Campaigners urge rethink on 20mph speed limit

Campaigners urge rethink on 20mph speed limit

Campaigners urge rethink on 20mph speed limit

First published in News
Last updated
by

A road safety campaigner has urged Brighton and Hove City Council to extend its 20 mph speed limit.

Becky Reynolds presented a petition with more than 700 signatures to the full council meeting at the end of January.

The petition will be referred to the next Environment, Transport and Sustainability meeting in March.


MORE:


Ms Reynolds said she will write to the committee urging them to take note of the large number of residents who have signed the petition and to act immediately to take steps to instate 20 mph speed limits on these roads.

She said: “People in this area feel at risk from motor vehicles going too fast.

“They are concerned about children getting run over. These roads are routes used by children and parents going to local schools such as Balfour Primary, Downs Infant, Downs Junior, Dorothy Stringer, Varndean College, Varndean School, St. Bernadette’s and the Montessori School.

“More than half of road deaths and serious injuries occur on roads with 30 mph limits, so these are the crucial areas to improve.”

The council’s proposals to extend the 20mph spped limit can ve seen here: http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/content/parking-and-travel/parking/traffic-regulation-order-tro-proposals

Comments (79)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:02am Thu 6 Feb 14

cleggalike says...

I was sceptical about the 20mph limit and at first it felt quite odd driving at that speed. I've really come round to it though. It makes the roads feel much safer and less frenetic, and as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times.

I fully support the changes being proposed by Becky Reynolds here - sheer common sense.
I was sceptical about the 20mph limit and at first it felt quite odd driving at that speed. I've really come round to it though. It makes the roads feel much safer and less frenetic, and as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times. I fully support the changes being proposed by Becky Reynolds here - sheer common sense. cleggalike
  • Score: -55

11:17am Thu 6 Feb 14

whoee! says...

cleggalike wrote:
I was sceptical about the 20mph limit and at first it felt quite odd driving at that speed. I've really come round to it though. It makes the roads feel much safer and less frenetic, and as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times.

I fully support the changes being proposed by Becky Reynolds here - sheer common sense.
Yes lets waste more of tax payers money on something that everyone ignores anyway lol
[quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: I was sceptical about the 20mph limit and at first it felt quite odd driving at that speed. I've really come round to it though. It makes the roads feel much safer and less frenetic, and as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times. I fully support the changes being proposed by Becky Reynolds here - sheer common sense.[/p][/quote]Yes lets waste more of tax payers money on something that everyone ignores anyway lol whoee!
  • Score: 49

11:39am Thu 6 Feb 14

Ohnotagain ! says...

"as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times"

What planet are you on ! of course it's going to take longer as you are going slower !!!!
Kitcat out, Green's out, 20mph out and all the other Green supporting looney's out as well.

That's all.
"as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times" What planet are you on ! of course it's going to take longer as you are going slower !!!! Kitcat out, Green's out, 20mph out and all the other Green supporting looney's out as well. That's all. Ohnotagain !
  • Score: 53

11:48am Thu 6 Feb 14

Brighton1000 says...

You cannot be serious? What road/roads in particular ar you referring to? I drive daily and the zones have made zero difference, if anything the traffic in Brighton now seems completely irratic and evryone seems frustrated.
You cannot be serious? What road/roads in particular ar you referring to? I drive daily and the zones have made zero difference, if anything the traffic in Brighton now seems completely irratic and evryone seems frustrated. Brighton1000
  • Score: 45

11:59am Thu 6 Feb 14

cleggalike says...

Ohnotagain ! wrote:
"as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times"

What planet are you on ! of course it's going to take longer as you are going slower !!!!
Kitcat out, Green's out, 20mph out and all the other Green supporting looney's out as well.

That's all.
In areas where 20 mph zones have been put in place, road casualties have come down by 42%. Do you think this is a good thing, or a bad thing?
[quote][p][bold]Ohnotagain ![/bold] wrote: "as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times" What planet are you on ! of course it's going to take longer as you are going slower !!!! Kitcat out, Green's out, 20mph out and all the other Green supporting looney's out as well. That's all.[/p][/quote]In areas where 20 mph zones have been put in place, road casualties have come down by 42%. Do you think this is a good thing, or a bad thing? cleggalike
  • Score: -35

12:16pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Seventh Circle says...

The new 'mad' traffic schemes have made the roads extremely dangerous directing cars into the centre of the road and making it very difficult for pedestrians to cross at the expense of little used cycle lanes.
Serious accidents will/have occured in:
Preston Park Avenue
The whole of Lewes Road
Vogue Gyratory
Between the Preston Resort Hotel and Preston Drove
London Road
20 mph limits where they are not needed cause road rage and make the roads more dangerous because some drivers become unpredictable and this is what causes serious accidents.
The new 'mad' traffic schemes have made the roads extremely dangerous directing cars into the centre of the road and making it very difficult for pedestrians to cross at the expense of little used cycle lanes. Serious accidents will/have occured in: Preston Park Avenue The whole of Lewes Road Vogue Gyratory Between the Preston Resort Hotel and Preston Drove London Road 20 mph limits where they are not needed cause road rage and make the roads more dangerous because some drivers become unpredictable and this is what causes serious accidents. Seventh Circle
  • Score: 43

12:18pm Thu 6 Feb 14

spa301 says...

Introduce it where you like, everyone will continue to ignore it and it will continue to be uninforced.
The vast majority of drivers adjust their speeds to match the road conditions, time of day and the presence of children etc. Those in the very small minority won't conform to decent standards whatever speed you set. We do not need this constant whine and lecturing from the car haters to tell us how to drive.
Introduce it where you like, everyone will continue to ignore it and it will continue to be uninforced. The vast majority of drivers adjust their speeds to match the road conditions, time of day and the presence of children etc. Those in the very small minority won't conform to decent standards whatever speed you set. We do not need this constant whine and lecturing from the car haters to tell us how to drive. spa301
  • Score: 49

12:31pm Thu 6 Feb 14

billy goat-gruff says...

the selfish petrolhead lobby is only interested in their fuel consumption and the microseconds they might save racing to the next set of lights… 20mph zones save the lives of children and helps free the air of pollution.
the selfish petrolhead lobby is only interested in their fuel consumption and the microseconds they might save racing to the next set of lights… 20mph zones save the lives of children and helps free the air of pollution. billy goat-gruff
  • Score: -55

12:38pm Thu 6 Feb 14

JerryOnly says...

billy goat-gruff wrote:
the selfish petrolhead lobby is only interested in their fuel consumption and the microseconds they might save racing to the next set of lights… 20mph zones save the lives of children and helps free the air of pollution.
Actually, road safety schemes for children, responsible parenting, and cars not being backed up chugging away (regardless of speed limit) do more both ways, but then again someone's always got an agenda when "please think of the children" gets dropped like a crossword-winning catchphrase by every selfish basket-weaver only interested in their organic vegan sock puppet workshop and not in reality.
[quote][p][bold]billy goat-gruff[/bold] wrote: the selfish petrolhead lobby is only interested in their fuel consumption and the microseconds they might save racing to the next set of lights… 20mph zones save the lives of children and helps free the air of pollution.[/p][/quote]Actually, road safety schemes for children, responsible parenting, and cars not being backed up chugging away (regardless of speed limit) do more both ways, but then again someone's always got an agenda when "please think of the children" gets dropped like a crossword-winning catchphrase by every selfish basket-weaver only interested in their organic vegan sock puppet workshop and not in reality. JerryOnly
  • Score: 37

12:43pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Fight_Back says...

cleggalike wrote:
Ohnotagain ! wrote:
"as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times"

What planet are you on ! of course it's going to take longer as you are going slower !!!!
Kitcat out, Green's out, 20mph out and all the other Green supporting looney's out as well.

That's all.
In areas where 20 mph zones have been put in place, road casualties have come down by 42%. Do you think this is a good thing, or a bad thing?
42% ???? Well done for that lie. That is NO published research that suggests the new 20mph zones in Brighton and Hove have reduced casualties by that amount. Even the Greens aren't stupid enough to suggest that.
[quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ohnotagain ![/bold] wrote: "as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times" What planet are you on ! of course it's going to take longer as you are going slower !!!! Kitcat out, Green's out, 20mph out and all the other Green supporting looney's out as well. That's all.[/p][/quote]In areas where 20 mph zones have been put in place, road casualties have come down by 42%. Do you think this is a good thing, or a bad thing?[/p][/quote]42% ???? Well done for that lie. That is NO published research that suggests the new 20mph zones in Brighton and Hove have reduced casualties by that amount. Even the Greens aren't stupid enough to suggest that. Fight_Back
  • Score: 43

12:46pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Gribbet says...

It amazes me how many people on here get in a wild rage if they see a cyclist or pedestrian break the rules of the road, but think it's perfectly acceptable break the rules themselves by ignoring the 20mph speed limit...

Also to those who like to ignore the 20mph limit, the rule is there to make the streets safer and reduce the chance of people being killed. I hope you don't end up running someone over while you're ignoring the rules.
It amazes me how many people on here get in a wild rage if they see a cyclist or pedestrian break the rules of the road, but think it's perfectly acceptable break the rules themselves by ignoring the 20mph speed limit... Also to those who like to ignore the 20mph limit, the rule is there to make the streets safer and reduce the chance of people being killed. I hope you don't end up running someone over while you're ignoring the rules. Gribbet
  • Score: -28

12:46pm Thu 6 Feb 14

gheese77 says...

whoee! wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
I was sceptical about the 20mph limit and at first it felt quite odd driving at that speed. I've really come round to it though. It makes the roads feel much safer and less frenetic, and as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times.

I fully support the changes being proposed by Becky Reynolds here - sheer common sense.
Yes lets waste more of tax payers money on something that everyone ignores anyway lol
Good luck to them, 20 mph limit makes an area much more pleasant to live.
Of course speed obsessed motorists will moan as usual, but as I don't believe most of them even live locally who cares what they say.
[quote][p][bold]whoee![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: I was sceptical about the 20mph limit and at first it felt quite odd driving at that speed. I've really come round to it though. It makes the roads feel much safer and less frenetic, and as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times. I fully support the changes being proposed by Becky Reynolds here - sheer common sense.[/p][/quote]Yes lets waste more of tax payers money on something that everyone ignores anyway lol[/p][/quote]Good luck to them, 20 mph limit makes an area much more pleasant to live. Of course speed obsessed motorists will moan as usual, but as I don't believe most of them even live locally who cares what they say. gheese77
  • Score: -24

12:53pm Thu 6 Feb 14

road_rager says...

As it only the 'tax paying motorist' who foots the bill for road, roads should be exclusively for cars with no speed limit ANYWHERE !
If someone gets run over, then they shpouldnt have been in the road in the first place.

ROADS ARE FOR CARS NO ONE ELSE !
As it only the 'tax paying motorist' who foots the bill for road, roads should be exclusively for cars with no speed limit ANYWHERE ! If someone gets run over, then they shpouldnt have been in the road in the first place. ROADS ARE FOR CARS NO ONE ELSE ! road_rager
  • Score: -7

12:55pm Thu 6 Feb 14

cynic_the says...

FFS

The people causing the crashes and injuries ARE NOT OBEYING ANY SPEED LIMIT.

Putting up a 20 sign where the limit used to be 30 does not stop the people that were doing 45-50 in the first place. Only robust traffic policing by THE POLICE can do this. Why can these people not see this?

Driving standard have plummeted in the last year or so, and i believe it is because the 20 limit fiasco has shown that the police are not currently policing the roads at all, leading to martial law, basically.

At least one car a day passes BHHS on Montpelier Road at 60mph+ and most at about 35-40. The little flashing 20 sign is NOT THE ANSWER.

Rant over.
FFS The people causing the crashes and injuries ARE NOT OBEYING ANY SPEED LIMIT. Putting up a 20 sign where the limit used to be 30 does not stop the people that were doing 45-50 in the first place. Only robust traffic policing by THE POLICE can do this. Why can these people not see this? Driving standard have plummeted in the last year or so, and i believe it is because the 20 limit fiasco has shown that the police are not currently policing the roads at all, leading to martial law, basically. At least one car a day passes BHHS on Montpelier Road at 60mph+ and most at about 35-40. The little flashing 20 sign is NOT THE ANSWER. Rant over. cynic_the
  • Score: 18

12:58pm Thu 6 Feb 14

gheese77 says...

Gribbet wrote:
It amazes me how many people on here get in a wild rage if they see a cyclist or pedestrian break the rules of the road, but think it's perfectly acceptable break the rules themselves by ignoring the 20mph speed limit...

Also to those who like to ignore the 20mph limit, the rule is there to make the streets safer and reduce the chance of people being killed. I hope you don't end up running someone over while you're ignoring the rules.
Thats because the're hypocrites
[quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: It amazes me how many people on here get in a wild rage if they see a cyclist or pedestrian break the rules of the road, but think it's perfectly acceptable break the rules themselves by ignoring the 20mph speed limit... Also to those who like to ignore the 20mph limit, the rule is there to make the streets safer and reduce the chance of people being killed. I hope you don't end up running someone over while you're ignoring the rules.[/p][/quote]Thats because the're hypocrites gheese77
  • Score: -19

12:58pm Thu 6 Feb 14

cynic_the says...

gheese77 wrote:
whoee! wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
I was sceptical about the 20mph limit and at first it felt quite odd driving at that speed. I've really come round to it though. It makes the roads feel much safer and less frenetic, and as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times.

I fully support the changes being proposed by Becky Reynolds here - sheer common sense.
Yes lets waste more of tax payers money on something that everyone ignores anyway lol
Good luck to them, 20 mph limit makes an area much more pleasant to live.
Of course speed obsessed motorists will moan as usual, but as I don't believe most of them even live locally who cares what they say.
You're welcome to sit in my flat for a day and see how much more pleasant the 20 limit makes the road outside.

I think it's you that doesn't live locally if you think it's had a good effect
[quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whoee![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: I was sceptical about the 20mph limit and at first it felt quite odd driving at that speed. I've really come round to it though. It makes the roads feel much safer and less frenetic, and as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times. I fully support the changes being proposed by Becky Reynolds here - sheer common sense.[/p][/quote]Yes lets waste more of tax payers money on something that everyone ignores anyway lol[/p][/quote]Good luck to them, 20 mph limit makes an area much more pleasant to live. Of course speed obsessed motorists will moan as usual, but as I don't believe most of them even live locally who cares what they say.[/p][/quote]You're welcome to sit in my flat for a day and see how much more pleasant the 20 limit makes the road outside. I think it's you that doesn't live locally if you think it's had a good effect cynic_the
  • Score: -18

12:59pm Thu 6 Feb 14

kopite_rob says...

road_rager wrote:
As it only the 'tax paying motorist' who foots the bill for road, roads should be exclusively for cars with no speed limit ANYWHERE ! If someone gets run over, then they shpouldnt have been in the road in the first place. ROADS ARE FOR CARS NO ONE ELSE !
Has to win the award for most ironic post of the week.

Admit it where did you geti it really?
The Jeremy Clarkson bumper book of Established Motoring Facts?
[quote][p][bold]road_rager[/bold] wrote: As it only the 'tax paying motorist' who foots the bill for road, roads should be exclusively for cars with no speed limit ANYWHERE ! If someone gets run over, then they shpouldnt have been in the road in the first place. ROADS ARE FOR CARS NO ONE ELSE ![/p][/quote]Has to win the award for most ironic post of the week. Admit it where did you geti it really? The Jeremy Clarkson bumper book of Established Motoring Facts? kopite_rob
  • Score: -7

1:03pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Metro Reader says...

cleggalike wrote:
I was sceptical about the 20mph limit and at first it felt quite odd driving at that speed. I've really come round to it though. It makes the roads feel much safer and less frenetic, and as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times. I fully support the changes being proposed by Becky Reynolds here - sheer common sense.
You fool! what total rubbish. the roads are not safer. how can journey times not be any slower what your traveling at 10 mph less?

What about the increased polution?

if people crossed the road correctly, and drivers drove to the conditions then the roads would be safer.
[quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: I was sceptical about the 20mph limit and at first it felt quite odd driving at that speed. I've really come round to it though. It makes the roads feel much safer and less frenetic, and as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times. I fully support the changes being proposed by Becky Reynolds here - sheer common sense.[/p][/quote]You fool! what total rubbish. the roads are not safer. how can journey times not be any slower what your traveling at 10 mph less? What about the increased polution? if people crossed the road correctly, and drivers drove to the conditions then the roads would be safer. Metro Reader
  • Score: 30

1:03pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Metro Reader says...

cleggalike wrote:
I was sceptical about the 20mph limit and at first it felt quite odd driving at that speed. I've really come round to it though. It makes the roads feel much safer and less frenetic, and as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times. I fully support the changes being proposed by Becky Reynolds here - sheer common sense.
You fool! what total rubbish. the roads are not safer. how can journey times not be any slower what your traveling at 10 mph less?

What about the increased polution?

if people crossed the road correctly, and drivers drove to the conditions then the roads would be safer.
[quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: I was sceptical about the 20mph limit and at first it felt quite odd driving at that speed. I've really come round to it though. It makes the roads feel much safer and less frenetic, and as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times. I fully support the changes being proposed by Becky Reynolds here - sheer common sense.[/p][/quote]You fool! what total rubbish. the roads are not safer. how can journey times not be any slower what your traveling at 10 mph less? What about the increased polution? if people crossed the road correctly, and drivers drove to the conditions then the roads would be safer. Metro Reader
  • Score: 2

1:07pm Thu 6 Feb 14

fredaj says...

whoee! wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
Ohnotagain ! wrote:
"as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times"

What planet are you on ! of course it's going to take longer as you are going slower !!!!
Kitcat out, Green's out, 20mph out and all the other Green supporting looney's out as well.

