 66%. I identified heavy rain as particularly hazardous on roads. Off road: Cycle-cycle collisions were significant upping the cyclist error total. Pedestrians were a problem as well. The Brighton & Hove coastal cyclepath was particularly hazardous in all respects. Too hazardous to use. Complicated junctions were another danger area as well as buses and bus stops. But just anything could cause an accident, notably runners, potholes and Staffordshire Bull Terriers (more than three-quarters of dog incidnets.. Perseus

7:39pm Fri 20 Dec 13

I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! says...

ARMANA wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
thevoiceoftruth wrote:
billy goat-gruff wrote:
So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?
Statistics show there are fewer accidents on the motorways per mile travelled, so there is an element of truth to that!

Oh dear, how will the Green Party spin this one? They can't even conduct a survey at half term to swing the results, like they did on Lewes Road. Talking of which, Argus, why don't you find out when they took the Lewes Road data with an FOI request? I'm sure we would all love to know the results!
Given that kind of reasoning we should increase the speed limit to 70 mph in town and tolerate people will actually doing 80 - 85 mph.
moron
Come on HJ its not like you to start name calling especially when we are arguing with ourself. After all your argument are usually so well reasoned.
Anyway when folks start calling me names for the lack of any other response I know I have won the argument.
Hes boyfriends probably dumped him, lol,
ARSEMAN - by name, by preference
[quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]billy goat-gruff[/bold] wrote: So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?[/p][/quote]Statistics show there are fewer accidents on the motorways per mile travelled, so there is an element of truth to that! Oh dear, how will the Green Party spin this one? They can't even conduct a survey at half term to swing the results, like they did on Lewes Road. Talking of which, Argus, why don't you find out when they took the Lewes Road data with an FOI request? I'm sure we would all love to know the results![/p][/quote]Given that kind of reasoning we should increase the speed limit to 70 mph in town and tolerate people will actually doing 80 - 85 mph.[/p][/quote]moron[/p][/quote]Come on HJ its not like you to start name calling especially when we are arguing with ourself. After all your argument are usually so well reasoned. Anyway when folks start calling me names for the lack of any other response I know I have won the argument.[/p][/quote]Hes boyfriends probably dumped him, lol,[/p][/quote]ARSEMAN - by name, by preference I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars!

7:50pm Fri 20 Dec 13

I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! says...

gheese77 wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
thevoiceoftruth wrote:
billy goat-gruff wrote:
So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?
Statistics show there are fewer accidents on the motorways per mile travelled, so there is an element of truth to that!

Oh dear, how will the Green Party spin this one? They can't even conduct a survey at half term to swing the results, like they did on Lewes Road. Talking of which, Argus, why don't you find out when they took the Lewes Road data with an FOI request? I'm sure we would all love to know the results!
Given that kind of reasoning we should increase the speed limit to 70 mph in town and tolerate people will actually doing 80 - 85 mph.
moron
Come on HJ its not like you to start name calling especially when we are arguing with ourself. After all your argument are usually so well reasoned.
Anyway when folks start calling me names for the lack of any other response I know I have won the argument.
Thing is HJ...there are so many morons posting on this site (present company included) that there is no point trying to debate issues. Especially with you and your misinformation.

You actually make ARSEMAN appear straight...LOL
[quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]billy goat-gruff[/bold] wrote: So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?[/p][/quote]Statistics show there are fewer accidents on the motorways per mile travelled, so there is an element of truth to that! Oh dear, how will the Green Party spin this one? They can't even conduct a survey at half term to swing the results, like they did on Lewes Road. Talking of which, Argus, why don't you find out when they took the Lewes Road data with an FOI request? I'm sure we would all love to know the results![/p][/quote]Given that kind of reasoning we should increase the speed limit to 70 mph in town and tolerate people will actually doing 80 - 85 mph.[/p][/quote]moron[/p][/quote]Come on HJ its not like you to start name calling especially when we are arguing with ourself. After all your argument are usually so well reasoned. Anyway when folks start calling me names for the lack of any other response I know I have won the argument.[/p][/quote]Thing is HJ...there are so many morons posting on this site (present company included) that there is no point trying to debate issues. Especially with you and your misinformation. You actually make ARSEMAN appear straight...LOL I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars!

9:08pm Fri 20 Dec 13

ARMANA says...

I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
thevoiceoftruth wrote:
billy goat-gruff wrote:
So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?
Statistics show there are fewer accidents on the motorways per mile travelled, so there is an element of truth to that!

Oh dear, how will the Green Party spin this one? They can't even conduct a survey at half term to swing the results, like they did on Lewes Road. Talking of which, Argus, why don't you find out when they took the Lewes Road data with an FOI request? I'm sure we would all love to know the results!
Given that kind of reasoning we should increase the speed limit to 70 mph in town and tolerate people will actually doing 80 - 85 mph.
moron
Come on HJ its not like you to start name calling especially when we are arguing with ourself. After all your argument are usually so well reasoned.
Anyway when folks start calling me names for the lack of any other response I know I have won the argument.
Thing is HJ...there are so many morons posting on this site (present company included) that there is no point trying to debate issues. Especially with you and your misinformation.