That's all.
In areas where 20 mph zones have been put in place, road casualties have come down by 42%. Do you think this is a good thing, or a bad thing?
There are lies,**** lies and then there are statistics lol
Actually it is just a lie.
[quote][p][bold]whoee![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ohnotagain ![/bold] wrote: "as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times" What planet are you on ! of course it's going to take longer as you are going slower !!!! Kitcat out, Green's out, 20mph out and all the other Green supporting looney's out as well. That's all.[/p][/quote]In areas where 20 mph zones have been put in place, road casualties have come down by 42%. Do you think this is a good thing, or a bad thing?[/p][/quote]There are lies,**** lies and then there are statistics lol[/p][/quote]Actually it is just a lie. fredaj
  • Score: 13

1:10pm Thu 6 Feb 14

fredaj says...

cynic_the wrote:
FFS

The people causing the crashes and injuries ARE NOT OBEYING ANY SPEED LIMIT.

Putting up a 20 sign where the limit used to be 30 does not stop the people that were doing 45-50 in the first place. Only robust traffic policing by THE POLICE can do this. Why can these people not see this?

Driving standard have plummeted in the last year or so, and i believe it is because the 20 limit fiasco has shown that the police are not currently policing the roads at all, leading to martial law, basically.

At least one car a day passes BHHS on Montpelier Road at 60mph+ and most at about 35-40. The little flashing 20 sign is NOT THE ANSWER.

Rant over.
I don't think you really mean "martial law".
[quote][p][bold]cynic_the[/bold] wrote: FFS The people causing the crashes and injuries ARE NOT OBEYING ANY SPEED LIMIT. Putting up a 20 sign where the limit used to be 30 does not stop the people that were doing 45-50 in the first place. Only robust traffic policing by THE POLICE can do this. Why can these people not see this? Driving standard have plummeted in the last year or so, and i believe it is because the 20 limit fiasco has shown that the police are not currently policing the roads at all, leading to martial law, basically. At least one car a day passes BHHS on Montpelier Road at 60mph+ and most at about 35-40. The little flashing 20 sign is NOT THE ANSWER. Rant over.[/p][/quote]I don't think you really mean "martial law". fredaj
  • Score: 4

1:10pm Thu 6 Feb 14

cleggalike says...

Fight_Back wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
Ohnotagain ! wrote:
"as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times"

What planet are you on ! of course it's going to take longer as you are going slower !!!!
Kitcat out, Green's out, 20mph out and all the other Green supporting looney's out as well.

That's all.
In areas where 20 mph zones have been put in place, road casualties have come down by 42%. Do you think this is a good thing, or a bad thing?
42% ???? Well done for that lie. That is NO published research that suggests the new 20mph zones in Brighton and Hove have reduced casualties by that amount. Even the Greens aren't stupid enough to suggest that.
It's not a lie, Fight_back, its a statistic produced by the World Health Organisation, backed up by evidence collated from places where 20mph has been introduced.

You need to get used to the idea that 20mph zones are here to stay.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ohnotagain ![/bold] wrote: "as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times" What planet are you on ! of course it's going to take longer as you are going slower !!!! Kitcat out, Green's out, 20mph out and all the other Green supporting looney's out as well. That's all.[/p][/quote]In areas where 20 mph zones have been put in place, road casualties have come down by 42%. Do you think this is a good thing, or a bad thing?[/p][/quote]42% ???? Well done for that lie. That is NO published research that suggests the new 20mph zones in Brighton and Hove have reduced casualties by that amount. Even the Greens aren't stupid enough to suggest that.[/p][/quote]It's not a lie, Fight_back, its a statistic produced by the World Health Organisation, backed up by evidence collated from places where 20mph has been introduced. You need to get used to the idea that 20mph zones are here to stay. cleggalike
  • Score: -20

1:26pm Thu 6 Feb 14

peteb21 says...

road_rager wrote:
As it only the 'tax paying motorist' who foots the bill for road, roads should be exclusively for cars with no speed limit ANYWHERE !
If someone gets run over, then they shpouldnt have been in the road in the first place.

ROADS ARE FOR CARS NO ONE ELSE !
road_rager you sound exactly like the type of hard working, tax paying, law abiding person I am looking for to join my new political party, what do you think, the manifesto is below...

I’ve had enough of these pesky greens making driving a nightmare. I have definitely noticed at least a tenfold increase in the time it takes me to drive from, say Churchill Square car park to my house by Seven Dials and I’ve had enough of it!

1. First off, obviously, I would remove any kind of cycling infrastructure, any cycle shops would be bulldozed and car parks built in their place. It’s a well-known fact that cyclists don’t pay road tax, the scum that they are don’t think they should, well they don’t get to use the roads then. They cycle the wrong way down one way roads, through red lights, thinking they are above the law causing all kinds of mayhem and destruction. Cars drivers can’t do it and that just isn’t fair, despite how much I really wish I could get away with it.

2. Secondly I think buses have no place on the roads either. It’s obvious that they are just a waste of money and cause more congestion and fumes. I would scrap buses. Bus lanes would become the sole preserve of people wanting to make journeys of less than one mile. This will mean that short journey can be made in double quick times, meaning less traffic on the roads, simple!

3. I would remove the 20 mph speed limits and make them speed minimums; the same would apply to all other current speed limits in B&H. If you aren’t up to speed you will be fined, I’m sure it is possible to re-programme the current speed cameras to enable this.

4. I would increase the amount of car parking available by tarmacing over Preston Park, The Level, St Anns Well Gardens, Victoria Gardens, Queens Park, in fact all green spaces, it would be free to park in these new zones.

5. I would also tarmac the beach; imagine how many car park spaces could be formed! After all what’s the point in having a beach if people can’t get to Brighton because they can’t park?! Actually while I’m at it I would also demolish Brighton Pavilion and build a 15 storey car park. These greens don’t get that if people can’t park their cars easily and for free they won’t come to Brighton, ruining business.

6. I would also remove pavements, pedestrians slow the driver down, all that crossing the road and stuff, don’t they realise the roads are for cars!? If people want to go to a shop they will be able to drive and park right outside of it. This would improve business no end, it would be like ordering off the internet. No worrying about going outside or other people annoying you, straight out of your car, straight in your shop of choice, straight back home again. Obviously some shops are too narrow to drive to, such as those in the Lanes. In this case demolish just enough building to make room for the cars to get access. The greens say no cars in the Lanes; I say make the Lanes car lanes.

7. I would then, as the pièce de résistance, remove all the different obstacles that get in the way of the hard working driver, so cars are free to move around freely at speeds without any congestion. This would include things such as: traffic lights, pedestrian crossings, zebra crossings, speed humps, double yellow lines etc etc. There would be nothing stopping the keen driver cruising along peacefully as they drive the 1 mile journey to drop the kids off at school.

This would obviously lead to massive improvements for business and normal everyday hard working people. Traffic would flow freely everywhere helping to restore Brighton to the once peaceful quaint seaside fishing village it used to be, before it got all busy, and run down. At the end of the day it’s a basic human right to be able to drive a car and not have to worry about anyone else.

Who’s in?
[quote][p][bold]road_rager[/bold] wrote: As it only the 'tax paying motorist' who foots the bill for road, roads should be exclusively for cars with no speed limit ANYWHERE ! If someone gets run over, then they shpouldnt have been in the road in the first place. ROADS ARE FOR CARS NO ONE ELSE ![/p][/quote]road_rager you sound exactly like the type of hard working, tax paying, law abiding person I am looking for to join my new political party, what do you think, the manifesto is below... I’ve had enough of these pesky greens making driving a nightmare. I have definitely noticed at least a tenfold increase in the time it takes me to drive from, say Churchill Square car park to my house by Seven Dials and I’ve had enough of it! 1. First off, obviously, I would remove any kind of cycling infrastructure, any cycle shops would be bulldozed and car parks built in their place. It’s a well-known fact that cyclists don’t pay road tax, the scum that they are don’t think they should, well they don’t get to use the roads then. They cycle the wrong way down one way roads, through red lights, thinking they are above the law causing all kinds of mayhem and destruction. Cars drivers can’t do it and that just isn’t fair, despite how much I really wish I could get away with it. 2. Secondly I think buses have no place on the roads either. It’s obvious that they are just a waste of money and cause more congestion and fumes. I would scrap buses. Bus lanes would become the sole preserve of people wanting to make journeys of less than one mile. This will mean that short journey can be made in double quick times, meaning less traffic on the roads, simple! 3. I would remove the 20 mph speed limits and make them speed minimums; the same would apply to all other current speed limits in B&H. If you aren’t up to speed you will be fined, I’m sure it is possible to re-programme the current speed cameras to enable this. 4. I would increase the amount of car parking available by tarmacing over Preston Park, The Level, St Anns Well Gardens, Victoria Gardens, Queens Park, in fact all green spaces, it would be free to park in these new zones. 5. I would also tarmac the beach; imagine how many car park spaces could be formed! After all what’s the point in having a beach if people can’t get to Brighton because they can’t park?! Actually while I’m at it I would also demolish Brighton Pavilion and build a 15 storey car park. These greens don’t get that if people can’t park their cars easily and for free they won’t come to Brighton, ruining business. 6. I would also remove pavements, pedestrians slow the driver down, all that crossing the road and stuff, don’t they realise the roads are for cars!? If people want to go to a shop they will be able to drive and park right outside of it. This would improve business no end, it would be like ordering off the internet. No worrying about going outside or other people annoying you, straight out of your car, straight in your shop of choice, straight back home again. Obviously some shops are too narrow to drive to, such as those in the Lanes. In this case demolish just enough building to make room for the cars to get access. The greens say no cars in the Lanes; I say make the Lanes car lanes. 7. I would then, as the pièce de résistance, remove all the different obstacles that get in the way of the hard working driver, so cars are free to move around freely at speeds without any congestion. This would include things such as: traffic lights, pedestrian crossings, zebra crossings, speed humps, double yellow lines etc etc. There would be nothing stopping the keen driver cruising along peacefully as they drive the 1 mile journey to drop the kids off at school. This would obviously lead to massive improvements for business and normal everyday hard working people. Traffic would flow freely everywhere helping to restore Brighton to the once peaceful quaint seaside fishing village it used to be, before it got all busy, and run down. At the end of the day it’s a basic human right to be able to drive a car and not have to worry about anyone else. Who’s in? peteb21
  • Score: 1

1:29pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Wiggo says...

Ohnotagain ! wrote:
"as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times"

What planet are you on ! of course it's going to take longer as you are going slower !!!!
Kitcat out, Green's out, 20mph out and all the other Green supporting looney's out as well.

That's all.
You're assuming that journey times are governed only by your maximum speed. In any trip in a built-up area, a very significant part of your journey time is spent not moving at all. If you can reduce the time sitting in traffic, then your overall journey time can be reduced. For example, you'll be able to pull out of a junction quicker if the traffic on the main road is going more slowly. Of course, every route is different, but assuming that lower maximum speeds inevitably result in longer journey times is way too simplistic.
[quote][p][bold]Ohnotagain ![/bold] wrote: "as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times" What planet are you on ! of course it's going to take longer as you are going slower !!!! Kitcat out, Green's out, 20mph out and all the other Green supporting looney's out as well. That's all.[/p][/quote]You're assuming that journey times are governed only by your maximum speed. In any trip in a built-up area, a very significant part of your journey time is spent not moving at all. If you can reduce the time sitting in traffic, then your overall journey time can be reduced. For example, you'll be able to pull out of a junction quicker if the traffic on the main road is going more slowly. Of course, every route is different, but assuming that lower maximum speeds inevitably result in longer journey times is way too simplistic. Wiggo
  • Score: -2

1:34pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Martin999 says...

cleggalike wrote:
Ohnotagain ! wrote:
"as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times"

What planet are you on ! of course it's going to take longer as you are going slower !!!!
Kitcat out, Green's out, 20mph out and all the other Green supporting looney's out as well.

That's all.
In areas where 20 mph zones have been put in place, road casualties have come down by 42%. Do you think this is a good thing, or a bad thing?
Prove it
[quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ohnotagain ![/bold] wrote: "as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times" What planet are you on ! of course it's going to take longer as you are going slower !!!! Kitcat out, Green's out, 20mph out and all the other Green supporting looney's out as well. That's all.[/p][/quote]In areas where 20 mph zones have been put in place, road casualties have come down by 42%. Do you think this is a good thing, or a bad thing?[/p][/quote]Prove it Martin999
  • Score: 12

1:39pm Thu 6 Feb 14

kopite_rob says...

I'm not a greeny.
I work as an engineer and manage national and international competition sports cars, about as ungreen as you can get, however I do cycle every weekday through Brighton, because it's faster, cheaper and healthier, so I do have a vested interest in keeping the racing on the circuits and not on the streets of Brighton where I might end up as strawberry jam.
I have two problems with the statements being used bandied about here.
One: Congestion is caused by volume, constrained by bottlenecks or pinchpoints, not the application (or not) of speed. It's rule 1 of theory of constraints.
Even in clear airspace ,if you follow motorsport especially NASCAR you can see the same principle applied, that the fastest car isn't the one at the front, but the one immediately behind it in the convoy. If you've ever driven on a motorway you'll often end up stationary for periods of time behind a long queue which suddenly opens up again.
It's like playing an accordian, and in innercities such as Brighton there are traffic light's, pedestrian crossings, merging traffic, vehicle's parked by the side of the road which will also cause the traffic to slow.

Two: Fuel consumption is a form of thermal efficiency. Fuel consumption is better when the engine is warm and inertia is maintained by a consistent power delivery. In Brighton most journeys are too short to deliver thermal efficiency and consistent power delivery is foregone by heavy acceleration and braking from one set of lights to the next. For motor vehicles this is measured by mass, exceleration & inertia as well as drag co-efficients, engine parameters, rolling resistance etc etc. When you've learnt to run a 30+ channel data acquisition system in motorsport you pick these things up. Maximisation of fuel efficiency is through a consistent speed. Running competition cars the balance between weight and fuel consumption is something I understand a little bit more than your average Billy. Rushing from one pinch point to the next is way more inefficient than a consistent speed over the same distance.So leaping on the gas to get to then cramming the brakes on will cost you and the engine more than driving at a consistent speed. Considering the average speed in the city landscape is 12 mph (in London its less than 5mph) whatever the posted speed is becomes irrelevant.
You could post it as 100mph if you wanted, you'd never achieve it because of the volume of traffic, no more than the 30mph.It's a myth you'll, never achieve it as an average across Brighton. The time difference between a 30mph & 20mph limit over the distance from Patcham to the Seafront at a consistent maximum speed ( unlikely due all the constraints;see point 1 ) is 3 1/2 minutes. So if you could travel non-stop one side to the other you would gain 3 1/2 minutes. Wow!
However the survival rate of someone getting hit at 30 compared to 20 massively diminishes. Worth 3 & 1/2 minutes to kill someone?

The same people that gripe about the 20 limit on this site are the same ones that gripe about the A27/A23 being blocked up daily by crashes, due in the most part to inappropriate speed.
The same people that gripe about the traffic caused by the school run, but "would slow down outside of schools". Great sentiment, but kids don't teleport to "outside school" they have to walk along the roads that you persistently claim to ignore the limit on, therby perpetuating a belief that it's unsafe for children to walk to school because of speeding and reckless drivers.

I frequently visit the TRL in Woking. You'd be amazed at the carnage that happens inside a vehicle even at 30.
Let alone what it does to a body on the outside of a car.
In my younger days I had the misfortune of having to pick up the pieces of several bodies that had been run over, and to tell persons family they weren't coming home.

I'd rather cost myself 3 1/2 minutes than lessen the odds of someone getting killed by a speeding car.
I'm not a greeny. I work as an engineer and manage national and international competition sports cars, about as ungreen as you can get, however I do cycle every weekday through Brighton, because it's faster, cheaper and healthier, so I do have a vested interest in keeping the racing on the circuits and not on the streets of Brighton where I might end up as strawberry jam. I have two problems with the statements being used bandied about here. One: Congestion is caused by volume, constrained by bottlenecks or pinchpoints, not the application (or not) of speed. It's rule 1 of theory of constraints. Even in clear airspace ,if you follow motorsport especially NASCAR you can see the same principle applied, that the fastest car isn't the one at the front, but the one immediately behind it in the convoy. If you've ever driven on a motorway you'll often end up stationary for periods of time behind a long queue which suddenly opens up again. It's like playing an accordian, and in innercities such as Brighton there are traffic light's, pedestrian crossings, merging traffic, vehicle's parked by the side of the road which will also cause the traffic to slow. Two: Fuel consumption is a form of thermal efficiency. Fuel consumption is better when the engine is warm and inertia is maintained by a consistent power delivery. In Brighton most journeys are too short to deliver thermal efficiency and consistent power delivery is foregone by heavy acceleration and braking from one set of lights to the next. For motor vehicles this is measured by mass, exceleration & inertia as well as drag co-efficients, engine parameters, rolling resistance etc etc. When you've learnt to run a 30+ channel data acquisition system in motorsport you pick these things up. Maximisation of fuel efficiency is through a consistent speed. Running competition cars the balance between weight and fuel consumption is something I understand a little bit more than your average Billy. Rushing from one pinch point to the next is way more inefficient than a consistent speed over the same distance.So leaping on the gas to get to then cramming the brakes on will cost you and the engine more than driving at a consistent speed. Considering the average speed in the city landscape is 12 mph (in London its less than 5mph) whatever the posted speed is becomes irrelevant. You could post it as 100mph if you wanted, you'd never achieve it because of the volume of traffic, no more than the 30mph.It's a myth you'll, never achieve it as an average across Brighton. The time difference between a 30mph & 20mph limit over the distance from Patcham to the Seafront at a consistent maximum speed ( unlikely due all the constraints;see point 1 ) is 3 1/2 minutes. So if you could travel non-stop one side to the other you would gain 3 1/2 minutes. Wow! However the survival rate of someone getting hit at 30 compared to 20 massively diminishes. Worth 3 & 1/2 minutes to kill someone? The same people that gripe about the 20 limit on this site are the same ones that gripe about the A27/A23 being blocked up daily by crashes, due in the most part to inappropriate speed. The same people that gripe about the traffic caused by the school run, but "would slow down outside of schools". Great sentiment, but kids don't teleport to "outside school" they have to walk along the roads that you persistently claim to ignore the limit on, therby perpetuating a belief that it's unsafe for children to walk to school because of speeding and reckless drivers. I frequently visit the TRL in Woking. You'd be amazed at the carnage that happens inside a vehicle even at 30. Let alone what it does to a body on the outside of a car. In my younger days I had the misfortune of having to pick up the pieces of several bodies that had been run over, and to tell persons family they weren't coming home. I'd rather cost myself 3 1/2 minutes than lessen the odds of someone getting killed by a speeding car. kopite_rob
  • Score: 18

1:40pm Thu 6 Feb 14

cleggalike says...