You actually make ARSEMAN appear straight...LOL
Gatling Gob, & a Moron, p.s, Dont forget to top up on Faggots over the Christmas Gatling Gob,
[quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]billy goat-gruff[/bold] wrote: So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?[/p][/quote]Statistics show there are fewer accidents on the motorways per mile travelled, so there is an element of truth to that! Oh dear, how will the Green Party spin this one? They can't even conduct a survey at half term to swing the results, like they did on Lewes Road. Talking of which, Argus, why don't you find out when they took the Lewes Road data with an FOI request? I'm sure we would all love to know the results![/p][/quote]Given that kind of reasoning we should increase the speed limit to 70 mph in town and tolerate people will actually doing 80 - 85 mph.[/p][/quote]moron[/p][/quote]Come on HJ its not like you to start name calling especially when we are arguing with ourself. After all your argument are usually so well reasoned. Anyway when folks start calling me names for the lack of any other response I know I have won the argument.[/p][/quote]Thing is HJ...there are so many morons posting on this site (present company included) that there is no point trying to debate issues. Especially with you and your misinformation. You actually make ARSEMAN appear straight...LOL[/p][/quote]Gatling Gob, & a Moron, p.s, Dont forget to top up on Faggots over the Christmas Gatling Gob, ARMANA

9:10pm Fri 20 Dec 13

I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! says...

ARMANA wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
thevoiceoftruth wrote:
billy goat-gruff wrote:
So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?
Statistics show there are fewer accidents on the motorways per mile travelled, so there is an element of truth to that!

Oh dear, how will the Green Party spin this one? They can't even conduct a survey at half term to swing the results, like they did on Lewes Road. Talking of which, Argus, why don't you find out when they took the Lewes Road data with an FOI request? I'm sure we would all love to know the results!
Given that kind of reasoning we should increase the speed limit to 70 mph in town and tolerate people will actually doing 80 - 85 mph.
moron
Come on HJ its not like you to start name calling especially when we are arguing with ourself. After all your argument are usually so well reasoned.
Anyway when folks start calling me names for the lack of any other response I know I have won the argument.
Thing is HJ...there are so many morons posting on this site (present company included) that there is no point trying to debate issues. Especially with you and your misinformation.

You actually make ARSEMAN appear straight...LOL
Gatling Gob, & a Moron, p.s, Dont forget to top up on Faggots over the Christmas Gatling Gob,
Suspect you are fully lubed up and if you haven't started receiving yet, will be soon. Take it up the ARSEMAN. LOL Ha ha ha ha ha
[quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]billy goat-gruff[/bold] wrote: So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?[/p][/quote]Statistics show there are fewer accidents on the motorways per mile travelled, so there is an element of truth to that! Oh dear, how will the Green Party spin this one? They can't even conduct a survey at half term to swing the results, like they did on Lewes Road. Talking of which, Argus, why don't you find out when they took the Lewes Road data with an FOI request? I'm sure we would all love to know the results![/p][/quote]Given that kind of reasoning we should increase the speed limit to 70 mph in town and tolerate people will actually doing 80 - 85 mph.[/p][/quote]moron[/p][/quote]Come on HJ its not like you to start name calling especially when we are arguing with ourself. After all your argument are usually so well reasoned. Anyway when folks start calling me names for the lack of any other response I know I have won the argument.[/p][/quote]Thing is HJ...there are so many morons posting on this site (present company included) that there is no point trying to debate issues. Especially with you and your misinformation. You actually make ARSEMAN appear straight...LOL[/p][/quote]Gatling Gob, & a Moron, p.s, Dont forget to top up on Faggots over the Christmas Gatling Gob,[/p][/quote]Suspect you are fully lubed up and if you haven't started receiving yet, will be soon. Take it up the ARSEMAN. LOL Ha ha ha ha ha I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars!

9:15pm Fri 20 Dec 13

ARMANA says...

I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
thevoiceoftruth wrote:
billy goat-gruff wrote:
So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?
Statistics show there are fewer accidents on the motorways per mile travelled, so there is an element of truth to that!

Oh dear, how will the Green Party spin this one? They can't even conduct a survey at half term to swing the results, like they did on Lewes Road. Talking of which, Argus, why don't you find out when they took the Lewes Road data with an FOI request? I'm sure we would all love to know the results!
Given that kind of reasoning we should increase the speed limit to 70 mph in town and tolerate people will actually doing 80 - 85 mph.
moron
Come on HJ its not like you to start name calling especially when we are arguing with ourself. After all your argument are usually so well reasoned.
Anyway when folks start calling me names for the lack of any other response I know I have won the argument.
Thing is HJ...there are so many morons posting on this site (present company included) that there is no point trying to debate issues. Especially with you and your misinformation.