Martin999 wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
Ohnotagain ! wrote:
"as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times"

What planet are you on ! of course it's going to take longer as you are going slower !!!!
Kitcat out, Green's out, 20mph out and all the other Green supporting looney's out as well.

That's all.
In areas where 20 mph zones have been put in place, road casualties have come down by 42%. Do you think this is a good thing, or a bad thing?
Prove it
Webster, D. and R. Layfield, Review of 20 mph zones in London Boroughs TRL
PPR243, 2007
[quote][p][bold]Martin999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ohnotagain ![/bold] wrote: "as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times" What planet are you on ! of course it's going to take longer as you are going slower !!!! Kitcat out, Green's out, 20mph out and all the other Green supporting looney's out as well. That's all.[/p][/quote]In areas where 20 mph zones have been put in place, road casualties have come down by 42%. Do you think this is a good thing, or a bad thing?[/p][/quote]Prove it[/p][/quote]Webster, D. and R. Layfield, Review of 20 mph zones in London Boroughs TRL PPR243, 2007 cleggalike
  • Score: -13

1:44pm Thu 6 Feb 14

cynic_the says...

fredaj wrote:
cynic_the wrote:
FFS

The people causing the crashes and injuries ARE NOT OBEYING ANY SPEED LIMIT.

Putting up a 20 sign where the limit used to be 30 does not stop the people that were doing 45-50 in the first place. Only robust traffic policing by THE POLICE can do this. Why can these people not see this?

Driving standard have plummeted in the last year or so, and i believe it is because the 20 limit fiasco has shown that the police are not currently policing the roads at all, leading to martial law, basically.

At least one car a day passes BHHS on Montpelier Road at 60mph+ and most at about 35-40. The little flashing 20 sign is NOT THE ANSWER.

Rant over.
I don't think you really mean "martial law".
You're right - i thought it meant self-policing, not military policing!

Cheers!
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cynic_the[/bold] wrote: FFS The people causing the crashes and injuries ARE NOT OBEYING ANY SPEED LIMIT. Putting up a 20 sign where the limit used to be 30 does not stop the people that were doing 45-50 in the first place. Only robust traffic policing by THE POLICE can do this. Why can these people not see this? Driving standard have plummeted in the last year or so, and i believe it is because the 20 limit fiasco has shown that the police are not currently policing the roads at all, leading to martial law, basically. At least one car a day passes BHHS on Montpelier Road at 60mph+ and most at about 35-40. The little flashing 20 sign is NOT THE ANSWER. Rant over.[/p][/quote]I don't think you really mean "martial law".[/p][/quote]You're right - i thought it meant self-policing, not military policing! Cheers! cynic_the
  • Score: 1

1:45pm Thu 6 Feb 14

brightonian57 says...

With the condition of the road surface in Preston Drove and Ditchling Road it's impossible to go much faster than 30 without causing serious damage to ones vehicle. As for 20 mph petitions I got one through the door, and did the correct green thing, recycled it
With the condition of the road surface in Preston Drove and Ditchling Road it's impossible to go much faster than 30 without causing serious damage to ones vehicle. As for 20 mph petitions I got one through the door, and did the correct green thing, recycled it brightonian57
  • Score: 16

1:50pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Plantpot says...

cleggalike wrote:
Martin999 wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
Ohnotagain ! wrote:
"as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times"

What planet are you on ! of course it's going to take longer as you are going slower !!!!
Kitcat out, Green's out, 20mph out and all the other Green supporting looney's out as well.

That's all.
In areas where 20 mph zones have been put in place, road casualties have come down by 42%. Do you think this is a good thing, or a bad thing?
Prove it
Webster, D. and R. Layfield, Review of 20 mph zones in London Boroughs TRL
PPR243, 2007
You have quoted highly selectively if that's the document I'm thinking of. But I can't be bothered to go and check. The impression given by that report is not the one you would like to present.
[quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Martin999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ohnotagain ![/bold] wrote: "as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times" What planet are you on ! of course it's going to take longer as you are going slower !!!! Kitcat out, Green's out, 20mph out and all the other Green supporting looney's out as well. That's all.[/p][/quote]In areas where 20 mph zones have been put in place, road casualties have come down by 42%. Do you think this is a good thing, or a bad thing?[/p][/quote]Prove it[/p][/quote]Webster, D. and R. Layfield, Review of 20 mph zones in London Boroughs TRL PPR243, 2007[/p][/quote]You have quoted highly selectively if that's the document I'm thinking of. But I can't be bothered to go and check. The impression given by that report is not the one you would like to present. Plantpot
  • Score: 11

1:51pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Fight_Back says...

cleggalike wrote:
Martin999 wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
Ohnotagain ! wrote:
"as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times"

What planet are you on ! of course it's going to take longer as you are going slower !!!!
Kitcat out, Green's out, 20mph out and all the other Green supporting looney's out as well.

That's all.
In areas where 20 mph zones have been put in place, road casualties have come down by 42%. Do you think this is a good thing, or a bad thing?
Prove it
Webster, D. and R. Layfield, Review of 20 mph zones in London Boroughs TRL
PPR243, 2007
So not the Brighton and Hove one then ? If you're going to use data for your argument then you should at least use RELEVANT data.
[quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Martin999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ohnotagain ![/bold] wrote: "as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times" What planet are you on ! of course it's going to take longer as you are going slower !!!! Kitcat out, Green's out, 20mph out and all the other Green supporting looney's out as well. That's all.[/p][/quote]In areas where 20 mph zones have been put in place, road casualties have come down by 42%. Do you think this is a good thing, or a bad thing?[/p][/quote]Prove it[/p][/quote]Webster, D. and R. Layfield, Review of 20 mph zones in London Boroughs TRL PPR243, 2007[/p][/quote]So not the Brighton and Hove one then ? If you're going to use data for your argument then you should at least use RELEVANT data. Fight_Back
  • Score: 13

1:56pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Cgull says...

In those areas the people voted not to have 20mph.

So who so the council listen too, the people living on the roads or the minority and their internet mates who are sulking cos the didn't get their way?
In those areas the people voted not to have 20mph. So who so the council listen too, the people living on the roads or the minority and their internet mates who are sulking cos the didn't get their way? Cgull
  • Score: 10

1:58pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Seventh Circle says...

kopite_rob wrote:
I'm not a greeny.
I work as an engineer and manage national and international competition sports cars, about as ungreen as you can get, however I do cycle every weekday through Brighton, because it's faster, cheaper and healthier, so I do have a vested interest in keeping the racing on the circuits and not on the streets of Brighton where I might end up as strawberry jam.
I have two problems with the statements being used bandied about here.
One: Congestion is caused by volume, constrained by bottlenecks or pinchpoints, not the application (or not) of speed. It's rule 1 of theory of constraints.
Even in clear airspace ,if you follow motorsport especially NASCAR you can see the same principle applied, that the fastest car isn't the one at the front, but the one immediately behind it in the convoy. If you've ever driven on a motorway you'll often end up stationary for periods of time behind a long queue which suddenly opens up again.
It's like playing an accordian, and in innercities such as Brighton there are traffic light's, pedestrian crossings, merging traffic, vehicle's parked by the side of the road which will also cause the traffic to slow.

Two: Fuel consumption is a form of thermal efficiency. Fuel consumption is better when the engine is warm and inertia is maintained by a consistent power delivery. In Brighton most journeys are too short to deliver thermal efficiency and consistent power delivery is foregone by heavy acceleration and braking from one set of lights to the next. For motor vehicles this is measured by mass, exceleration & inertia as well as drag co-efficients, engine parameters, rolling resistance etc etc. When you've learnt to run a 30+ channel data acquisition system in motorsport you pick these things up. Maximisation of fuel efficiency is through a consistent speed. Running competition cars the balance between weight and fuel consumption is something I understand a little bit more than your average Billy. Rushing from one pinch point to the next is way more inefficient than a consistent speed over the same distance.So leaping on the gas to get to then cramming the brakes on will cost you and the engine more than driving at a consistent speed. Considering the average speed in the city landscape is 12 mph (in London its less than 5mph) whatever the posted speed is becomes irrelevant.
You could post it as 100mph if you wanted, you'd never achieve it because of the volume of traffic, no more than the 30mph.It's a myth you'll, never achieve it as an average across Brighton. The time difference between a 30mph & 20mph limit over the distance from Patcham to the Seafront at a consistent maximum speed ( unlikely due all the constraints;see point 1 ) is 3 1/2 minutes. So if you could travel non-stop one side to the other you would gain 3 1/2 minutes. Wow!
However the survival rate of someone getting hit at 30 compared to 20 massively diminishes. Worth 3 & 1/2 minutes to kill someone?

The same people that gripe about the 20 limit on this site are the same ones that gripe about the A27/A23 being blocked up daily by crashes, due in the most part to inappropriate speed.
The same people that gripe about the traffic caused by the school run, but "would slow down outside of schools". Great sentiment, but kids don't teleport to "outside school" they have to walk along the roads that you persistently claim to ignore the limit on, therby perpetuating a belief that it's unsafe for children to walk to school because of speeding and reckless drivers.

I frequently visit the TRL in Woking. You'd be amazed at the carnage that happens inside a vehicle even at 30.
Let alone what it does to a body on the outside of a car.
In my younger days I had the misfortune of having to pick up the pieces of several bodies that had been run over, and to tell persons family they weren't coming home.

I'd rather cost myself 3 1/2 minutes than lessen the odds of someone getting killed by a speeding car.
tell that to the family of the poor girl run over by the bus last week.... and explain to me why I'm often stuck in a red traffic light with no other cars in sight at any of the other junctions neaqrby. the traffic seems to be trapped in queues in the town because of the traffic light sequencing, driving many cars on to side roads creating rat-runs and dangerous conditions. this isn't professional traffic management.. just an anti-car policy from a party that will never be elected again
[quote][p][bold]kopite_rob[/bold] wrote: I'm not a greeny. I work as an engineer and manage national and international competition sports cars, about as ungreen as you can get, however I do cycle every weekday through Brighton, because it's faster, cheaper and healthier, so I do have a vested interest in keeping the racing on the circuits and not on the streets of Brighton where I might end up as strawberry jam. I have two problems with the statements being used bandied about here. One: Congestion is caused by volume, constrained by bottlenecks or pinchpoints, not the application (or not) of speed. It's rule 1 of theory of constraints. Even in clear airspace ,if you follow motorsport especially NASCAR you can see the same principle applied, that the fastest car isn't the one at the front, but the one immediately behind it in the convoy. If you've ever driven on a motorway you'll often end up stationary for periods of time behind a long queue which suddenly opens up again. It's like playing an accordian, and in innercities such as Brighton there are traffic light's, pedestrian crossings, merging traffic, vehicle's parked by the side of the road which will also cause the traffic to slow. Two: Fuel consumption is a form of thermal efficiency. Fuel consumption is better when the engine is warm and inertia is maintained by a consistent power delivery. In Brighton most journeys are too short to deliver thermal efficiency and consistent power delivery is foregone by heavy acceleration and braking from one set of lights to the next. For motor vehicles this is measured by mass, exceleration & inertia as well as drag co-efficients, engine parameters, rolling resistance etc etc. When you've learnt to run a 30+ channel data acquisition system in motorsport you pick these things up. Maximisation of fuel efficiency is through a consistent speed. Running competition cars the balance between weight and fuel consumption is something I understand a little bit more than your average Billy. Rushing from one pinch point to the next is way more inefficient than a consistent speed over the same distance.So leaping on the gas to get to then cramming the brakes on will cost you and the engine more than driving at a consistent speed. Considering the average speed in the city landscape is 12 mph (in London its less than 5mph) whatever the posted speed is becomes irrelevant. You could post it as 100mph if you wanted, you'd never achieve it because of the volume of traffic, no more than the 30mph.It's a myth you'll, never achieve it as an average across Brighton. The time difference between a 30mph & 20mph limit over the distance from Patcham to the Seafront at a consistent maximum speed ( unlikely due all the constraints;see point 1 ) is 3 1/2 minutes. So if you could travel non-stop one side to the other you would gain 3 1/2 minutes. Wow! However the survival rate of someone getting hit at 30 compared to 20 massively diminishes. Worth 3 & 1/2 minutes to kill someone? The same people that gripe about the 20 limit on this site are the same ones that gripe about the A27/A23 being blocked up daily by crashes, due in the most part to inappropriate speed. The same people that gripe about the traffic caused by the school run, but "would slow down outside of schools". Great sentiment, but kids don't teleport to "outside school" they have to walk along the roads that you persistently claim to ignore the limit on, therby perpetuating a belief that it's unsafe for children to walk to school because of speeding and reckless drivers. I frequently visit the TRL in Woking. You'd be amazed at the carnage that happens inside a vehicle even at 30. Let alone what it does to a body on the outside of a car. In my younger days I had the misfortune of having to pick up the pieces of several bodies that had been run over, and to tell persons family they weren't coming home. I'd rather cost myself 3 1/2 minutes than lessen the odds of someone getting killed by a speeding car.[/p][/quote]tell that to the family of the poor girl run over by the bus last week.... and explain to me why I'm often stuck in a red traffic light with no other cars in sight at any of the other junctions neaqrby. the traffic seems to be trapped in queues in the town because of the traffic light sequencing, driving many cars on to side roads creating rat-runs and dangerous conditions. this isn't professional traffic management.. just an anti-car policy from a party that will never be elected again Seventh Circle
  • Score: 15

1:58pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Cgull says...

And of course we wouldn't want to mention that in Portsmouth their 20mph implantation led to more seriously accidents.

Is that what the 700 signatories on the petition want?
And of course we wouldn't want to mention that in Portsmouth their 20mph implantation led to more seriously accidents. Is that what the 700 signatories on the petition want? Cgull
  • Score: 17

2:01pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Richada says...

billy goat-gruff wrote:
the selfish petrolhead lobby is only interested in their fuel consumption and the microseconds they might save racing to the next set of lights… 20mph zones save the lives of children and helps free the air of pollution.
How, exactly, does "racing to the next set of red lights" save fuel?

What wastes fuel and causes extreme levels of pollution is vehicles of all sorts idling in huge traffic jams created by the councils deliberate traffic mismanagement systems.

As for the 20mph limits, there are places (outside schools for e.g.) where this is sensible - bur, by imposing blanket 20mph limits everywhere, motorists simply ignore it everywhere - ibcluding places where it is sensible!
[quote][p][bold]billy goat-gruff[/bold] wrote: the selfish petrolhead lobby is only interested in their fuel consumption and the microseconds they might save racing to the next set of lights… 20mph zones save the lives of children and helps free the air of pollution.[/p][/quote]How, exactly, does "racing to the next set of red lights" save fuel? What wastes fuel and causes extreme levels of pollution is vehicles of all sorts idling in huge traffic jams created by the councils deliberate traffic mismanagement systems. As for the 20mph limits, there are places (outside schools for e.g.) where this is sensible - bur, by imposing blanket 20mph limits everywhere, motorists simply ignore it everywhere - ibcluding places where it is sensible! Richada
  • Score: 15

2:01pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Bill in Hanover says...

cleggalike wrote:
Ohnotagain ! wrote:
"as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times"

What planet are you on ! of course it's going to take longer as you are going slower !!!!
Kitcat out, Green's out, 20mph out and all the other Green supporting looney's out as well.

That's all.
In areas where 20 mph zones have been put in place, road casualties have come down by 42%. Do you think this is a good thing, or a bad thing?
Are you including the tragic death of an 18 year old girl n the Lewes Road bus lane in your figures.
[quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ohnotagain ![/bold] wrote: "as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times" What planet are you on ! of course it's going to take longer as you are going slower !!!! Kitcat out, Green's out, 20mph out and all the other Green supporting looney's out as well. That's all.[/p][/quote]In areas where 20 mph zones have been put in place, road casualties have come down by 42%. Do you think this is a good thing, or a bad thing?[/p][/quote]Are you including the tragic death of an 18 year old girl n the Lewes Road bus lane in your figures. Bill in Hanover
  • Score: 6

2:07pm Thu 6 Feb 14

road_rager says...

peteb21 wrote:
road_rager wrote:
As it only the 'tax paying motorist' who foots the bill for road, roads should be exclusively for cars with no speed limit ANYWHERE !
If someone gets run over, then they shpouldnt have been in the road in the first place.

ROADS ARE FOR CARS NO ONE ELSE !
road_rager you sound exactly like the type of hard working, tax paying, law abiding person I am looking for to join my new political party, what do you think, the manifesto is below...

I’ve had enough of these pesky greens making driving a nightmare. I have definitely noticed at least a tenfold increase in the time it takes me to drive from, say Churchill Square car park to my house by Seven Dials and I’ve had enough of it!