You actually make ARSEMAN appear straight...LOL
Gatling Gob, & a Moron, p.s, Dont forget to top up on Faggots over the Christmas Gatling Gob,
Suspect you are fully lubed up and if you haven't started receiving yet, will be soon. Take it up the ARSEMAN. LOL Ha ha ha ha ha
Your a foul mouthed Kemp Town low life Gatling Gob, People like you are Gutter trash,
[quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]billy goat-gruff[/bold] wrote: So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?[/p][/quote]Statistics show there are fewer accidents on the motorways per mile travelled, so there is an element of truth to that! Oh dear, how will the Green Party spin this one? They can't even conduct a survey at half term to swing the results, like they did on Lewes Road. Talking of which, Argus, why don't you find out when they took the Lewes Road data with an FOI request? I'm sure we would all love to know the results![/p][/quote]Given that kind of reasoning we should increase the speed limit to 70 mph in town and tolerate people will actually doing 80 - 85 mph.[/p][/quote]moron[/p][/quote]Come on HJ its not like you to start name calling especially when we are arguing with ourself. After all your argument are usually so well reasoned. Anyway when folks start calling me names for the lack of any other response I know I have won the argument.[/p][/quote]Thing is HJ...there are so many morons posting on this site (present company included) that there is no point trying to debate issues. Especially with you and your misinformation. You actually make ARSEMAN appear straight...LOL[/p][/quote]Gatling Gob, & a Moron, p.s, Dont forget to top up on Faggots over the Christmas Gatling Gob,[/p][/quote]Suspect you are fully lubed up and if you haven't started receiving yet, will be soon. Take it up the ARSEMAN. LOL Ha ha ha ha ha[/p][/quote]Your a foul mouthed Kemp Town low life Gatling Gob, People like you are Gutter trash, ARMANA

9:18pm Fri 20 Dec 13

I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! says...

ARMANA wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
thevoiceoftruth wrote:
billy goat-gruff wrote:
So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?
Statistics show there are fewer accidents on the motorways per mile travelled, so there is an element of truth to that!

Oh dear, how will the Green Party spin this one? They can't even conduct a survey at half term to swing the results, like they did on Lewes Road. Talking of which, Argus, why don't you find out when they took the Lewes Road data with an FOI request? I'm sure we would all love to know the results!
Given that kind of reasoning we should increase the speed limit to 70 mph in town and tolerate people will actually doing 80 - 85 mph.
moron
Come on HJ its not like you to start name calling especially when we are arguing with ourself. After all your argument are usually so well reasoned.
Anyway when folks start calling me names for the lack of any other response I know I have won the argument.
Thing is HJ...there are so many morons posting on this site (present company included) that there is no point trying to debate issues. Especially with you and your misinformation.

You actually make ARSEMAN appear straight...LOL
Gatling Gob, & a Moron, p.s, Dont forget to top up on Faggots over the Christmas Gatling Gob,
Suspect you are fully lubed up and if you haven't started receiving yet, will be soon. Take it up the ARSEMAN. LOL Ha ha ha ha ha
Your a foul mouthed Kemp Town low life Gatling Gob, People like you are Gutter trash,
Whereas you like to push back ARSEMAN

LOL ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
[quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]billy goat-gruff[/bold] wrote: So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?[/p][/quote]Statistics show there are fewer accidents on the motorways per mile travelled, so there is an element of truth to that! Oh dear, how will the Green Party spin this one? They can't even conduct a survey at half term to swing the results, like they did on Lewes Road. Talking of which, Argus, why don't you find out when they took the Lewes Road data with an FOI request? I'm sure we would all love to know the results![/p][/quote]Given that kind of reasoning we should increase the speed limit to 70 mph in town and tolerate people will actually doing 80 - 85 mph.[/p][/quote]moron[/p][/quote]Come on HJ its not like you to start name calling especially when we are arguing with ourself. After all your argument are usually so well reasoned. Anyway when folks start calling me names for the lack of any other response I know I have won the argument.[/p][/quote]Thing is HJ...there are so many morons posting on this site (present company included) that there is no point trying to debate issues. Especially with you and your misinformation. You actually make ARSEMAN appear straight...LOL[/p][/quote]Gatling Gob, & a Moron, p.s, Dont forget to top up on Faggots over the Christmas Gatling Gob,[/p][/quote]Suspect you are fully lubed up and if you haven't started receiving yet, will be soon. Take it up the ARSEMAN. LOL Ha ha ha ha ha[/p][/quote]Your a foul mouthed Kemp Town low life Gatling Gob, People like you are Gutter trash,[/p][/quote]Whereas you like to push back ARSEMAN LOL ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars!

9:39pm Fri 20 Dec 13

ARMANA says...

I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
thevoiceoftruth wrote:
billy goat-gruff wrote:
So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?
Statistics show there are fewer accidents on the motorways per mile travelled, so there is an element of truth to that!

Oh dear, how will the Green Party spin this one? They can't even conduct a survey at half term to swing the results, like they did on Lewes Road. Talking of which, Argus, why don't you find out when they took the Lewes Road data with an FOI request? I'm sure we would all love to know the results!
Given that kind of reasoning we should increase the speed limit to 70 mph in town and tolerate people will actually doing 80 - 85 mph.
moron
Come on HJ its not like you to start name calling especially when we are arguing with ourself. After all your argument are usually so well reasoned.
Anyway when folks start calling me names for the lack of any other response I know I have won the argument.
Thing is HJ...there are so many morons posting on this site (present company included) that there is no point trying to debate issues. Especially with you and your misinformation.

You actually make ARSEMAN appear straight...LOL
Gatling Gob, & a Moron, p.s, Dont forget to top up on Faggots over the Christmas Gatling Gob,
Suspect you are fully lubed up and if you haven't started receiving yet, will be soon. Take it up the ARSEMAN. LOL Ha ha ha ha ha
Your a foul mouthed Kemp Town low life Gatling Gob, People like you are Gutter trash,
Whereas you like to push back ARSEMAN

LOL ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
You shouldn't be laughing, Gatling Gob, theres no cure for your condition,
[quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]billy goat-gruff[/bold] wrote: So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?[/p][/quote]Statistics show there are fewer accidents on the motorways per mile travelled, so there is an element of truth to that! Oh dear, how will the Green Party spin this one? They can't even conduct a survey at half term to swing the results, like they did on Lewes Road. Talking of which, Argus, why don't you find out when they took the Lewes Road data with an FOI request? I'm sure we would all love to know the results![/p][/quote]Given that kind of reasoning we should increase the speed limit to 70 mph in town and tolerate people will actually doing 80 - 85 mph.[/p][/quote]moron[/p][/quote]Come on HJ its not like you to start name calling especially when we are arguing with ourself. After all your argument are usually so well reasoned. Anyway when folks start calling me names for the lack of any other response I know I have won the argument.[/p][/quote]Thing is HJ...there are so many morons posting on this site (present company included) that there is no point trying to debate issues. Especially with you and your misinformation. You actually make ARSEMAN appear straight...LOL[/p][/quote]Gatling Gob, & a Moron, p.s, Dont forget to top up on Faggots over the Christmas Gatling Gob,[/p][/quote]Suspect you are fully lubed up and if you haven't started receiving yet, will be soon. Take it up the ARSEMAN. LOL Ha ha ha ha ha[/p][/quote]Your a foul mouthed Kemp Town low life Gatling Gob, People like you are Gutter trash,[/p][/quote]Whereas you like to push back ARSEMAN LOL ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha[/p][/quote]You shouldn't be laughing, Gatling Gob, theres no cure for your condition, ARMANA

9:44pm Fri 20 Dec 13

I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! says...

ARMANA wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
thevoiceoftruth wrote:
billy goat-gruff wrote:
So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?
Statistics show there are fewer accidents on the motorways per mile travelled, so there is an element of truth to that!

Oh dear, how will the Green Party spin this one? They can't even conduct a survey at half term to swing the results, like they did on Lewes Road. Talking of which, Argus, why don't you find out when they took the Lewes Road data with an FOI request? I'm sure we would all love to know the results!
Given that kind of reasoning we should increase the speed limit to 70 mph in town and tolerate people will actually doing 80 - 85 mph.
moron
Come on HJ its not like you to start name calling especially when we are arguing with ourself. After all your argument are usually so well reasoned.
Anyway when folks start calling me names for the lack of any other response I know I have won the argument.
Thing is HJ...there are so many morons posting on this site (present company included) that there is no point trying to debate issues. Especially with you and your misinformation.

You actually make ARSEMAN appear straight...LOL
Gatling Gob, & a Moron, p.s, Dont forget to top up on Faggots over the Christmas Gatling Gob,
Suspect you are fully lubed up and if you haven't started receiving yet, will be soon. Take it up the ARSEMAN. LOL Ha ha ha ha ha
Your a foul mouthed Kemp Town low life Gatling Gob, People like you are Gutter trash,
Whereas you like to push back ARSEMAN

LOL ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
You shouldn't be laughing, Gatling Gob, theres no cure for your condition,
ARSEMAN - perhaps we could meet up?
[quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]billy goat-gruff[/bold] wrote: So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?[/p][/quote]Statistics show there are fewer accidents on the motorways per mile travelled, so there is an element of truth to that! Oh dear, how will the Green Party spin this one? They can't even conduct a survey at half term to swing the results, like they did on Lewes Road. Talking of which, Argus, why don't you find out when they took the Lewes Road data with an FOI request? I'm sure we would all love to know the results![/p][/quote]Given that kind of reasoning we should increase the speed limit to 70 mph in town and tolerate people will actually doing 80 - 85 mph.[/p][/quote]moron[/p][/quote]Come on HJ its not like you to start name calling especially when we are arguing with ourself. After all your argument are usually so well reasoned. Anyway when folks start calling me names for the lack of any other response I know I have won the argument.[/p][/quote]Thing is HJ...there are so many morons posting on this site (present company included) that there is no point trying to debate issues. Especially with you and your misinformation. You actually make ARSEMAN appear straight...LOL[/p][/quote]Gatling Gob, & a Moron, p.s, Dont forget to top up on Faggots over the Christmas Gatling Gob,[/p][/quote]Suspect you are fully lubed up and if you haven't started receiving yet, will be soon. Take it up the ARSEMAN. LOL Ha ha ha ha ha[/p][/quote]Your a foul mouthed Kemp Town low life Gatling Gob, People like you are Gutter trash,[/p][/quote]Whereas you like to push back ARSEMAN LOL ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha[/p][/quote]You shouldn't be laughing, Gatling Gob, theres no cure for your condition,[/p][/quote]ARSEMAN - perhaps we could meet up? I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars!