1. First off, obviously, I would remove any kind of cycling infrastructure, any cycle shops would be bulldozed and car parks built in their place. It’s a well-known fact that cyclists don’t pay road tax, the scum that they are don’t think they should, well they don’t get to use the roads then. They cycle the wrong way down one way roads, through red lights, thinking they are above the law causing all kinds of mayhem and destruction. Cars drivers can’t do it and that just isn’t fair, despite how much I really wish I could get away with it.

2. Secondly I think buses have no place on the roads either. It’s obvious that they are just a waste of money and cause more congestion and fumes. I would scrap buses. Bus lanes would become the sole preserve of people wanting to make journeys of less than one mile. This will mean that short journey can be made in double quick times, meaning less traffic on the roads, simple!

3. I would remove the 20 mph speed limits and make them speed minimums; the same would apply to all other current speed limits in B&H. If you aren’t up to speed you will be fined, I’m sure it is possible to re-programme the current speed cameras to enable this.

4. I would increase the amount of car parking available by tarmacing over Preston Park, The Level, St Anns Well Gardens, Victoria Gardens, Queens Park, in fact all green spaces, it would be free to park in these new zones.

5. I would also tarmac the beach; imagine how many car park spaces could be formed! After all what’s the point in having a beach if people can’t get to Brighton because they can’t park?! Actually while I’m at it I would also demolish Brighton Pavilion and build a 15 storey car park. These greens don’t get that if people can’t park their cars easily and for free they won’t come to Brighton, ruining business.

6. I would also remove pavements, pedestrians slow the driver down, all that crossing the road and stuff, don’t they realise the roads are for cars!? If people want to go to a shop they will be able to drive and park right outside of it. This would improve business no end, it would be like ordering off the internet. No worrying about going outside or other people annoying you, straight out of your car, straight in your shop of choice, straight back home again. Obviously some shops are too narrow to drive to, such as those in the Lanes. In this case demolish just enough building to make room for the cars to get access. The greens say no cars in the Lanes; I say make the Lanes car lanes.

7. I would then, as the pièce de résistance, remove all the different obstacles that get in the way of the hard working driver, so cars are free to move around freely at speeds without any congestion. This would include things such as: traffic lights, pedestrian crossings, zebra crossings, speed humps, double yellow lines etc etc. There would be nothing stopping the keen driver cruising along peacefully as they drive the 1 mile journey to drop the kids off at school.

This would obviously lead to massive improvements for business and normal everyday hard working people. Traffic would flow freely everywhere helping to restore Brighton to the once peaceful quaint seaside fishing village it used to be, before it got all busy, and run down. At the end of the day it’s a basic human right to be able to drive a car and not have to worry about anyone else.

Who’s in?
Not a bad manifesto - a little too moderate if anything.
[quote][p][bold]peteb21[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]road_rager[/bold] wrote: As it only the 'tax paying motorist' who foots the bill for road, roads should be exclusively for cars with no speed limit ANYWHERE ! If someone gets run over, then they shpouldnt have been in the road in the first place. ROADS ARE FOR CARS NO ONE ELSE ![/p][/quote]road_rager you sound exactly like the type of hard working, tax paying, law abiding person I am looking for to join my new political party, what do you think, the manifesto is below... I’ve had enough of these pesky greens making driving a nightmare. I have definitely noticed at least a tenfold increase in the time it takes me to drive from, say Churchill Square car park to my house by Seven Dials and I’ve had enough of it! 1. First off, obviously, I would remove any kind of cycling infrastructure, any cycle shops would be bulldozed and car parks built in their place. It’s a well-known fact that cyclists don’t pay road tax, the scum that they are don’t think they should, well they don’t get to use the roads then. They cycle the wrong way down one way roads, through red lights, thinking they are above the law causing all kinds of mayhem and destruction. Cars drivers can’t do it and that just isn’t fair, despite how much I really wish I could get away with it. 2. Secondly I think buses have no place on the roads either. It’s obvious that they are just a waste of money and cause more congestion and fumes. I would scrap buses. Bus lanes would become the sole preserve of people wanting to make journeys of less than one mile. This will mean that short journey can be made in double quick times, meaning less traffic on the roads, simple! 3. I would remove the 20 mph speed limits and make them speed minimums; the same would apply to all other current speed limits in B&H. If you aren’t up to speed you will be fined, I’m sure it is possible to re-programme the current speed cameras to enable this. 4. I would increase the amount of car parking available by tarmacing over Preston Park, The Level, St Anns Well Gardens, Victoria Gardens, Queens Park, in fact all green spaces, it would be free to park in these new zones. 5. I would also tarmac the beach; imagine how many car park spaces could be formed! After all what’s the point in having a beach if people can’t get to Brighton because they can’t park?! Actually while I’m at it I would also demolish Brighton Pavilion and build a 15 storey car park. These greens don’t get that if people can’t park their cars easily and for free they won’t come to Brighton, ruining business. 6. I would also remove pavements, pedestrians slow the driver down, all that crossing the road and stuff, don’t they realise the roads are for cars!? If people want to go to a shop they will be able to drive and park right outside of it. This would improve business no end, it would be like ordering off the internet. No worrying about going outside or other people annoying you, straight out of your car, straight in your shop of choice, straight back home again. Obviously some shops are too narrow to drive to, such as those in the Lanes. In this case demolish just enough building to make room for the cars to get access. The greens say no cars in the Lanes; I say make the Lanes car lanes. 7. I would then, as the pièce de résistance, remove all the different obstacles that get in the way of the hard working driver, so cars are free to move around freely at speeds without any congestion. This would include things such as: traffic lights, pedestrian crossings, zebra crossings, speed humps, double yellow lines etc etc. There would be nothing stopping the keen driver cruising along peacefully as they drive the 1 mile journey to drop the kids off at school. This would obviously lead to massive improvements for business and normal everyday hard working people. Traffic would flow freely everywhere helping to restore Brighton to the once peaceful quaint seaside fishing village it used to be, before it got all busy, and run down. At the end of the day it’s a basic human right to be able to drive a car and not have to worry about anyone else. Who’s in?[/p][/quote]Not a bad manifesto - a little too moderate if anything. road_rager
  • Score: 9

2:16pm Thu 6 Feb 14

cleggalike says...

Bill in Hanover wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
Ohnotagain ! wrote:
"as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times"

What planet are you on ! of course it's going to take longer as you are going slower !!!!
Kitcat out, Green's out, 20mph out and all the other Green supporting looney's out as well.

That's all.
In areas where 20 mph zones have been put in place, road casualties have come down by 42%. Do you think this is a good thing, or a bad thing?
Are you including the tragic death of an 18 year old girl n the Lewes Road bus lane in your figures.
This happened on a stretch of road with a 30 mph limit.
[quote][p][bold]Bill in Hanover[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ohnotagain ![/bold] wrote: "as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times" What planet are you on ! of course it's going to take longer as you are going slower !!!! Kitcat out, Green's out, 20mph out and all the other Green supporting looney's out as well. That's all.[/p][/quote]In areas where 20 mph zones have been put in place, road casualties have come down by 42%. Do you think this is a good thing, or a bad thing?[/p][/quote]Are you including the tragic death of an 18 year old girl n the Lewes Road bus lane in your figures.[/p][/quote]This happened on a stretch of road with a 30 mph limit. cleggalike
  • Score: -8

2:17pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Richada says...

peteb21 wrote:
road_rager wrote:
As it only the 'tax paying motorist' who foots the bill for road, roads should be exclusively for cars with no speed limit ANYWHERE !
If someone gets run over, then they shpouldnt have been in the road in the first place.

ROADS ARE FOR CARS NO ONE ELSE !
road_rager you sound exactly like the type of hard working, tax paying, law abiding person I am looking for to join my new political party, what do you think, the manifesto is below...

I’ve had enough of these pesky greens making driving a nightmare. I have definitely noticed at least a tenfold increase in the time it takes me to drive from, say Churchill Square car park to my house by Seven Dials and I’ve had enough of it!

1. First off, obviously, I would remove any kind of cycling infrastructure, any cycle shops would be bulldozed and car parks built in their place. It’s a well-known fact that cyclists don’t pay road tax, the scum that they are don’t think they should, well they don’t get to use the roads then. They cycle the wrong way down one way roads, through red lights, thinking they are above the law causing all kinds of mayhem and destruction. Cars drivers can’t do it and that just isn’t fair, despite how much I really wish I could get away with it.

2. Secondly I think buses have no place on the roads either. It’s obvious that they are just a waste of money and cause more congestion and fumes. I would scrap buses. Bus lanes would become the sole preserve of people wanting to make journeys of less than one mile. This will mean that short journey can be made in double quick times, meaning less traffic on the roads, simple!

3. I would remove the 20 mph speed limits and make them speed minimums; the same would apply to all other current speed limits in B&H. If you aren’t up to speed you will be fined, I’m sure it is possible to re-programme the current speed cameras to enable this.

4. I would increase the amount of car parking available by tarmacing over Preston Park, The Level, St Anns Well Gardens, Victoria Gardens, Queens Park, in fact all green spaces, it would be free to park in these new zones.

5. I would also tarmac the beach; imagine how many car park spaces could be formed! After all what’s the point in having a beach if people can’t get to Brighton because they can’t park?! Actually while I’m at it I would also demolish Brighton Pavilion and build a 15 storey car park. These greens don’t get that if people can’t park their cars easily and for free they won’t come to Brighton, ruining business.

6. I would also remove pavements, pedestrians slow the driver down, all that crossing the road and stuff, don’t they realise the roads are for cars!? If people want to go to a shop they will be able to drive and park right outside of it. This would improve business no end, it would be like ordering off the internet. No worrying about going outside or other people annoying you, straight out of your car, straight in your shop of choice, straight back home again. Obviously some shops are too narrow to drive to, such as those in the Lanes. In this case demolish just enough building to make room for the cars to get access. The greens say no cars in the Lanes; I say make the Lanes car lanes.

7. I would then, as the pièce de résistance, remove all the different obstacles that get in the way of the hard working driver, so cars are free to move around freely at speeds without any congestion. This would include things such as: traffic lights, pedestrian crossings, zebra crossings, speed humps, double yellow lines etc etc. There would be nothing stopping the keen driver cruising along peacefully as they drive the 1 mile journey to drop the kids off at school.

This would obviously lead to massive improvements for business and normal everyday hard working people. Traffic would flow freely everywhere helping to restore Brighton to the once peaceful quaint seaside fishing village it used to be, before it got all busy, and run down. At the end of the day it’s a basic human right to be able to drive a car and not have to worry about anyone else.

Who’s in?
Your plan to demolish the Pavilion and build a car park there very nearly came to fruition in the 1960's!

Most mornings, come rain or shine, I actually see on my journey to work (yes in the car) a parent take their child to a nusery in a people carrier. They live no further than 200 metres away from the nursery and have to turn the car around to get there - the nursery being on the other side of the road. Ironically this parent does not then continue on their journey to work, but, turns the car around to park up 200 metres away outside their house. Neither parent nor child appear in any way disabled.

You can put a 5mph limit in place, but if people are THAT attached to their car, it isn't going to get them to give it up!
[quote][p][bold]peteb21[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]road_rager[/bold] wrote: As it only the 'tax paying motorist' who foots the bill for road, roads should be exclusively for cars with no speed limit ANYWHERE ! If someone gets run over, then they shpouldnt have been in the road in the first place. ROADS ARE FOR CARS NO ONE ELSE ![/p][/quote]road_rager you sound exactly like the type of hard working, tax paying, law abiding person I am looking for to join my new political party, what do you think, the manifesto is below... I’ve had enough of these pesky greens making driving a nightmare. I have definitely noticed at least a tenfold increase in the time it takes me to drive from, say Churchill Square car park to my house by Seven Dials and I’ve had enough of it! 1. First off, obviously, I would remove any kind of cycling infrastructure, any cycle shops would be bulldozed and car parks built in their place. It’s a well-known fact that cyclists don’t pay road tax, the scum that they are don’t think they should, well they don’t get to use the roads then. They cycle the wrong way down one way roads, through red lights, thinking they are above the law causing all kinds of mayhem and destruction. Cars drivers can’t do it and that just isn’t fair, despite how much I really wish I could get away with it. 2. Secondly I think buses have no place on the roads either. It’s obvious that they are just a waste of money and cause more congestion and fumes. I would scrap buses. Bus lanes would become the sole preserve of people wanting to make journeys of less than one mile. This will mean that short journey can be made in double quick times, meaning less traffic on the roads, simple! 3. I would remove the 20 mph speed limits and make them speed minimums; the same would apply to all other current speed limits in B&H. If you aren’t up to speed you will be fined, I’m sure it is possible to re-programme the current speed cameras to enable this. 4. I would increase the amount of car parking available by tarmacing over Preston Park, The Level, St Anns Well Gardens, Victoria Gardens, Queens Park, in fact all green spaces, it would be free to park in these new zones. 5. I would also tarmac the beach; imagine how many car park spaces could be formed! After all what’s the point in having a beach if people can’t get to Brighton because they can’t park?! Actually while I’m at it I would also demolish Brighton Pavilion and build a 15 storey car park. These greens don’t get that if people can’t park their cars easily and for free they won’t come to Brighton, ruining business. 6. I would also remove pavements, pedestrians slow the driver down, all that crossing the road and stuff, don’t they realise the roads are for cars!? If people want to go to a shop they will be able to drive and park right outside of it. This would improve business no end, it would be like ordering off the internet. No worrying about going outside or other people annoying you, straight out of your car, straight in your shop of choice, straight back home again. Obviously some shops are too narrow to drive to, such as those in the Lanes. In this case demolish just enough building to make room for the cars to get access. The greens say no cars in the Lanes; I say make the Lanes car lanes. 7. I would then, as the pièce de résistance, remove all the different obstacles that get in the way of the hard working driver, so cars are free to move around freely at speeds without any congestion. This would include things such as: traffic lights, pedestrian crossings, zebra crossings, speed humps, double yellow lines etc etc. There would be nothing stopping the keen driver cruising along peacefully as they drive the 1 mile journey to drop the kids off at school. This would obviously lead to massive improvements for business and normal everyday hard working people. Traffic would flow freely everywhere helping to restore Brighton to the once peaceful quaint seaside fishing village it used to be, before it got all busy, and run down. At the end of the day it’s a basic human right to be able to drive a car and not have to worry about anyone else. Who’s in?[/p][/quote]Your plan to demolish the Pavilion and build a car park there very nearly came to fruition in the 1960's! Most mornings, come rain or shine, I actually see on my journey to work (yes in the car) a parent take their child to a nusery in a people carrier. They live no further than 200 metres away from the nursery and have to turn the car around to get there - the nursery being on the other side of the road. Ironically this parent does not then continue on their journey to work, but, turns the car around to park up 200 metres away outside their house. Neither parent nor child appear in any way disabled. You can put a 5mph limit in place, but if people are THAT attached to their car, it isn't going to get them to give it up! Richada
  • Score: 6

2:20pm Thu 6 Feb 14

cleggalike says...

Bill in Hanover wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
Ohnotagain ! wrote:
"as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times"

What planet are you on ! of course it's going to take longer as you are going slower !!!!
Kitcat out, Green's out, 20mph out and all the other Green supporting looney's out as well.

That's all.
In areas where 20 mph zones have been put in place, road casualties have come down by 42%. Do you think this is a good thing, or a bad thing?
Are you including the tragic death of an 18 year old girl n the Lewes Road bus lane in your figures.
No. The figures relate to other areas where an analysis has been completed. And it is surely worth noting that this tragedy occurred on a stretch of road that has a 30mph limit, so I'm not sure why you have mentioned it.
[quote][p][bold]Bill in Hanover[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ohnotagain ![/bold] wrote: "as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times" What planet are you on ! of course it's going to take longer as you are going slower !!!! Kitcat out, Green's out, 20mph out and all the other Green supporting looney's out as well. That's all.[/p][/quote]In areas where 20 mph zones have been put in place, road casualties have come down by 42%. Do you think this is a good thing, or a bad thing?[/p][/quote]Are you including the tragic death of an 18 year old girl n the Lewes Road bus lane in your figures.[/p][/quote]No. The figures relate to other areas where an analysis has been completed. And it is surely worth noting that this tragedy occurred on a stretch of road that has a 30mph limit, so I'm not sure why you have mentioned it. cleggalike
  • Score: -2

2:22pm Thu 6 Feb 14

cleggalike says...

Plantpot wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
Martin999 wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
Ohnotagain ! wrote:
"as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times"

What planet are you on ! of course it's going to take longer as you are going slower !!!!
Kitcat out, Green's out, 20mph out and all the other Green supporting looney's out as well.

That's all.
In areas where 20 mph zones have been put in place, road casualties have come down by 42%. Do you think this is a good thing, or a bad thing?
Prove it
Webster, D. and R. Layfield, Review of 20 mph zones in London Boroughs TRL
PPR243, 2007
You have quoted highly selectively if that's the document I'm thinking of. But I can't be bothered to go and check. The impression given by that report is not the one you would like to present.
I beg to differ. the report clearly identified substantial reductions in casualties of all kinds. Please do be bothered to go and check - it's quite important.
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Martin999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ohnotagain ![/bold] wrote: "as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times" What planet are you on ! of course it's going to take longer as you are going slower !!!! Kitcat out, Green's out, 20mph out and all the other Green supporting looney's out as well. That's all.[/p][/quote]In areas where 20 mph zones have been put in place, road casualties have come down by 42%. Do you think this is a good thing, or a bad thing?[/p][/quote]Prove it[/p][/quote]Webster, D. and R. Layfield, Review of 20 mph zones in London Boroughs TRL PPR243, 2007[/p][/quote]You have quoted highly selectively if that's the document I'm thinking of. But I can't be bothered to go and check. The impression given by that report is not the one you would like to present.[/p][/quote]I beg to differ. the report clearly identified substantial reductions in casualties of all kinds. Please do be bothered to go and check - it's quite important. cleggalike
  • Score: -8

2:30pm Thu 6 Feb 14

cleggalike says...