10:11pm Fri 20 Dec 13

ARMANA says...

I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
thevoiceoftruth wrote:
billy goat-gruff wrote:
So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?
Statistics show there are fewer accidents on the motorways per mile travelled, so there is an element of truth to that!

Oh dear, how will the Green Party spin this one? They can't even conduct a survey at half term to swing the results, like they did on Lewes Road. Talking of which, Argus, why don't you find out when they took the Lewes Road data with an FOI request? I'm sure we would all love to know the results!
Given that kind of reasoning we should increase the speed limit to 70 mph in town and tolerate people will actually doing 80 - 85 mph.
moron
Come on HJ its not like you to start name calling especially when we are arguing with ourself. After all your argument are usually so well reasoned.
Anyway when folks start calling me names for the lack of any other response I know I have won the argument.
Thing is HJ...there are so many morons posting on this site (present company included) that there is no point trying to debate issues. Especially with you and your misinformation.

You actually make ARSEMAN appear straight...LOL
Gatling Gob, & a Moron, p.s, Dont forget to top up on Faggots over the Christmas Gatling Gob,
Suspect you are fully lubed up and if you haven't started receiving yet, will be soon. Take it up the ARSEMAN. LOL Ha ha ha ha ha
Your a foul mouthed Kemp Town low life Gatling Gob, People like you are Gutter trash,
Whereas you like to push back ARSEMAN

LOL ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
You shouldn't be laughing, Gatling Gob, theres no cure for your condition,
ARSEMAN - perhaps we could meet up?
Yea ok, somewhere dark, no street cameras, bring some bandages with you,
[quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]billy goat-gruff[/bold] wrote: So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?[/p][/quote]Statistics show there are fewer accidents on the motorways per mile travelled, so there is an element of truth to that! Oh dear, how will the Green Party spin this one? They can't even conduct a survey at half term to swing the results, like they did on Lewes Road. Talking of which, Argus, why don't you find out when they took the Lewes Road data with an FOI request? I'm sure we would all love to know the results![/p][/quote]Given that kind of reasoning we should increase the speed limit to 70 mph in town and tolerate people will actually doing 80 - 85 mph.[/p][/quote]moron[/p][/quote]Come on HJ its not like you to start name calling especially when we are arguing with ourself. After all your argument are usually so well reasoned. Anyway when folks start calling me names for the lack of any other response I know I have won the argument.[/p][/quote]Thing is HJ...there are so many morons posting on this site (present company included) that there is no point trying to debate issues. Especially with you and your misinformation. You actually make ARSEMAN appear straight...LOL[/p][/quote]Gatling Gob, & a Moron, p.s, Dont forget to top up on Faggots over the Christmas Gatling Gob,[/p][/quote]Suspect you are fully lubed up and if you haven't started receiving yet, will be soon. Take it up the ARSEMAN. LOL Ha ha ha ha ha[/p][/quote]Your a foul mouthed Kemp Town low life Gatling Gob, People like you are Gutter trash,[/p][/quote]Whereas you like to push back ARSEMAN LOL ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha[/p][/quote]You shouldn't be laughing, Gatling Gob, theres no cure for your condition,[/p][/quote]ARSEMAN - perhaps we could meet up?[/p][/quote]Yea ok, somewhere dark, no street cameras, bring some bandages with you, ARMANA

7:12am Sat 21 Dec 13

I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! says...

ARMANA wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
thevoiceoftruth wrote:
billy goat-gruff wrote:
So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?
Statistics show there are fewer accidents on the motorways per mile travelled, so there is an element of truth to that!

Oh dear, how will the Green Party spin this one? They can't even conduct a survey at half term to swing the results, like they did on Lewes Road. Talking of which, Argus, why don't you find out when they took the Lewes Road data with an FOI request? I'm sure we would all love to know the results!
Given that kind of reasoning we should increase the speed limit to 70 mph in town and tolerate people will actually doing 80 - 85 mph.
moron
Come on HJ its not like you to start name calling especially when we are arguing with ourself. After all your argument are usually so well reasoned.
Anyway when folks start calling me names for the lack of any other response I know I have won the argument.
Thing is HJ...there are so many morons posting on this site (present company included) that there is no point trying to debate issues. Especially with you and your misinformation.

You actually make ARSEMAN appear straight...LOL
Gatling Gob, & a Moron, p.s, Dont forget to top up on Faggots over the Christmas Gatling Gob,
Suspect you are fully lubed up and if you haven't started receiving yet, will be soon. Take it up the ARSEMAN. LOL Ha ha ha ha ha
Your a foul mouthed Kemp Town low life Gatling Gob, People like you are Gutter trash,
Whereas you like to push back ARSEMAN

LOL ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
You shouldn't be laughing, Gatling Gob, theres no cure for your condition,
ARSEMAN - perhaps we could meet up?
Yea ok, somewhere dark, no street cameras, bring some bandages with you,
ARSEMAN - I think you may have missed the point (not unusual for you). I am not proposing playing out some sordid 5ex game with you
[quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]billy goat-gruff[/bold] wrote: So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?[/p][/quote]Statistics show there are fewer accidents on the motorways per mile travelled, so there is an element of truth to that! Oh dear, how will the Green Party spin this one? They can't even conduct a survey at half term to swing the results, like they did on Lewes Road. Talking of which, Argus, why don't you find out when they took the Lewes Road data with an FOI request? I'm sure we would all love to know the results![/p][/quote]Given that kind of reasoning we should increase the speed limit to 70 mph in town and tolerate people will actually doing 80 - 85 mph.[/p][/quote]moron[/p][/quote]Come on HJ its not like you to start name calling especially when we are arguing with ourself. After all your argument are usually so well reasoned. Anyway when folks start calling me names for the lack of any other response I know I have won the argument.[/p][/quote]Thing is HJ...there are so many morons posting on this site (present company included) that there is no point trying to debate issues. Especially with you and your misinformation. You actually make ARSEMAN appear straight...LOL[/p][/quote]Gatling Gob, & a Moron, p.s, Dont forget to top up on Faggots over the Christmas Gatling Gob,[/p][/quote]Suspect you are fully lubed up and if you haven't started receiving yet, will be soon. Take it up the ARSEMAN. LOL Ha ha ha ha ha[/p][/quote]Your a foul mouthed Kemp Town low life Gatling Gob, People like you are Gutter trash,[/p][/quote]Whereas you like to push back ARSEMAN LOL ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha[/p][/quote]You shouldn't be laughing, Gatling Gob, theres no cure for your condition,[/p][/quote]ARSEMAN - perhaps we could meet up?[/p][/quote]Yea ok, somewhere dark, no street cameras, bring some bandages with you,[/p][/quote]ARSEMAN - I think you may have missed the point (not unusual for you). I am not proposing playing out some sordid 5ex game with you I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars!

10:33am Sat 21 Dec 13

ARMANA says...

I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
thevoiceoftruth wrote:
billy goat-gruff wrote:
So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?
Statistics show there are fewer accidents on the motorways per mile travelled, so there is an element of truth to that!

Oh dear, how will the Green Party spin this one? They can't even conduct a survey at half term to swing the results, like they did on Lewes Road. Talking of which, Argus, why don't you find out when they took the Lewes Road data with an FOI request? I'm sure we would all love to know the results!
Given that kind of reasoning we should increase the speed limit to 70 mph in town and tolerate people will actually doing 80 - 85 mph.
moron
Come on HJ its not like you to start name calling especially when we are arguing with ourself. After all your argument are usually so well reasoned.
Anyway when folks start calling me names for the lack of any other response I know I have won the argument.
Thing is HJ...there are so many morons posting on this site (present company included) that there is no point trying to debate issues. Especially with you and your misinformation.

You actually make ARSEMAN appear straight...LOL
Gatling Gob, & a Moron, p.s, Dont forget to top up on Faggots over the Christmas Gatling Gob,
Suspect you are fully lubed up and if you haven't started receiving yet, will be soon. Take it up the ARSEMAN. LOL Ha ha ha ha ha
Your a foul mouthed Kemp Town low life Gatling Gob, People like you are Gutter trash,
Whereas you like to push back ARSEMAN

LOL ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
You shouldn't be laughing, Gatling Gob, theres no cure for your condition,
ARSEMAN - perhaps we could meet up?
Yea ok, somewhere dark, no street cameras, bring some bandages with you,
ARSEMAN - I think you may have missed the point (not unusual for you). I am not proposing playing out some sordid 5ex game with you
Its you who missed the point, (as usual ) Gatling Gob,
[quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]billy goat-gruff[/bold] wrote: So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?[/p][/quote]Statistics show there are fewer accidents on the motorways per mile travelled, so there is an element of truth to that! Oh dear, how will the Green Party spin this one? They can't even conduct a survey at half term to swing the results, like they did on Lewes Road. Talking of which, Argus, why don't you find out when they took the Lewes Road data with an FOI request? I'm sure we would all love to know the results![/p][/quote]Given that kind of reasoning we should increase the speed limit to 70 mph in town and tolerate people will actually doing 80 - 85 mph.[/p][/quote]moron[/p][/quote]Come on HJ its not like you to start name calling especially when we are arguing with ourself. After all your argument are usually so well reasoned. Anyway when folks start calling me names for the lack of any other response I know I have won the argument.[/p][/quote]Thing is HJ...there are so many morons posting on this site (present company included) that there is no point trying to debate issues. Especially with you and your misinformation. You actually make ARSEMAN appear straight...LOL[/p][/quote]Gatling Gob, & a Moron, p.s, Dont forget to top up on Faggots over the Christmas Gatling Gob,[/p][/quote]Suspect you are fully lubed up and if you haven't started receiving yet, will be soon. Take it up the ARSEMAN. LOL Ha ha ha ha ha[/p][/quote]Your a foul mouthed Kemp Town low life Gatling Gob, People like you are Gutter trash,[/p][/quote]Whereas you like to push back ARSEMAN LOL ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha[/p][/quote]You shouldn't be laughing, Gatling Gob, theres no cure for your condition,[/p][/quote]ARSEMAN - perhaps we could meet up?[/p][/quote]Yea ok, somewhere dark, no street cameras, bring some bandages with you,[/p][/quote]ARSEMAN - I think you may have missed the point (not unusual for you). I am not proposing playing out some sordid 5ex game with you[/p][/quote]Its you who missed the point, (as usual ) Gatling Gob, ARMANA