Cgull wrote:
And of course we wouldn't want to mention that in Portsmouth their 20mph implantation led to more seriously accidents.

Is that what the 700 signatories on the petition want?
The report by Atkins did identify a small increase in serious accidents, but the report does state that "the total numbers of KSI (Killed and Seriously Injured) accidents are small across all sectors and are therefore susceptible to variations."

The total number of accidents fell by 21% in Portsmouth following the introduction of the 20mph limit across the city.
[quote][p][bold]Cgull[/bold] wrote: And of course we wouldn't want to mention that in Portsmouth their 20mph implantation led to more seriously accidents. Is that what the 700 signatories on the petition want?[/p][/quote]The report by Atkins did identify a small increase in serious accidents, but the report does state that "the total numbers of KSI (Killed and Seriously Injured) accidents are small across all sectors and are therefore susceptible to variations." The total number of accidents fell by 21% in Portsmouth following the introduction of the 20mph limit across the city. cleggalike
  • Score: -6

3:08pm Thu 6 Feb 14

cynic_the says...

cleggalike wrote:
Cgull wrote:
And of course we wouldn't want to mention that in Portsmouth their 20mph implantation led to more seriously accidents.

Is that what the 700 signatories on the petition want?
The report by Atkins did identify a small increase in serious accidents, but the report does state that "the total numbers of KSI (Killed and Seriously Injured) accidents are small across all sectors and are therefore susceptible to variations."

The total number of accidents fell by 21% in Portsmouth following the introduction of the 20mph limit across the city.
Ok, so when the stats meet your agenda you reel them off as facts, but when they contradict it you roll out the 'very small volumes can be volatile' line?

Loving your work.... very IPCC.
[quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cgull[/bold] wrote: And of course we wouldn't want to mention that in Portsmouth their 20mph implantation led to more seriously accidents. Is that what the 700 signatories on the petition want?[/p][/quote]The report by Atkins did identify a small increase in serious accidents, but the report does state that "the total numbers of KSI (Killed and Seriously Injured) accidents are small across all sectors and are therefore susceptible to variations." The total number of accidents fell by 21% in Portsmouth following the introduction of the 20mph limit across the city.[/p][/quote]Ok, so when the stats meet your agenda you reel them off as facts, but when they contradict it you roll out the 'very small volumes can be volatile' line? Loving your work.... very IPCC. cynic_the
  • Score: 11

3:20pm Thu 6 Feb 14

kaysedem22 says...

cleggalike wrote:
I was sceptical about the 20mph limit and at first it felt quite odd driving at that speed. I've really come round to it though. It makes the roads feel much safer and less frenetic, and as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times.

I fully support the changes being proposed by Becky Reynolds here - sheer common sense.
Becky is that you?
[quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: I was sceptical about the 20mph limit and at first it felt quite odd driving at that speed. I've really come round to it though. It makes the roads feel much safer and less frenetic, and as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times. I fully support the changes being proposed by Becky Reynolds here - sheer common sense.[/p][/quote]Becky is that you? kaysedem22
  • Score: 6

3:21pm Thu 6 Feb 14

kaysedem22 says...

cleggalike wrote:
I was sceptical about the 20mph limit and at first it felt quite odd driving at that speed. I've really come round to it though. It makes the roads feel much safer and less frenetic, and as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times.

I fully support the changes being proposed by Becky Reynolds here - sheer common sense.
Becky is that you?
[quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: I was sceptical about the 20mph limit and at first it felt quite odd driving at that speed. I've really come round to it though. It makes the roads feel much safer and less frenetic, and as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times. I fully support the changes being proposed by Becky Reynolds here - sheer common sense.[/p][/quote]Becky is that you? kaysedem22
  • Score: 3

3:30pm Thu 6 Feb 14

cleggalike says...

cynic_the wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
Cgull wrote:
And of course we wouldn't want to mention that in Portsmouth their 20mph implantation led to more seriously accidents.

Is that what the 700 signatories on the petition want?
The report by Atkins did identify a small increase in serious accidents, but the report does state that "the total numbers of KSI (Killed and Seriously Injured) accidents are small across all sectors and are therefore susceptible to variations."

The total number of accidents fell by 21% in Portsmouth following the introduction of the 20mph limit across the city.
Ok, so when the stats meet your agenda you reel them off as facts, but when they contradict it you roll out the 'very small volumes can be volatile' line?

Loving your work.... very IPCC.
I know I have a point of view here, but at least I am trying to back up my arguments with facts, rather than sarcasm. I really don't understand your reference to the IPCC. Portsmouth are doing a follow-up study and it will be really interesting to see the results of that across the board, but in particular in relation to serious injury

Overall, there is a mass of evidence, gathered from all over the UK and the rest of the world which shows that 20mph limits make urban areas safer and more attractive to pedestrians and cyclists. I do think those people who oppose 20mph limits need to start looking at the facts. Chucking insults and being sarcastic does not really work.
[quote][p][bold]cynic_the[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cgull[/bold] wrote: And of course we wouldn't want to mention that in Portsmouth their 20mph implantation led to more seriously accidents. Is that what the 700 signatories on the petition want?[/p][/quote]The report by Atkins did identify a small increase in serious accidents, but the report does state that "the total numbers of KSI (Killed and Seriously Injured) accidents are small across all sectors and are therefore susceptible to variations." The total number of accidents fell by 21% in Portsmouth following the introduction of the 20mph limit across the city.[/p][/quote]Ok, so when the stats meet your agenda you reel them off as facts, but when they contradict it you roll out the 'very small volumes can be volatile' line? Loving your work.... very IPCC.[/p][/quote]I know I have a point of view here, but at least I am trying to back up my arguments with facts, rather than sarcasm. I really don't understand your reference to the IPCC. Portsmouth are doing a follow-up study and it will be really interesting to see the results of that across the board, but in particular in relation to serious injury Overall, there is a mass of evidence, gathered from all over the UK and the rest of the world which shows that 20mph limits make urban areas safer and more attractive to pedestrians and cyclists. I do think those people who oppose 20mph limits need to start looking at the facts. Chucking insults and being sarcastic does not really work. cleggalike
  • Score: -5

3:47pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Automaton says...

Perhaps they should also campaign for the introduction of double yellow lines on corners around this area. Cars are parked everywhere, right up to and overhanging junctions which obscures the view and makes it unsafe for pedestrians. The locals don't want this of course as where would they park.
Perhaps they should also campaign for the introduction of double yellow lines on corners around this area. Cars are parked everywhere, right up to and overhanging junctions which obscures the view and makes it unsafe for pedestrians. The locals don't want this of course as where would they park. Automaton
  • Score: 5

3:54pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Fight_Back says...

cleggalike wrote:
cynic_the wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
Cgull wrote:
And of course we wouldn't want to mention that in Portsmouth their 20mph implantation led to more seriously accidents.

Is that what the 700 signatories on the petition want?
The report by Atkins did identify a small increase in serious accidents, but the report does state that "the total numbers of KSI (Killed and Seriously Injured) accidents are small across all sectors and are therefore susceptible to variations."

The total number of accidents fell by 21% in Portsmouth following the introduction of the 20mph limit across the city.
Ok, so when the stats meet your agenda you reel them off as facts, but when they contradict it you roll out the 'very small volumes can be volatile' line?

Loving your work.... very IPCC.
I know I have a point of view here, but at least I am trying to back up my arguments with facts, rather than sarcasm. I really don't understand your reference to the IPCC. Portsmouth are doing a follow-up study and it will be really interesting to see the results of that across the board, but in particular in relation to serious injury

Overall, there is a mass of evidence, gathered from all over the UK and the rest of the world which shows that 20mph limits make urban areas safer and more attractive to pedestrians and cyclists. I do think those people who oppose 20mph limits need to start looking at the facts. Chucking insults and being sarcastic does not really work.
And you're backing up your arguments with data from another city.
[quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cynic_the[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cgull[/bold] wrote: And of course we wouldn't want to mention that in Portsmouth their 20mph implantation led to more seriously accidents. Is that what the 700 signatories on the petition want?[/p][/quote]The report by Atkins did identify a small increase in serious accidents, but the report does state that "the total numbers of KSI (Killed and Seriously Injured) accidents are small across all sectors and are therefore susceptible to variations." The total number of accidents fell by 21% in Portsmouth following the introduction of the 20mph limit across the city.[/p][/quote]Ok, so when the stats meet your agenda you reel them off as facts, but when they contradict it you roll out the 'very small volumes can be volatile' line? Loving your work.... very IPCC.[/p][/quote]I know I have a point of view here, but at least I am trying to back up my arguments with facts, rather than sarcasm. I really don't understand your reference to the IPCC. Portsmouth are doing a follow-up study and it will be really interesting to see the results of that across the board, but in particular in relation to serious injury Overall, there is a mass of evidence, gathered from all over the UK and the rest of the world which shows that 20mph limits make urban areas safer and more attractive to pedestrians and cyclists. I do think those people who oppose 20mph limits need to start looking at the facts. Chucking insults and being sarcastic does not really work.[/p][/quote]And you're backing up your arguments with data from another city. Fight_Back
  • Score: 8

3:57pm Thu 6 Feb 14

cleggalike says...

Fight_Back wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
cynic_the wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
Cgull wrote:
And of course we wouldn't want to mention that in Portsmouth their 20mph implantation led to more seriously accidents.

Is that what the 700 signatories on the petition want?
The report by Atkins did identify a small increase in serious accidents, but the report does state that "the total numbers of KSI (Killed and Seriously Injured) accidents are small across all sectors and are therefore susceptible to variations."

The total number of accidents fell by 21% in Portsmouth following the introduction of the 20mph limit across the city.
Ok, so when the stats meet your agenda you reel them off as facts, but when they contradict it you roll out the 'very small volumes can be volatile' line?

Loving your work.... very IPCC.
I know I have a point of view here, but at least I am trying to back up my arguments with facts, rather than sarcasm. I really don't understand your reference to the IPCC. Portsmouth are doing a follow-up study and it will be really interesting to see the results of that across the board, but in particular in relation to serious injury

Overall, there is a mass of evidence, gathered from all over the UK and the rest of the world which shows that 20mph limits make urban areas safer and more attractive to pedestrians and cyclists. I do think those people who oppose 20mph limits need to start looking at the facts. Chucking insults and being sarcastic does not really work.
And you're backing up your arguments with data from another city.
There is no data yet from Brighton. The 20mph zones have not been in place long enough.

I'll do you a deal. When the data is published, I will accept it, whether it backs up my arguments or not. Will you do the same?
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cynic_the[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cgull[/bold] wrote: And of course we wouldn't want to mention that in Portsmouth their 20mph implantation led to more seriously accidents. Is that what the 700 signatories on the petition want?[/p][/quote]The report by Atkins did identify a small increase in serious accidents, but the report does state that "the total numbers of KSI (Killed and Seriously Injured) accidents are small across all sectors and are therefore susceptible to variations." The total number of accidents fell by 21% in Portsmouth following the introduction of the 20mph limit across the city.[/p][/quote]Ok, so when the stats meet your agenda you reel them off as facts, but when they contradict it you roll out the 'very small volumes can be volatile' line? Loving your work.... very IPCC.[/p][/quote]I know I have a point of view here, but at least I am trying to back up my arguments with facts, rather than sarcasm. I really don't understand your reference to the IPCC. Portsmouth are doing a follow-up study and it will be really interesting to see the results of that across the board, but in particular in relation to serious injury Overall, there is a mass of evidence, gathered from all over the UK and the rest of the world which shows that 20mph limits make urban areas safer and more attractive to pedestrians and cyclists. I do think those people who oppose 20mph limits need to start looking at the facts. Chucking insults and being sarcastic does not really work.[/p][/quote]And you're backing up your arguments with data from another city.[/p][/quote]There is no data yet from Brighton. The 20mph zones have not been in place long enough. I'll do you a deal. When the data is published, I will accept it, whether it backs up my arguments or not. Will you do the same? cleggalike
  • Score: 2

4:07pm Thu 6 Feb 14

cynic_the says...

Fight_Back wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
cynic_the wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
Cgull wrote:
And of course we wouldn't want to mention that in Portsmouth their 20mph implantation led to more seriously accidents.

Is that what the 700 signatories on the petition want?
The report by Atkins did identify a small increase in serious accidents, but the report does state that "the total numbers of KSI (Killed and Seriously Injured) accidents are small across all sectors and are therefore susceptible to variations."

The total number of accidents fell by 21% in Portsmouth following the introduction of the 20mph limit across the city.
Ok, so when the stats meet your agenda you reel them off as facts, but when they contradict it you roll out the 'very small volumes can be volatile' line?

Loving your work.... very IPCC.
I know I have a point of view here, but at least I am trying to back up my arguments with facts, rather than sarcasm. I really don't understand your reference to the IPCC. Portsmouth are doing a follow-up study and it will be really interesting to see the results of that across the board, but in particular in relation to serious injury

Overall, there is a mass of evidence, gathered from all over the UK and the rest of the world which shows that 20mph limits make urban areas safer and more attractive to pedestrians and cyclists. I do think those people who oppose 20mph limits need to start looking at the facts. Chucking insults and being sarcastic does not really work.
And you're backing up your arguments with data from another city.
Actually, cleggalike is selectively quoting data as fact.

The truth is the jury is still out for the time being as different reports seem to be contradictory, and the data is affected by low volumes and the lack of any control group.

Incidentally, the car wrapped around a tree at the bottom of Nizells Avenue at the weekend, and the one in someone's living room in Portslade were not saved by the 20mph limit.

My reference to the IPCC - same agenda driven data interpretation.
14 years of temp increases = Global Warming,
10 years with no increase = too short a time period to be representative.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cynic_the[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cgull[/bold] wrote: And of course we wouldn't want to mention that in Portsmouth their 20mph implantation led to more seriously accidents. Is that what the 700 signatories on the petition want?[/p][/quote]The report by Atkins did identify a small increase in serious accidents, but the report does state that "the total numbers of KSI (Killed and Seriously Injured) accidents are small across all sectors and are therefore susceptible to variations." The total number of accidents fell by 21% in Portsmouth following the introduction of the 20mph limit across the city.[/p][/quote]Ok, so when the stats meet your agenda you reel them off as facts, but when they contradict it you roll out the 'very small volumes can be volatile' line? Loving your work.... very IPCC.[/p][/quote]I know I have a point of view here, but at least I am trying to back up my arguments with facts, rather than sarcasm. I really don't understand your reference to the IPCC. Portsmouth are doing a follow-up study and it will be really interesting to see the results of that across the board, but in particular in relation to serious injury Overall, there is a mass of evidence, gathered from all over the UK and the rest of the world which shows that 20mph limits make urban areas safer and more attractive to pedestrians and cyclists. I do think those people who oppose 20mph limits need to start looking at the facts. Chucking insults and being sarcastic does not really work.[/p][/quote]And you're backing up your arguments with data from another city.[/p][/quote]Actually, cleggalike is selectively quoting data as fact. The truth is the jury is still out for the time being as different reports seem to be contradictory, and the data is affected by low volumes and the lack of any control group. Incidentally, the car wrapped around a tree at the bottom of Nizells Avenue at the weekend, and the one in someone's living room in Portslade were not saved by the 20mph limit. My reference to the IPCC - same agenda driven data interpretation. 14 years of temp increases = Global Warming, 10 years with no increase = too short a time period to be representative. cynic_the
  • Score: 6

4:15pm Thu 6 Feb 14

cynic_the says...

cleggalike wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
cynic_the wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
Cgull wrote:
And of course we wouldn't want to mention that in Portsmouth their 20mph implantation led to more seriously accidents.

Is that what the 700 signatories on the petition want?
The report by Atkins did identify a small increase in serious accidents, but the report does state that "the total numbers of KSI (Killed and Seriously Injured) accidents are small across all sectors and are therefore susceptible to variations."

The total number of accidents fell by 21% in Portsmouth following the introduction of the 20mph limit across the city.
Ok, so when the stats meet your agenda you reel them off as facts, but when they contradict it you roll out the 'very small volumes can be volatile' line?

Loving your work.... very IPCC.
I know I have a point of view here, but at least I am trying to back up my arguments with facts, rather than sarcasm. I really don't understand your reference to the IPCC. Portsmouth are doing a follow-up study and it will be really interesting to see the results of that across the board, but in particular in relation to serious injury

Overall, there is a mass of evidence, gathered from all over the UK and the rest of the world which shows that 20mph limits make urban areas safer and more attractive to pedestrians and cyclists. I do think those people who oppose 20mph limits need to start looking at the facts. Chucking insults and being sarcastic does not really work.
And you're backing up your arguments with data from another city.
There is no data yet from Brighton. The 20mph zones have not been in place long enough.