11:13am Sat 21 Dec 13

I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! says...

ARMANA wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
thevoiceoftruth wrote:
billy goat-gruff wrote:
So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?
Statistics show there are fewer accidents on the motorways per mile travelled, so there is an element of truth to that!

Oh dear, how will the Green Party spin this one? They can't even conduct a survey at half term to swing the results, like they did on Lewes Road. Talking of which, Argus, why don't you find out when they took the Lewes Road data with an FOI request? I'm sure we would all love to know the results!
Given that kind of reasoning we should increase the speed limit to 70 mph in town and tolerate people will actually doing 80 - 85 mph.
moron
Come on HJ its not like you to start name calling especially when we are arguing with ourself. After all your argument are usually so well reasoned.
Anyway when folks start calling me names for the lack of any other response I know I have won the argument.
Thing is HJ...there are so many morons posting on this site (present company included) that there is no point trying to debate issues. Especially with you and your misinformation.

You actually make ARSEMAN appear straight...LOL
Gatling Gob, & a Moron, p.s, Dont forget to top up on Faggots over the Christmas Gatling Gob,
Suspect you are fully lubed up and if you haven't started receiving yet, will be soon. Take it up the ARSEMAN. LOL Ha ha ha ha ha
Your a foul mouthed Kemp Town low life Gatling Gob, People like you are Gutter trash,
Whereas you like to push back ARSEMAN

LOL ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
You shouldn't be laughing, Gatling Gob, theres no cure for your condition,
ARSEMAN - perhaps we could meet up?
Yea ok, somewhere dark, no street cameras, bring some bandages with you,
ARSEMAN - I think you may have missed the point (not unusual for you). I am not proposing playing out some sordid 5ex game with you
Its you who missed the point, (as usual ) Gatling Gob,
ARSEBOY - Wrap it, why not take your bike out for a ride or join a protest or something. You might find that its drier out than in your poky little damp bedsit in 5 finger shuffle land
[quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]billy goat-gruff[/bold] wrote: So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?[/p][/quote]Statistics show there are fewer accidents on the motorways per mile travelled, so there is an element of truth to that! Oh dear, how will the Green Party spin this one? They can't even conduct a survey at half term to swing the results, like they did on Lewes Road. Talking of which, Argus, why don't you find out when they took the Lewes Road data with an FOI request? I'm sure we would all love to know the results![/p][/quote]Given that kind of reasoning we should increase the speed limit to 70 mph in town and tolerate people will actually doing 80 - 85 mph.[/p][/quote]moron[/p][/quote]Come on HJ its not like you to start name calling especially when we are arguing with ourself. After all your argument are usually so well reasoned. Anyway when folks start calling me names for the lack of any other response I know I have won the argument.[/p][/quote]Thing is HJ...there are so many morons posting on this site (present company included) that there is no point trying to debate issues. Especially with you and your misinformation. You actually make ARSEMAN appear straight...LOL[/p][/quote]Gatling Gob, & a Moron, p.s, Dont forget to top up on Faggots over the Christmas Gatling Gob,[/p][/quote]Suspect you are fully lubed up and if you haven't started receiving yet, will be soon. Take it up the ARSEMAN. LOL Ha ha ha ha ha[/p][/quote]Your a foul mouthed Kemp Town low life Gatling Gob, People like you are Gutter trash,[/p][/quote]Whereas you like to push back ARSEMAN LOL ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha[/p][/quote]You shouldn't be laughing, Gatling Gob, theres no cure for your condition,[/p][/quote]ARSEMAN - perhaps we could meet up?[/p][/quote]Yea ok, somewhere dark, no street cameras, bring some bandages with you,[/p][/quote]ARSEMAN - I think you may have missed the point (not unusual for you). I am not proposing playing out some sordid 5ex game with you[/p][/quote]Its you who missed the point, (as usual ) Gatling Gob,[/p][/quote]ARSEBOY - Wrap it, why not take your bike out for a ride or join a protest or something. You might find that its drier out than in your poky little damp bedsit in 5 finger shuffle land I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars!

5:52pm Sat 21 Dec 13

76robmac says...

It's about time the police had a crackdown on cyclist , I was crossing on green lights at Churchill Square and was nearly knocked over by a woman cyclist going through red lights
It's about time the police had a crackdown on cyclist , I was crossing on green lights at Churchill Square and was nearly knocked over by a woman cyclist going through red lights 76robmac

9:55pm Sat 21 Dec 13

ARMANA says...

I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
thevoiceoftruth wrote:
billy goat-gruff wrote:
So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?
Statistics show there are fewer accidents on the motorways per mile travelled, so there is an element of truth to that!

Oh dear, how will the Green Party spin this one? They can't even conduct a survey at half term to swing the results, like they did on Lewes Road. Talking of which, Argus, why don't you find out when they took the Lewes Road data with an FOI request? I'm sure we would all love to know the results!
Given that kind of reasoning we should increase the speed limit to 70 mph in town and tolerate people will actually doing 80 - 85 mph.
moron
Come on HJ its not like you to start name calling especially when we are arguing with ourself. After all your argument are usually so well reasoned.
Anyway when folks start calling me names for the lack of any other response I know I have won the argument.
Thing is HJ...there are so many morons posting on this site (present company included) that there is no point trying to debate issues. Especially with you and your misinformation.

You actually make ARSEMAN appear straight...LOL
Gatling Gob, & a Moron, p.s, Dont forget to top up on Faggots over the Christmas Gatling Gob,
Suspect you are fully lubed up and if you haven't started receiving yet, will be soon. Take it up the ARSEMAN. LOL Ha ha ha ha ha
Your a foul mouthed Kemp Town low life Gatling Gob, People like you are Gutter trash,
Whereas you like to push back ARSEMAN

LOL ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
You shouldn't be laughing, Gatling Gob, theres no cure for your condition,
ARSEMAN - perhaps we could meet up?
Yea ok, somewhere dark, no street cameras, bring some bandages with you,
ARSEMAN - I think you may have missed the point (not unusual for you). I am not proposing playing out some sordid 5ex game with you
Its you who missed the point, (as usual ) Gatling Gob,
ARSEBOY - Wrap it, why not take your bike out for a ride or join a protest or something. You might find that its drier out than in your poky little damp bedsit in 5 finger shuffle land
Gatling Gobs foul mouth again, gutter trash,
[quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]billy goat-gruff[/bold] wrote: So, is the petrolhead argument that the higher the speed allowed, the fewer the accidents?[/p][/quote]Statistics show there are fewer accidents on the motorways per mile travelled, so there is an element of truth to that! Oh dear, how will the Green Party spin this one? They can't even conduct a survey at half term to swing the results, like they did on Lewes Road. Talking of which, Argus, why don't you find out when they took the Lewes Road data with an FOI request? I'm sure we would all love to know the results![/p][/quote]Given that kind of reasoning we should increase the speed limit to 70 mph in town and tolerate people will actually doing 80 - 85 mph.[/p][/quote]moron[/p][/quote]Come on HJ its not like you to start name calling especially when we are arguing with ourself. After all your argument are usually so well reasoned. Anyway when folks start calling me names for the lack of any other response I know I have won the argument.[/p][/quote]Thing is HJ...there are so many morons posting on this site (present company included) that there is no point trying to debate issues. Especially with you and your misinformation. You actually make ARSEMAN appear straight...LOL[/p][/quote]Gatling Gob, & a Moron, p.s, Dont forget to top up on Faggots over the Christmas Gatling Gob,[/p][/quote]Suspect you are fully lubed up and if you haven't started receiving yet, will be soon. Take it up the ARSEMAN. LOL Ha ha ha ha ha[/p][/quote]Your a foul mouthed Kemp Town low life Gatling Gob, People like you are Gutter trash,[/p][/quote]Whereas you like to push back ARSEMAN LOL ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha[/p][/quote]You shouldn't be laughing, Gatling Gob, theres no cure for your condition,[/p][/quote]ARSEMAN - perhaps we could meet up?[/p][/quote]Yea ok, somewhere dark, no street cameras, bring some bandages with you,[/p][/quote]ARSEMAN - I think you may have missed the point (not unusual for you). I am not proposing playing out some sordid 5ex game with you[/p][/quote]Its you who missed the point, (as usual ) Gatling Gob,[/p][/quote]ARSEBOY - Wrap it, why not take your bike out for a ride or join a protest or something. You might find that its drier out than in your poky little damp bedsit in 5 finger shuffle land[/p][/quote]Gatling Gobs foul mouth again, gutter trash, ARMANA

5:45am Sun 22 Dec 13

I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! says...

ARSEBOY - That's right, keep pushing back, like you do in the bedroom.
ARSEBOY - That's right, keep pushing back, like you do in the bedroom. I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars!

9:40am Sun 22 Dec 13

ARMANA says...

I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
ARSEBOY - That's right, keep pushing back, like you do in the bedroom.
Gatling Gob,
[quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: ARSEBOY - That's right, keep pushing back, like you do in the bedroom.[/p][/quote]Gatling Gob, 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