I'll do you a deal. When the data is published, I will accept it, whether it backs up my arguments or not. Will you do the same?
1 - the data will be published by the same people that put the signs up.
2 - there will be nothing to compare it with as no one knows how many KSIs there would have been if the 20 limit had not been introduced.
[quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cynic_the[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cgull[/bold] wrote: And of course we wouldn't want to mention that in Portsmouth their 20mph implantation led to more seriously accidents. Is that what the 700 signatories on the petition want?[/p][/quote]The report by Atkins did identify a small increase in serious accidents, but the report does state that "the total numbers of KSI (Killed and Seriously Injured) accidents are small across all sectors and are therefore susceptible to variations." The total number of accidents fell by 21% in Portsmouth following the introduction of the 20mph limit across the city.[/p][/quote]Ok, so when the stats meet your agenda you reel them off as facts, but when they contradict it you roll out the 'very small volumes can be volatile' line? Loving your work.... very IPCC.[/p][/quote]I know I have a point of view here, but at least I am trying to back up my arguments with facts, rather than sarcasm. I really don't understand your reference to the IPCC. Portsmouth are doing a follow-up study and it will be really interesting to see the results of that across the board, but in particular in relation to serious injury Overall, there is a mass of evidence, gathered from all over the UK and the rest of the world which shows that 20mph limits make urban areas safer and more attractive to pedestrians and cyclists. I do think those people who oppose 20mph limits need to start looking at the facts. Chucking insults and being sarcastic does not really work.[/p][/quote]And you're backing up your arguments with data from another city.[/p][/quote]There is no data yet from Brighton. The 20mph zones have not been in place long enough. I'll do you a deal. When the data is published, I will accept it, whether it backs up my arguments or not. Will you do the same?[/p][/quote]1 - the data will be published by the same people that put the signs up. 2 - there will be nothing to compare it with as no one knows how many KSIs there would have been if the 20 limit had not been introduced. cynic_the
  • Score: 8

4:16pm Thu 6 Feb 14

cleggalike says...

cynic_the wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
cynic_the wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
Cgull wrote:
And of course we wouldn't want to mention that in Portsmouth their 20mph implantation led to more seriously accidents.

Is that what the 700 signatories on the petition want?
The report by Atkins did identify a small increase in serious accidents, but the report does state that "the total numbers of KSI (Killed and Seriously Injured) accidents are small across all sectors and are therefore susceptible to variations."

The total number of accidents fell by 21% in Portsmouth following the introduction of the 20mph limit across the city.
Ok, so when the stats meet your agenda you reel them off as facts, but when they contradict it you roll out the 'very small volumes can be volatile' line?

Loving your work.... very IPCC.
I know I have a point of view here, but at least I am trying to back up my arguments with facts, rather than sarcasm. I really don't understand your reference to the IPCC. Portsmouth are doing a follow-up study and it will be really interesting to see the results of that across the board, but in particular in relation to serious injury

Overall, there is a mass of evidence, gathered from all over the UK and the rest of the world which shows that 20mph limits make urban areas safer and more attractive to pedestrians and cyclists. I do think those people who oppose 20mph limits need to start looking at the facts. Chucking insults and being sarcastic does not really work.
And you're backing up your arguments with data from another city.
Actually, cleggalike is selectively quoting data as fact.

The truth is the jury is still out for the time being as different reports seem to be contradictory, and the data is affected by low volumes and the lack of any control group.

Incidentally, the car wrapped around a tree at the bottom of Nizells Avenue at the weekend, and the one in someone's living room in Portslade were not saved by the 20mph limit.

My reference to the IPCC - same agenda driven data interpretation.
14 years of temp increases = Global Warming,
10 years with no increase = too short a time period to be representative.
Ah, now I understand. You don't believe in global warming, therefore you don't believe in reducing the speed of traffic in towns. Probably best for everyone if we park this debate (excuse the pun) All best wishes.
[quote][p][bold]cynic_the[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cynic_the[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cgull[/bold] wrote: And of course we wouldn't want to mention that in Portsmouth their 20mph implantation led to more seriously accidents. Is that what the 700 signatories on the petition want?[/p][/quote]The report by Atkins did identify a small increase in serious accidents, but the report does state that "the total numbers of KSI (Killed and Seriously Injured) accidents are small across all sectors and are therefore susceptible to variations." The total number of accidents fell by 21% in Portsmouth following the introduction of the 20mph limit across the city.[/p][/quote]Ok, so when the stats meet your agenda you reel them off as facts, but when they contradict it you roll out the 'very small volumes can be volatile' line? Loving your work.... very IPCC.[/p][/quote]I know I have a point of view here, but at least I am trying to back up my arguments with facts, rather than sarcasm. I really don't understand your reference to the IPCC. Portsmouth are doing a follow-up study and it will be really interesting to see the results of that across the board, but in particular in relation to serious injury Overall, there is a mass of evidence, gathered from all over the UK and the rest of the world which shows that 20mph limits make urban areas safer and more attractive to pedestrians and cyclists. I do think those people who oppose 20mph limits need to start looking at the facts. Chucking insults and being sarcastic does not really work.[/p][/quote]And you're backing up your arguments with data from another city.[/p][/quote]Actually, cleggalike is selectively quoting data as fact. The truth is the jury is still out for the time being as different reports seem to be contradictory, and the data is affected by low volumes and the lack of any control group. Incidentally, the car wrapped around a tree at the bottom of Nizells Avenue at the weekend, and the one in someone's living room in Portslade were not saved by the 20mph limit. My reference to the IPCC - same agenda driven data interpretation. 14 years of temp increases = Global Warming, 10 years with no increase = too short a time period to be representative.[/p][/quote]Ah, now I understand. You don't believe in global warming, therefore you don't believe in reducing the speed of traffic in towns. Probably best for everyone if we park this debate (excuse the pun) All best wishes. cleggalike
  • Score: -6

4:22pm Thu 6 Feb 14

cleggalike says...

cynic_the wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
cynic_the wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
Cgull wrote:
And of course we wouldn't want to mention that in Portsmouth their 20mph implantation led to more seriously accidents.

Is that what the 700 signatories on the petition want?
The report by Atkins did identify a small increase in serious accidents, but the report does state that "the total numbers of KSI (Killed and Seriously Injured) accidents are small across all sectors and are therefore susceptible to variations."

The total number of accidents fell by 21% in Portsmouth following the introduction of the 20mph limit across the city.
Ok, so when the stats meet your agenda you reel them off as facts, but when they contradict it you roll out the 'very small volumes can be volatile' line?

Loving your work.... very IPCC.
I know I have a point of view here, but at least I am trying to back up my arguments with facts, rather than sarcasm. I really don't understand your reference to the IPCC. Portsmouth are doing a follow-up study and it will be really interesting to see the results of that across the board, but in particular in relation to serious injury

Overall, there is a mass of evidence, gathered from all over the UK and the rest of the world which shows that 20mph limits make urban areas safer and more attractive to pedestrians and cyclists. I do think those people who oppose 20mph limits need to start looking at the facts. Chucking insults and being sarcastic does not really work.
And you're backing up your arguments with data from another city.
There is no data yet from Brighton. The 20mph zones have not been in place long enough.

I'll do you a deal. When the data is published, I will accept it, whether it backs up my arguments or not. Will you do the same?
1 - the data will be published by the same people that put the signs up.
2 - there will be nothing to compare it with as no one knows how many KSIs there would have been if the 20 limit had not been introduced.
No, thought not...
[quote][p][bold]cynic_the[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cynic_the[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cgull[/bold] wrote: And of course we wouldn't want to mention that in Portsmouth their 20mph implantation led to more seriously accidents. Is that what the 700 signatories on the petition want?[/p][/quote]The report by Atkins did identify a small increase in serious accidents, but the report does state that "the total numbers of KSI (Killed and Seriously Injured) accidents are small across all sectors and are therefore susceptible to variations." The total number of accidents fell by 21% in Portsmouth following the introduction of the 20mph limit across the city.[/p][/quote]Ok, so when the stats meet your agenda you reel them off as facts, but when they contradict it you roll out the 'very small volumes can be volatile' line? Loving your work.... very IPCC.[/p][/quote]I know I have a point of view here, but at least I am trying to back up my arguments with facts, rather than sarcasm. I really don't understand your reference to the IPCC. Portsmouth are doing a follow-up study and it will be really interesting to see the results of that across the board, but in particular in relation to serious injury Overall, there is a mass of evidence, gathered from all over the UK and the rest of the world which shows that 20mph limits make urban areas safer and more attractive to pedestrians and cyclists. I do think those people who oppose 20mph limits need to start looking at the facts. Chucking insults and being sarcastic does not really work.[/p][/quote]And you're backing up your arguments with data from another city.[/p][/quote]There is no data yet from Brighton. The 20mph zones have not been in place long enough. I'll do you a deal. When the data is published, I will accept it, whether it backs up my arguments or not. Will you do the same?[/p][/quote]1 - the data will be published by the same people that put the signs up. 2 - there will be nothing to compare it with as no one knows how many KSIs there would have been if the 20 limit had not been introduced.[/p][/quote]No, thought not... cleggalike
  • Score: 0

4:27pm Thu 6 Feb 14

brightonpip says...

12,000 motor enthusiasts from all over the uk can petition to get tthe Brighton speed trials reinstated, despite concerns about public safety, and it's a victory for democracy. Yet 700 local people, asking for a localized reduction to speed limits in their own neighborhood meet with the usual rants from motorists eager to speed around residential streets regardless of the risks to pedestrians and other vehicles. Cue the usual rants and counter rants and dubious statistics from both sides. But well done to these residents and I hope their concerns get a fairer hearing from the committee than they ever will on here.

(It would have been helpful for the Argus to name the roads concerned. It sounds like a local issue as opposed to the citywide extension which was put on hold last year.)
12,000 motor enthusiasts from all over the uk can petition to get tthe Brighton speed trials reinstated, despite concerns about public safety, and it's a victory for democracy. Yet 700 local people, asking for a localized reduction to speed limits in their own neighborhood meet with the usual rants from motorists eager to speed around residential streets regardless of the risks to pedestrians and other vehicles. Cue the usual rants and counter rants and dubious statistics from both sides. But well done to these residents and I hope their concerns get a fairer hearing from the committee than they ever will on here. (It would have been helpful for the Argus to name the roads concerned. It sounds like a local issue as opposed to the citywide extension which was put on hold last year.) brightonpip
  • Score: -3

4:27pm Thu 6 Feb 14

spa301 says...

cleggalike (I'm not quoting as it's dull for everyone to scroll down endlessly) reducing the speed in town will not help the halt of global warming, if anything it increases it as more emissions are released in lower gears etc.
What cynic said about agenda driven data interpretation is indeed relevent whatever your beliefs. Very glad you've now dropped out the debate as it appears to be beyond your grasp.
cleggalike (I'm not quoting as it's dull for everyone to scroll down endlessly) reducing the speed in town will not help the halt of global warming, if anything it increases it as more emissions are released in lower gears etc. What cynic said about agenda driven data interpretation is indeed relevent whatever your beliefs. Very glad you've now dropped out the debate as it appears to be beyond your grasp. spa301
  • Score: 7

4:31pm Thu 6 Feb 14

cynic_the says...

cleggalike wrote:
cynic_the wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
cynic_the wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
Cgull wrote:
And of course we wouldn't want to mention that in Portsmouth their 20mph implantation led to more seriously accidents.

Is that what the 700 signatories on the petition want?
The report by Atkins did identify a small increase in serious accidents, but the report does state that "the total numbers of KSI (Killed and Seriously Injured) accidents are small across all sectors and are therefore susceptible to variations."

The total number of accidents fell by 21% in Portsmouth following the introduction of the 20mph limit across the city.
Ok, so when the stats meet your agenda you reel them off as facts, but when they contradict it you roll out the 'very small volumes can be volatile' line?

Loving your work.... very IPCC.
I know I have a point of view here, but at least I am trying to back up my arguments with facts, rather than sarcasm. I really don't understand your reference to the IPCC. Portsmouth are doing a follow-up study and it will be really interesting to see the results of that across the board, but in particular in relation to serious injury

Overall, there is a mass of evidence, gathered from all over the UK and the rest of the world which shows that 20mph limits make urban areas safer and more attractive to pedestrians and cyclists. I do think those people who oppose 20mph limits need to start looking at the facts. Chucking insults and being sarcastic does not really work.
And you're backing up your arguments with data from another city.
Actually, cleggalike is selectively quoting data as fact.

The truth is the jury is still out for the time being as different reports seem to be contradictory, and the data is affected by low volumes and the lack of any control group.

Incidentally, the car wrapped around a tree at the bottom of Nizells Avenue at the weekend, and the one in someone's living room in Portslade were not saved by the 20mph limit.

My reference to the IPCC - same agenda driven data interpretation.
14 years of temp increases = Global Warming,
10 years with no increase = too short a time period to be representative.
Ah, now I understand. You don't believe in global warming, therefore you don't believe in reducing the speed of traffic in towns. Probably best for everyone if we park this debate (excuse the pun) All best wishes.
I don't believe in anything that someone was paid to tell me. I make my own decision based on what I see with my own eyes.

Anyway, consider it parked. Good luck with your carbon offsetting.
[quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cynic_the[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cynic_the[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cgull[/bold] wrote: And of course we wouldn't want to mention that in Portsmouth their 20mph implantation led to more seriously accidents. Is that what the 700 signatories on the petition want?[/p][/quote]The report by Atkins did identify a small increase in serious accidents, but the report does state that "the total numbers of KSI (Killed and Seriously Injured) accidents are small across all sectors and are therefore susceptible to variations." The total number of accidents fell by 21% in Portsmouth following the introduction of the 20mph limit across the city.[/p][/quote]Ok, so when the stats meet your agenda you reel them off as facts, but when they contradict it you roll out the 'very small volumes can be volatile' line? Loving your work.... very IPCC.[/p][/quote]I know I have a point of view here, but at least I am trying to back up my arguments with facts, rather than sarcasm. I really don't understand your reference to the IPCC. Portsmouth are doing a follow-up study and it will be really interesting to see the results of that across the board, but in particular in relation to serious injury Overall, there is a mass of evidence, gathered from all over the UK and the rest of the world which shows that 20mph limits make urban areas safer and more attractive to pedestrians and cyclists. I do think those people who oppose 20mph limits need to start looking at the facts. Chucking insults and being sarcastic does not really work.[/p][/quote]And you're backing up your arguments with data from another city.[/p][/quote]Actually, cleggalike is selectively quoting data as fact. The truth is the jury is still out for the time being as different reports seem to be contradictory, and the data is affected by low volumes and the lack of any control group. Incidentally, the car wrapped around a tree at the bottom of Nizells Avenue at the weekend, and the one in someone's living room in Portslade were not saved by the 20mph limit. My reference to the IPCC - same agenda driven data interpretation. 14 years of temp increases = Global Warming, 10 years with no increase = too short a time period to be representative.[/p][/quote]Ah, now I understand. You don't believe in global warming, therefore you don't believe in reducing the speed of traffic in towns. Probably best for everyone if we park this debate (excuse the pun) All best wishes.[/p][/quote]I don't believe in anything that someone was paid to tell me. I make my own decision based on what I see with my own eyes. Anyway, consider it parked. Good luck with your carbon offsetting. cynic_the
  • Score: 3

4:32pm Thu 6 Feb 14

cynic_the says...

spa301 wrote:
cleggalike (I'm not quoting as it's dull for everyone to scroll down endlessly) reducing the speed in town will not help the halt of global warming, if anything it increases it as more emissions are released in lower gears etc.
What cynic said about agenda driven data interpretation is indeed relevent whatever your beliefs. Very glad you've now dropped out the debate as it appears to be beyond your grasp.
heart
[quote][p][bold]spa301[/bold] wrote: cleggalike (I'm not quoting as it's dull for everyone to scroll down endlessly) reducing the speed in town will not help the halt of global warming, if anything it increases it as more emissions are released in lower gears etc. What cynic said about agenda driven data interpretation is indeed relevent whatever your beliefs. Very glad you've now dropped out the debate as it appears to be beyond your grasp.[/p][/quote]heart cynic_the
  • Score: 0

4:35pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Fight_Back says...

cleggalike wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
cynic_the wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
Cgull wrote:
And of course we wouldn't want to mention that in Portsmouth their 20mph implantation led to more seriously accidents.

Is that what the 700 signatories on the petition want?
The report by Atkins did identify a small increase in serious accidents, but the report does state that "the total numbers of KSI (Killed and Seriously Injured) accidents are small across all sectors and are therefore susceptible to variations."

The total number of accidents fell by 21% in Portsmouth following the introduction of the 20mph limit across the city.
Ok, so when the stats meet your agenda you reel them off as facts, but when they contradict it you roll out the 'very small volumes can be volatile' line?

Loving your work.... very IPCC.
I know I have a point of view here, but at least I am trying to back up my arguments with facts, rather than sarcasm. I really don't understand your reference to the IPCC. Portsmouth are doing a follow-up study and it will be really interesting to see the results of that across the board, but in particular in relation to serious injury

Overall, there is a mass of evidence, gathered from all over the UK and the rest of the world which shows that 20mph limits make urban areas safer and more attractive to pedestrians and cyclists. I do think those people who oppose 20mph limits need to start looking at the facts. Chucking insults and being sarcastic does not really work.
And you're backing up your arguments with data from another city.
There is no data yet from Brighton. The 20mph zones have not been in place long enough.

I'll do you a deal. When the data is published, I will accept it, whether it backs up my arguments or not. Will you do the same?
I guarantee you it won't shown a decrease of 42% !!!! A very minor one more likely.
[quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cynic_the[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cgull[/bold] wrote: And of course we wouldn't want to mention that in Portsmouth their 20mph implantation led to more seriously accidents. Is that what the 700 signatories on the petition want?[/p][/quote]The report by Atkins did identify a small increase in serious accidents, but the report does state that "the total numbers of KSI (Killed and Seriously Injured) accidents are small across all sectors and are therefore susceptible to variations." The total number of accidents fell by 21% in Portsmouth following the introduction of the 20mph limit across the city.[/p][/quote]Ok, so when the stats meet your agenda you reel them off as facts, but when they contradict it you roll out the 'very small volumes can be volatile' line? Loving your work.... very IPCC.[/p][/quote]I know I have a point of view here, but at least I am trying to back up my arguments with facts, rather than sarcasm. I really don't understand your reference to the IPCC. Portsmouth are doing a follow-up study and it will be really interesting to see the results of that across the board, but in particular in relation to serious injury Overall, there is a mass of evidence, gathered from all over the UK and the rest of the world which shows that 20mph limits make urban areas safer and more attractive to pedestrians and cyclists. I do think those people who oppose 20mph limits need to start looking at the facts. Chucking insults and being sarcastic does not really work.[/p][/quote]And you're backing up your arguments with data from another city.[/p][/quote]There is no data yet from Brighton. The 20mph zones have not been in place long enough. I'll do you a deal. When the data is published, I will accept it, whether it backs up my arguments or not. Will you do the same?[/p][/quote]I guarantee you it won't shown a decrease of 42% !!!! A very minor one more likely. Fight_Back
  • Score: 8

5:25pm Thu 6 Feb 14

thevoiceoftruth says...

700 signatures - is that all? I could get 700 against 20mph in heartbeat.
700 signatures - is that all? I could get 700 against 20mph in heartbeat. thevoiceoftruth
  • Score: 4

5:59pm Thu 6 Feb 14

BrightonHoveboy says...

October 2012 Brighton was named the worst place in the country for pedestrian/ vehicle interface. This was after the Council spent £1,500,000 some eighteeen months prior to ensure pedestrian safety. The areas named as the worst in the country in the report?? North Street and Western Road. Already 20moh and restricted. Pedestrians not looking is more the problem and it is citywide
October 2012 Brighton was named the worst place in the country for pedestrian/ vehicle interface. This was after the Council spent £1,500,000 some eighteeen months prior to ensure pedestrian safety. The areas named as the worst in the country in the report?? North Street and Western Road. Already 20moh and restricted. Pedestrians not looking is more the problem and it is citywide BrightonHoveboy
  • Score: 11

7:18pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Ambo Guy says...

So that's 700 people out of a population of over 250,000.

This is just a non story about 700 miserable people who probably don't drive anyway and have no real idea what they're talking about. They do NOT represent the overall negative view people have of this ridiculous Green vanity project that got forced upon us.
So that's 700 people out of a population of over 250,000. This is just a non story about 700 miserable people who probably don't drive anyway and have no real idea what they're talking about. They do NOT represent the overall negative view people have of this ridiculous Green vanity project that got forced upon us. Ambo Guy
  • Score: 12

7:22pm Thu 6 Feb 14

fredaj says...

brightonpip wrote:
12,000 motor enthusiasts from all over the uk can petition to get tthe Brighton speed trials reinstated, despite concerns about public safety, and it's a victory for democracy. Yet 700 local people, asking for a localized reduction to speed limits in their own neighborhood meet with the usual rants from motorists eager to speed around residential streets regardless of the risks to pedestrians and other vehicles. Cue the usual rants and counter rants and dubious statistics from both sides. But well done to these residents and I hope their concerns get a fairer hearing from the committee than they ever will on here.

(It would have been helpful for the Argus to name the roads concerned. It sounds like a local issue as opposed to the citywide extension which was put on hold last year.)
The concerns re the speed trials were not that of public safety and instead the concern was with the safety of the participants, as someone died last time.

And the speed trials only affect those who choose to be there.

The roads that were excluded from the 20MPH area on the other hand, were left out of the scheme because they are artery roads so decisions concerning them affect more than just the residents and the people, who could live anywhere, who signed Becky's petition. It is a decision that affects everyone who uses the roads in that area.

So your comparison, while an interesting one, is completely flawed.
[quote][p][bold]brightonpip[/bold] wrote: 12,000 motor enthusiasts from all over the uk can petition to get tthe Brighton speed trials reinstated, despite concerns about public safety, and it's a victory for democracy. Yet 700 local people, asking for a localized reduction to speed limits in their own neighborhood meet with the usual rants from motorists eager to speed around residential streets regardless of the risks to pedestrians and other vehicles. Cue the usual rants and counter rants and dubious statistics from both sides. But well done to these residents and I hope their concerns get a fairer hearing from the committee than they ever will on here. (It would have been helpful for the Argus to name the roads concerned. It sounds like a local issue as opposed to the citywide extension which was put on hold last year.)[/p][/quote]The concerns re the speed trials were not that of public safety and instead the concern was with the safety of the participants, as someone died last time. And the speed trials only affect those who choose to be there. The roads that were excluded from the 20MPH area on the other hand, were left out of the scheme because they are artery roads so decisions concerning them affect more than just the residents and the people, who could live anywhere, who signed Becky's petition. It is a decision that affects everyone who uses the roads in that area. So your comparison, while an interesting one, is completely flawed. fredaj
  • Score: 6

7:34pm Thu 6 Feb 14

whoee! says...

cleggalike wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
Ohnotagain ! wrote:
"as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times"

What planet are you on ! of course it's going to take longer as you are going slower !!!!
Kitcat out, Green's out, 20mph out and all the other Green supporting looney's out as well.

That's all.
In areas where 20 mph zones have been put in place, road casualties have come down by 42%. Do you think this is a good thing, or a bad thing?
42% ???? Well done for that lie. That is NO published research that suggests the new 20mph zones in Brighton and Hove have reduced casualties by that amount. Even the Greens aren't stupid enough to suggest that.
It's not a lie, Fight_back, its a statistic produced by the World Health Organisation, backed up by evidence collated from places where 20mph has been introduced.

You need to get used to the idea that 20mph zones are here to stay.
And you need to get used to the idea that nobody takes any notice of them lol
[quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ohnotagain ![/bold] wrote: "as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times" What planet are you on ! of course it's going to take longer as you are going slower !!!! Kitcat out, Green's out, 20mph out and all the other Green supporting looney's out as well. That's all.[/p][/quote]In areas where 20 mph zones have been put in place, road casualties have come down by 42%. Do you think this is a good thing, or a bad thing?[/p][/quote]42% ???? Well done for that lie. That is NO published research that suggests the new 20mph zones in Brighton and Hove have reduced casualties by that amount. Even the Greens aren't stupid enough to suggest that.[/p][/quote]It's not a lie, Fight_back, its a statistic produced by the World Health Organisation, backed up by evidence collated from places where 20mph has been introduced. You need to get used to the idea that 20mph zones are here to stay.[/p][/quote]And you need to get used to the idea that nobody takes any notice of them lol whoee!
  • Score: 6

7:53pm Thu 6 Feb 14

ARMANA says...

cleggalike wrote:
I was sceptical about the 20mph limit and at first it felt quite odd driving at that speed. I've really come round to it though. It makes the roads feel much safer and less frenetic, and as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times.

I fully support the changes being proposed by Becky Reynolds here - sheer common sense.
You should get the bus, if you cannot handle 30mph luv,
[quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: I was sceptical about the 20mph limit and at first it felt quite odd driving at that speed. I've really come round to it though. It makes the roads feel much safer and less frenetic, and as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times. I fully support the changes being proposed by Becky Reynolds here - sheer common sense.[/p][/quote]You should get the bus, if you cannot handle 30mph luv, ARMANA
  • Score: 6

8:28pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Max Walls Ghost says...

Cgull wrote:
And of course we wouldn't want to mention that in Portsmouth their 20mph implantation led to more seriously accidents.

Is that what the 700 signatories on the petition want?
http://www.travelind
ependent.org.uk/port
smouth.html

The conclusion:

It is concluded that there is no evidence from the DfT STATS19 databases that the increase in reported KSI casualties in Portsmouth from 2010 to 2011 was due to the introduction of 20 mph speed limits on residential roads in 2007 to 2008.
[quote][p][bold]Cgull[/bold] wrote: And of course we wouldn't want to mention that in Portsmouth their 20mph implantation led to more seriously accidents. Is that what the 700 signatories on the petition want?[/p][/quote]http://www.travelind ependent.org.uk/port smouth.html The conclusion: It is concluded that there is no evidence from the DfT STATS19 databases that the increase in reported KSI casualties in Portsmouth from 2010 to 2011 was due to the introduction of 20 mph speed limits on residential roads in 2007 to 2008. Max Walls Ghost
  • Score: -2

8:42pm Thu 6 Feb 14

HJarrs says...

To be fair, we have been through a consultation on the 20 mph zone and overall it was not sufficiently popular in this particular area to go ahead (and we are always told by the moanerati that consultations are ignored!), sure there was a very organised and well funded campaign to derail the policy of providing sensible 20mph zones.

However, it is clear that there is significant support for a 20mph limit and this area should be revisited in the next year or two in my opinion.
To be fair, we have been through a consultation on the 20 mph zone and overall it was not sufficiently popular in this particular area to go ahead (and we are always told by the moanerati that consultations are ignored!), sure there was a very organised and well funded campaign to derail the policy of providing sensible 20mph zones. However, it is clear that there is significant support for a 20mph limit and this area should be revisited in the next year or two in my opinion. HJarrs
  • Score: -12

8:47pm Thu 6 Feb 14

HJarrs says...

Fight_Back wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
cynic_the wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
Cgull wrote:
And of course we wouldn't want to mention that in Portsmouth their 20mph implantation led to more seriously accidents.

Is that what the 700 signatories on the petition want?
The report by Atkins did identify a small increase in serious accidents, but the report does state that "the total numbers of KSI (Killed and Seriously Injured) accidents are small across all sectors and are therefore susceptible to variations."

The total number of accidents fell by 21% in Portsmouth following the introduction of the 20mph limit across the city.
Ok, so when the stats meet your agenda you reel them off as facts, but when they contradict it you roll out the 'very small volumes can be volatile' line?

Loving your work.... very IPCC.
I know I have a point of view here, but at least I am trying to back up my arguments with facts, rather than sarcasm. I really don't understand your reference to the IPCC. Portsmouth are doing a follow-up study and it will be really interesting to see the results of that across the board, but in particular in relation to serious injury

Overall, there is a mass of evidence, gathered from all over the UK and the rest of the world which shows that 20mph limits make urban areas safer and more attractive to pedestrians and cyclists. I do think those people who oppose 20mph limits need to start looking at the facts. Chucking insults and being sarcastic does not really work.
And you're backing up your arguments with data from another city.
There is no data yet from Brighton. The 20mph zones have not been in place long enough.

I'll do you a deal. When the data is published, I will accept it, whether it backs up my arguments or not. Will you do the same?
I guarantee you it won't shown a decrease of 42% !!!! A very minor one more likely.
I agree that a 42% reduction is unlikely to happen following the introduction of the 20mph zones. However, this is primarily because much of the traffic in the city centre in the rush hour already travels around or below 20mph. There is certainly scope outside this time for speed reduction that will reduce casualty rates. 30mph makes the road environment unpleasant for pedestrians and cyclists, 20mph is a sensible balance between making the street environment better for other users while minimising impact on journey times.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cynic_the[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cgull[/bold] wrote: And of course we wouldn't want to mention that in Portsmouth their 20mph implantation led to more seriously accidents. Is that what the 700 signatories on the petition want?[/p][/quote]The report by Atkins did identify a small increase in serious accidents, but the report does state that "the total numbers of KSI (Killed and Seriously Injured) accidents are small across all sectors and are therefore susceptible to variations." The total number of accidents fell by 21% in Portsmouth following the introduction of the 20mph limit across the city.[/p][/quote]Ok, so when the stats meet your agenda you reel them off as facts, but when they contradict it you roll out the 'very small volumes can be volatile' line? Loving your work.... very IPCC.[/p][/quote]I know I have a point of view here, but at least I am trying to back up my arguments with facts, rather than sarcasm. I really don't understand your reference to the IPCC. Portsmouth are doing a follow-up study and it will be really interesting to see the results of that across the board, but in particular in relation to serious injury Overall, there is a mass of evidence, gathered from all over the UK and the rest of the world which shows that 20mph limits make urban areas safer and more attractive to pedestrians and cyclists. I do think those people who oppose 20mph limits need to start looking at the facts. Chucking insults and being sarcastic does not really work.[/p][/quote]And you're backing up your arguments with data from another city.[/p][/quote]There is no data yet from Brighton. The 20mph zones have not been in place long enough. I'll do you a deal. When the data is published, I will accept it, whether it backs up my arguments or not. Will you do the same?[/p][/quote]I guarantee you it won't shown a decrease of 42% !!!! A very minor one more likely.[/p][/quote]I agree that a 42% reduction is unlikely to happen following the introduction of the 20mph zones. However, this is primarily because much of the traffic in the city centre in the rush hour already travels around or below 20mph. There is certainly scope outside this time for speed reduction that will reduce casualty rates. 30mph makes the road environment unpleasant for pedestrians and cyclists, 20mph is a sensible balance between making the street environment better for other users while minimising impact on journey times. HJarrs
  • Score: -10

8:54pm Thu 6 Feb 14

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

HJarrs wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
cynic_the wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
Cgull wrote:
And of course we wouldn't want to mention that in Portsmouth their 20mph implantation led to more seriously accidents.

Is that what the 700 signatories on the petition want?
The report by Atkins did identify a small increase in serious accidents, but the report does state that "the total numbers of KSI (Killed and Seriously Injured) accidents are small across all sectors and are therefore susceptible to variations."

The total number of accidents fell by 21% in Portsmouth following the introduction of the 20mph limit across the city.
Ok, so when the stats meet your agenda you reel them off as facts, but when they contradict it you roll out the 'very small volumes can be volatile' line?

Loving your work.... very IPCC.
I know I have a point of view here, but at least I am trying to back up my arguments with facts, rather than sarcasm. I really don't understand your reference to the IPCC. Portsmouth are doing a follow-up study and it will be really interesting to see the results of that across the board, but in particular in relation to serious injury

Overall, there is a mass of evidence, gathered from all over the UK and the rest of the world which shows that 20mph limits make urban areas safer and more attractive to pedestrians and cyclists. I do think those people who oppose 20mph limits need to start looking at the facts. Chucking insults and being sarcastic does not really work.
And you're backing up your arguments with data from another city.
There is no data yet from Brighton. The 20mph zones have not been in place long enough.

I'll do you a deal. When the data is published, I will accept it, whether it backs up my arguments or not. Will you do the same?
I guarantee you it won't shown a decrease of 42% !!!! A very minor one more likely.
I agree that a 42% reduction is unlikely to happen following the introduction of the 20mph zones. However, this is primarily because much of the traffic in the city centre in the rush hour already travels around or below 20mph. There is certainly scope outside this time for speed reduction that will reduce casualty rates. 30mph makes the road environment unpleasant for pedestrians and cyclists, 20mph is a sensible balance between making the street environment better for other users while minimising impact on journey times.
HJ We all know this is the Greens trying to make life difficult for working people, we should say that and be proud!
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cynic_the[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cgull[/bold] wrote: And of course we wouldn't want to mention that in Portsmouth their 20mph implantation led to more seriously accidents. Is that what the 700 signatories on the petition want?[/p][/quote]The report by Atkins did identify a small increase in serious accidents, but the report does state that "the total numbers of KSI (Killed and Seriously Injured) accidents are small across all sectors and are therefore susceptible to variations." The total number of accidents fell by 21% in Portsmouth following the introduction of the 20mph limit across the city.[/p][/quote]Ok, so when the stats meet your agenda you reel them off as facts, but when they contradict it you roll out the 'very small volumes can be volatile' line? Loving your work.... very IPCC.[/p][/quote]I know I have a point of view here, but at least I am trying to back up my arguments with facts, rather than sarcasm. I really don't understand your reference to the IPCC. Portsmouth are doing a follow-up study and it will be really interesting to see the results of that across the board, but in particular in relation to serious injury Overall, there is a mass of evidence, gathered from all over the UK and the rest of the world which shows that 20mph limits make urban areas safer and more attractive to pedestrians and cyclists. I do think those people who oppose 20mph limits need to start looking at the facts. Chucking insults and being sarcastic does not really work.[/p][/quote]And you're backing up your arguments with data from another city.[/p][/quote]There is no data yet from Brighton. The 20mph zones have not been in place long enough. I'll do you a deal. When the data is published, I will accept it, whether it backs up my arguments or not. Will you do the same?[/p][/quote]I guarantee you it won't shown a decrease of 42% !!!! A very minor one more likely.[/p][/quote]I agree that a 42% reduction is unlikely to happen following the introduction of the 20mph zones. However, this is primarily because much of the traffic in the city centre in the rush hour already travels around or below 20mph. There is certainly scope outside this time for speed reduction that will reduce casualty rates. 30mph makes the road environment unpleasant for pedestrians and cyclists, 20mph is a sensible balance between making the street environment better for other users while minimising impact on journey times.[/p][/quote]HJ We all know this is the Greens trying to make life difficult for working people, we should say that and be proud! I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars!
  • Score: 8

9:03pm Thu 6 Feb 14

HJarrs says...

I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
cynic_the wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
Cgull wrote:
And of course we wouldn't want to mention that in Portsmouth their 20mph implantation led to more seriously accidents.

Is that what the 700 signatories on the petition want?
The report by Atkins did identify a small increase in serious accidents, but the report does state that "the total numbers of KSI (Killed and Seriously Injured) accidents are small across all sectors and are therefore susceptible to variations."

The total number of accidents fell by 21% in Portsmouth following the introduction of the 20mph limit across the city.
Ok, so when the stats meet your agenda you reel them off as facts, but when they contradict it you roll out the 'very small volumes can be volatile' line?

Loving your work.... very IPCC.
I know I have a point of view here, but at least I am trying to back up my arguments with facts, rather than sarcasm. I really don't understand your reference to the IPCC. Portsmouth are doing a follow-up study and it will be really interesting to see the results of that across the board, but in particular in relation to serious injury

Overall, there is a mass of evidence, gathered from all over the UK and the rest of the world which shows that 20mph limits make urban areas safer and more attractive to pedestrians and cyclists. I do think those people who oppose 20mph limits need to start looking at the facts. Chucking insults and being sarcastic does not really work.
And you're backing up your arguments with data from another city.
There is no data yet from Brighton. The 20mph zones have not been in place long enough.

I'll do you a deal. When the data is published, I will accept it, whether it backs up my arguments or not. Will you do the same?
I guarantee you it won't shown a decrease of 42% !!!! A very minor one more likely.
I agree that a 42% reduction is unlikely to happen following the introduction of the 20mph zones. However, this is primarily because much of the traffic in the city centre in the rush hour already travels around or below 20mph. There is certainly scope outside this time for speed reduction that will reduce casualty rates. 30mph makes the road environment unpleasant for pedestrians and cyclists, 20mph is a sensible balance between making the street environment better for other users while minimising impact on journey times.
HJ We all know this is the Greens trying to make life difficult for working people, we should say that and be proud!
How would you know? You live in London and seem to struggle to even find Brighton on a map.
[quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cynic_the[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cgull[/bold] wrote: And of course we wouldn't want to mention that in Portsmouth their 20mph implantation led to more seriously accidents. Is that what the 700 signatories on the petition want?[/p][/quote]The report by Atkins did identify a small increase in serious accidents, but the report does state that "the total numbers of KSI (Killed and Seriously Injured) accidents are small across all sectors and are therefore susceptible to variations." The total number of accidents fell by 21% in Portsmouth following the introduction of the 20mph limit across the city.[/p][/quote]Ok, so when the stats meet your agenda you reel them off as facts, but when they contradict it you roll out the 'very small volumes can be volatile' line? Loving your work.... very IPCC.[/p][/quote]I know I have a point of view here, but at least I am trying to back up my arguments with facts, rather than sarcasm. I really don't understand your reference to the IPCC. Portsmouth are doing a follow-up study and it will be really interesting to see the results of that across the board, but in particular in relation to serious injury Overall, there is a mass of evidence, gathered from all over the UK and the rest of the world which shows that 20mph limits make urban areas safer and more attractive to pedestrians and cyclists. I do think those people who oppose 20mph limits need to start looking at the facts. Chucking insults and being sarcastic does not really work.[/p][/quote]And you're backing up your arguments with data from another city.[/p][/quote]There is no data yet from Brighton. The 20mph zones have not been in place long enough. I'll do you a deal. When the data is published, I will accept it, whether it backs up my arguments or not. Will you do the same?[/p][/quote]I guarantee you it won't shown a decrease of 42% !!!! A very minor one more likely.[/p][/quote]I agree that a 42% reduction is unlikely to happen following the introduction of the 20mph zones. However, this is primarily because much of the traffic in the city centre in the rush hour already travels around or below 20mph. There is certainly scope outside this time for speed reduction that will reduce casualty rates. 30mph makes the road environment unpleasant for pedestrians and cyclists, 20mph is a sensible balance between making the street environment better for other users while minimising impact on journey times.[/p][/quote]HJ We all know this is the Greens trying to make life difficult for working people, we should say that and be proud![/p][/quote]How would you know? You live in London and seem to struggle to even find Brighton on a map. HJarrs
  • Score: -7

9:40pm Thu 6 Feb 14

fredaj says...

HJarrs wrote:
To be fair, we have been through a consultation on the 20 mph zone and overall it was not sufficiently popular in this particular area to go ahead (and we are always told by the moanerati that consultations are ignored!), sure there was a very organised and well funded campaign to derail the policy of providing sensible 20mph zones.

However, it is clear that there is significant support for a 20mph limit and this area should be revisited in the next year or two in my opinion.
Keep asking the same question until you get the correct answer?
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: To be fair, we have been through a consultation on the 20 mph zone and overall it was not sufficiently popular in this particular area to go ahead (and we are always told by the moanerati that consultations are ignored!), sure there was a very organised and well funded campaign to derail the policy of providing sensible 20mph zones. However, it is clear that there is significant support for a 20mph limit and this area should be revisited in the next year or two in my opinion.[/p][/quote]Keep asking the same question until you get the correct answer? fredaj
  • Score: 10

10:28pm Thu 6 Feb 14

osprey81 says...

cynic_the wrote:
FFS

The people causing the crashes and injuries ARE NOT OBEYING ANY SPEED LIMIT.

Putting up a 20 sign where the limit used to be 30 does not stop the people that were doing 45-50 in the first place. Only robust traffic policing by THE POLICE can do this. Why can these people not see this?

Driving standard have plummeted in the last year or so, and i believe it is because the 20 limit fiasco has shown that the police are not currently policing the roads at all, leading to martial law, basically.

At least one car a day passes BHHS on Montpelier Road at 60mph+ and most at about 35-40. The little flashing 20 sign is NOT THE ANSWER.

Rant over.
Just to pick up on your point about the police - they need to do more to set a good example. The other week, having just come off the roundabout at the Palace Pier I noticed a police car behind me and so I thought I'd better stick to the 20mph limit. So what happened? Soon I was swiftly overtaken by the police car, who was obviously doing more than 20 (no blue lights, just a normal journey).

And on the way to work up the Lewes Road today, while the rest of us were crawling along, a police car drove past us in the bus lane. Again, no blue lights so not on the way to an emergency. Surely it's not ok for them to use the bus lane when it's not an emergency? If the police visibly ignore the rules, it's not giving a great impression to the public.
[quote][p][bold]cynic_the[/bold] wrote: FFS The people causing the crashes and injuries ARE NOT OBEYING ANY SPEED LIMIT. Putting up a 20 sign where the limit used to be 30 does not stop the people that were doing 45-50 in the first place. Only robust traffic policing by THE POLICE can do this. Why can these people not see this? Driving standard have plummeted in the last year or so, and i believe it is because the 20 limit fiasco has shown that the police are not currently policing the roads at all, leading to martial law, basically. At least one car a day passes BHHS on Montpelier Road at 60mph+ and most at about 35-40. The little flashing 20 sign is NOT THE ANSWER. Rant over.[/p][/quote]Just to pick up on your point about the police - they need to do more to set a good example. The other week, having just come off the roundabout at the Palace Pier I noticed a police car behind me and so I thought I'd better stick to the 20mph limit. So what happened? Soon I was swiftly overtaken by the police car, who was obviously doing more than 20 (no blue lights, just a normal journey). And on the way to work up the Lewes Road today, while the rest of us were crawling along, a police car drove past us in the bus lane. Again, no blue lights so not on the way to an emergency. Surely it's not ok for them to use the bus lane when it's not an emergency? If the police visibly ignore the rules, it's not giving a great impression to the public. osprey81
  • Score: 6

11:54pm Thu 6 Feb 14

FatherTed11 says...

700? Wow LOL!
700? Wow LOL! FatherTed11
  • Score: 6

11:45am Fri 7 Feb 14

Fight_Back says...

HJarrs wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
cynic_the wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
Cgull wrote:
And of course we wouldn't want to mention that in Portsmouth their 20mph implantation led to more seriously accidents.

Is that what the 700 signatories on the petition want?
The report by Atkins did identify a small increase in serious accidents, but the report does state that "the total numbers of KSI (Killed and Seriously Injured) accidents are small across all sectors and are therefore susceptible to variations."

The total number of accidents fell by 21% in Portsmouth following the introduction of the 20mph limit across the city.
Ok, so when the stats meet your agenda you reel them off as facts, but when they contradict it you roll out the 'very small volumes can be volatile' line?

Loving your work.... very IPCC.
I know I have a point of view here, but at least I am trying to back up my arguments with facts, rather than sarcasm. I really don't understand your reference to the IPCC. Portsmouth are doing a follow-up study and it will be really interesting to see the results of that across the board, but in particular in relation to serious injury

Overall, there is a mass of evidence, gathered from all over the UK and the rest of the world which shows that 20mph limits make urban areas safer and more attractive to pedestrians and cyclists. I do think those people who oppose 20mph limits need to start looking at the facts. Chucking insults and being sarcastic does not really work.
And you're backing up your arguments with data from another city.
There is no data yet from Brighton. The 20mph zones have not been in place long enough.

I'll do you a deal. When the data is published, I will accept it, whether it backs up my arguments or not. Will you do the same?
I guarantee you it won't shown a decrease of 42% !!!! A very minor one more likely.
I agree that a 42% reduction is unlikely to happen following the introduction of the 20mph zones. However, this is primarily because much of the traffic in the city centre in the rush hour already travels around or below 20mph. There is certainly scope outside this time for speed reduction that will reduce casualty rates. 30mph makes the road environment unpleasant for pedestrians and cyclists, 20mph is a sensible balance between making the street environment better for other users while minimising impact on journey times.
So you agree that due to local factors - congestion, road conditions etc - the speed most people travel at is 20mph or less ? So way waste £1.5m on making it official ? Money that could have been spent elsewhere to make a real difference.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cynic_the[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cgull[/bold] wrote: And of course we wouldn't want to mention that in Portsmouth their 20mph implantation led to more seriously accidents. Is that what the 700 signatories on the petition want?[/p][/quote]The report by Atkins did identify a small increase in serious accidents, but the report does state that "the total numbers of KSI (Killed and Seriously Injured) accidents are small across all sectors and are therefore susceptible to variations." The total number of accidents fell by 21% in Portsmouth following the introduction of the 20mph limit across the city.[/p][/quote]Ok, so when the stats meet your agenda you reel them off as facts, but when they contradict it you roll out the 'very small volumes can be volatile' line? Loving your work.... very IPCC.[/p][/quote]I know I have a point of view here, but at least I am trying to back up my arguments with facts, rather than sarcasm. I really don't understand your reference to the IPCC. Portsmouth are doing a follow-up study and it will be really interesting to see the results of that across the board, but in particular in relation to serious injury Overall, there is a mass of evidence, gathered from all over the UK and the rest of the world which shows that 20mph limits make urban areas safer and more attractive to pedestrians and cyclists. I do think those people who oppose 20mph limits need to start looking at the facts. Chucking insults and being sarcastic does not really work.[/p][/quote]And you're backing up your arguments with data from another city.[/p][/quote]There is no data yet from Brighton. The 20mph zones have not been in place long enough. I'll do you a deal. When the data is published, I will accept it, whether it backs up my arguments or not. Will you do the same?[/p][/quote]I guarantee you it won't shown a decrease of 42% !!!! A very minor one more likely.[/p][/quote]I agree that a 42% reduction is unlikely to happen following the introduction of the 20mph zones. However, this is primarily because much of the traffic in the city centre in the rush hour already travels around or below 20mph. There is certainly scope outside this time for speed reduction that will reduce casualty rates. 30mph makes the road environment unpleasant for pedestrians and cyclists, 20mph is a sensible balance between making the street environment better for other users while minimising impact on journey times.[/p][/quote]So you agree that due to local factors - congestion, road conditions etc - the speed most people travel at is 20mph or less ? So way waste £1.5m on making it official ? Money that could have been spent elsewhere to make a real difference. Fight_Back
  • Score: 9

8:31pm Sat 8 Feb 14

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

HJarrs wrote:
I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
cynic_the wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
Cgull wrote:
And of course we wouldn't want to mention that in Portsmouth their 20mph implantation led to more seriously accidents.

Is that what the 700 signatories on the petition want?
The report by Atkins did identify a small increase in serious accidents, but the report does state that "the total numbers of KSI (Killed and Seriously Injured) accidents are small across all sectors and are therefore susceptible to variations."

The total number of accidents fell by 21% in Portsmouth following the introduction of the 20mph limit across the city.
Ok, so when the stats meet your agenda you reel them off as facts, but when they contradict it you roll out the 'very small volumes can be volatile' line?

Loving your work.... very IPCC.
I know I have a point of view here, but at least I am trying to back up my arguments with facts, rather than sarcasm. I really don't understand your reference to the IPCC. Portsmouth are doing a follow-up study and it will be really interesting to see the results of that across the board, but in particular in relation to serious injury

Overall, there is a mass of evidence, gathered from all over the UK and the rest of the world which shows that 20mph limits make urban areas safer and more attractive to pedestrians and cyclists. I do think those people who oppose 20mph limits need to start looking at the facts. Chucking insults and being sarcastic does not really work.
And you're backing up your arguments with data from another city.
There is no data yet from Brighton. The 20mph zones have not been in place long enough.

I'll do you a deal. When the data is published, I will accept it, whether it backs up my arguments or not. Will you do the same?
I guarantee you it won't shown a decrease of 42% !!!! A very minor one more likely.
I agree that a 42% reduction is unlikely to happen following the introduction of the 20mph zones. However, this is primarily because much of the traffic in the city centre in the rush hour already travels around or below 20mph. There is certainly scope outside this time for speed reduction that will reduce casualty rates. 30mph makes the road environment unpleasant for pedestrians and cyclists, 20mph is a sensible balance between making the street environment better for other users while minimising impact on journey times.
HJ We all know this is the Greens trying to make life difficult for working people, we should say that and be proud!
How would you know? You live in London and seem to struggle to even find Brighton on a map.
HJ Why is is that the Greens have to be so nasty?

You are the worst of all HJ when you don't get your own way
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cynic_the[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cgull[/bold] wrote: And of course we wouldn't want to mention that in Portsmouth their 20mph implantation led to more seriously accidents. Is that what the 700 signatories on the petition want?[/p][/quote]The report by Atkins did identify a small increase in serious accidents, but the report does state that "the total numbers of KSI (Killed and Seriously Injured) accidents are small across all sectors and are therefore susceptible to variations." The total number of accidents fell by 21% in Portsmouth following the introduction of the 20mph limit across the city.[/p][/quote]Ok, so when the stats meet your agenda you reel them off as facts, but when they contradict it you roll out the 'very small volumes can be volatile' line? Loving your work.... very IPCC.[/p][/quote]I know I have a point of view here, but at least I am trying to back up my arguments with facts, rather than sarcasm. I really don't understand your reference to the IPCC. Portsmouth are doing a follow-up study and it will be really interesting to see the results of that across the board, but in particular in relation to serious injury Overall, there is a mass of evidence, gathered from all over the UK and the rest of the world which shows that 20mph limits make urban areas safer and more attractive to pedestrians and cyclists. I do think those people who oppose 20mph limits need to start looking at the facts. Chucking insults and being sarcastic does not really work.[/p][/quote]And you're backing up your arguments with data from another city.[/p][/quote]There is no data yet from Brighton. The 20mph zones have not been in place long enough. I'll do you a deal. When the data is published, I will accept it, whether it backs up my arguments or not. Will you do the same?[/p][/quote]I guarantee you it won't shown a decrease of 42% !!!! A very minor one more likely.[/p][/quote]I agree that a 42% reduction is unlikely to happen following the introduction of the 20mph zones. However, this is primarily because much of the traffic in the city centre in the rush hour already travels around or below 20mph. There is certainly scope outside this time for speed reduction that will reduce casualty rates. 30mph makes the road environment unpleasant for pedestrians and cyclists, 20mph is a sensible balance between making the street environment better for other users while minimising impact on journey times.[/p][/quote]HJ We all know this is the Greens trying to make life difficult for working people, we should say that and be proud![/p][/quote]How would you know? You live in London and seem to struggle to even find Brighton on a map.[/p][/quote]HJ Why is is that the Greens have to be so nasty? You are the worst of all HJ when you don't get your own way I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars!
  • Score: 3

4:23pm Sun 9 Feb 14

fredflintstone1 says...

Is this campaigner by any chance the same Becky Reynolds who is Bricycles Campaigns Officer? If so, is she acting in a private capacity or on behalf of Bricycles? It would be nice to know, to inform this debate....
Is this campaigner by any chance the same Becky Reynolds who is Bricycles Campaigns Officer? If so, is she acting in a private capacity or on behalf of Bricycles? It would be nice to know, to inform this debate.... fredflintstone1
  • Score: 6

1:11pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Emmin says...

We do not actually know if the 20mph limit actually makes any difference because the police do not enforce it.

Make the police enforce it, rigorously for two weeks, handing out fines and penalty points to each and every driver doing more than 20mph.

Then see if it works or not.
We do not actually know if the 20mph limit actually makes any difference because the police do not enforce it. Make the police enforce it, rigorously for two weeks, handing out fines and penalty points to each and every driver doing more than 20mph. Then see if it works or not. Emmin
  • Score: 0

4:56pm Tue 11 Feb 14

gheese77 says...

Metro Reader wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
I was sceptical about the 20mph limit and at first it felt quite odd driving at that speed. I've really come round to it though. It makes the roads feel much safer and less frenetic, and as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times. I fully support the changes being proposed by Becky Reynolds here - sheer common sense.
You fool! what total rubbish. the roads are not safer. how can journey times not be any slower what your traveling at 10 mph less?

What about the increased polution?

if people crossed the road correctly, and drivers drove to the conditions then the roads would be safer.
And if people didn't steal then we wouldn't need to lock valuables up !

Unfortunately though some people do steal, some pedestrians do walk out without looking and some drivers do not know what an appropriate speed is.
So unfortunately we do need speed limits
[quote][p][bold]Metro Reader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: I was sceptical about the 20mph limit and at first it felt quite odd driving at that speed. I've really come round to it though. It makes the roads feel much safer and less frenetic, and as far as I can tell does not add anything to journey times. I fully support the changes being proposed by Becky Reynolds here - sheer common sense.[/p][/quote]You fool! what total rubbish. the roads are not safer. how can journey times not be any slower what your traveling at 10 mph less? What about the increased polution? if people crossed the road correctly, and drivers drove to the conditions then the roads would be safer.[/p][/quote]And if people didn't steal then we wouldn't need to lock valuables up ! Unfortunately though some people do steal, some pedestrians do walk out without looking and some drivers do not know what an appropriate speed is. So unfortunately we do need speed limits gheese77
  • Score: 1

7:10am Thu 13 Feb 14

DCCCCCC says...

thevoiceoftruth wrote:
700 signatures - is that all? I could get 700 against 20mph in heartbeat.
You would have mine and every one is know.
[quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: 700 signatures - is that all? I could get 700 against 20mph in heartbeat.[/p][/quote]You would have mine and every one is know. DCCCCCC
  • Score: 1

7:11am Thu 13 Feb 14

DCCCCCC says...

Sorry, typo, meant to be everyone I know.
Sorry, typo, meant to be everyone I know. DCCCCCC
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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