Brighton and Hove 20mph zone set to extend out to Hangleton, Woodingdean, Ovingdean, Saltdean and Rottingdean

Brighton and Hove 20mph zone set to extend out to Hangleton, Woodingdean, Ovingdean, Saltdean and Rottingdean

Brighton and Hove 20mph zone set to extend out to Hangleton, Woodingdean, Ovingdean, Saltdean and Rottingdean

First published in News

Brighton and Hove City Council has revealed plans for third phase of its controversial 20mph zone, extending the scheme to Hangleton, Woodingdean, Ovingdean, Saltdean and Rottingdean.

Residents of the affected area are now set to be consulted later this year about plans to reduce the speed limit in their streets. 

Phase two of the scheme, extending the city centre zone to Portslade, Moulsecoomb, Whitehawk and Coldean were approved by the council’s environment committee last week.

Councillors also agreed to reinstate a number of streets which were removed at the environment committee meeting last December. A petition signed by 742 people had called for the re-inclusion of Surrenden Road, Preston Drove and Stanford Avenue.

Lead councillor for transport Ian Davey said: “We are already starting to see the benefits of lower limits in central Brighton and Hove with fewer people being hurt on our roads.

"That means people can gradually feel safer on the streets where they live, making neighbourhoods more accessible and pleasant for everyone.

“When consultation takes place later this year I’d urge people to look at the evidence from the many towns and cities with 20mph and the positive evidence we already have here in Brighton and Hove - and support the proposals.”

The council says early monitoring from phase one in the city centre, started last year, has shown a decrease in traffic speed on 74 per cent of roads. Collisions and casualties are down where the 20mph limit has been implemented.

However, the scheme has proved highly controversial, with pressure group Unchain the Brighton Motorist launched to oppose the scheme.

Sussex Police has also said the scheme must be self-enforcing, saying it will not routinely enforce the limit. In January, a Freedom of Information request revealed the force has not charged anyone for exceeding 20mph.

Depending on the outcome of consultation, phase three could be introduced in 2015.

 

Comments (78)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:14am Wed 12 Mar 14

cynic_the says...

Mr Davey - I feel LESS SAFE on the street where I live, ever since the first wave of 20 limits caused the Police to admit they are no longer enforcing speed limits.

You take you life in your own hands crossing Montpelier Road these days, because half the vehicles are doing 20, whereas the taxis, vans and SUVs are still doing 40+

And your transport policy has no answer, does it?
Mr Davey - I feel LESS SAFE on the street where I live, ever since the first wave of 20 limits caused the Police to admit they are no longer enforcing speed limits. You take you life in your own hands crossing Montpelier Road these days, because half the vehicles are doing 20, whereas the taxis, vans and SUVs are still doing 40+ And your transport policy has no answer, does it? cynic_the
  • Score: 52

11:19am Wed 12 Mar 14

Fight_Back says...

So the Greens spent £1.5m on phase one and despite their claims of speed decreases in the zone it is clear to anyone who drives through the zone 99% of drivers ignore the 20mph limit - complete waste of money.

Then then consult on the second zone and approve it BEFORE any real concrete data from the first zone.

Now they propose a third zone BEFORE any real concrete data from either the first zone of the second.

Thank god they're not scientists because data assessment is quite clearly a skill they do not possess.

I'll be voting no for Hangleton and will continue to ignore all the zones thank you.
So the Greens spent £1.5m on phase one and despite their claims of speed decreases in the zone it is clear to anyone who drives through the zone 99% of drivers ignore the 20mph limit - complete waste of money. Then then consult on the second zone and approve it BEFORE any real concrete data from the first zone. Now they propose a third zone BEFORE any real concrete data from either the first zone of the second. Thank god they're not scientists because data assessment is quite clearly a skill they do not possess. I'll be voting no for Hangleton and will continue to ignore all the zones thank you. Fight_Back
  • Score: 98

11:32am Wed 12 Mar 14

Eugenius says...

Fight_Back wrote:
So the Greens spent £1.5m on phase one and despite their claims of speed decreases in the zone it is clear to anyone who drives through the zone 99% of drivers ignore the 20mph limit - complete waste of money.

Then then consult on the second zone and approve it BEFORE any real concrete data from the first zone.

Now they propose a third zone BEFORE any real concrete data from either the first zone of the second.

Thank god they're not scientists because data assessment is quite clearly a skill they do not possess.

I'll be voting no for Hangleton and will continue to ignore all the zones thank you.
That's the cost of the whole project, all three phases. It's well worth it to save lives and reduce injuries.

There's plenty of evidence from improved accident stats in other places that have implemented 20mph. Initial monitoring from phase one shows a 16-20% reduction in collisions and casualties so it seems to be working as planned.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: So the Greens spent £1.5m on phase one and despite their claims of speed decreases in the zone it is clear to anyone who drives through the zone 99% of drivers ignore the 20mph limit - complete waste of money. Then then consult on the second zone and approve it BEFORE any real concrete data from the first zone. Now they propose a third zone BEFORE any real concrete data from either the first zone of the second. Thank god they're not scientists because data assessment is quite clearly a skill they do not possess. I'll be voting no for Hangleton and will continue to ignore all the zones thank you.[/p][/quote]That's the cost of the whole project, all three phases. It's well worth it to save lives and reduce injuries. There's plenty of evidence from improved accident stats in other places that have implemented 20mph. Initial monitoring from phase one shows a 16-20% reduction in collisions and casualties so it seems to be working as planned. Eugenius
  • Score: -115

11:43am Wed 12 Mar 14

cynic_the says...

Eugenius wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
So the Greens spent £1.5m on phase one and despite their claims of speed decreases in the zone it is clear to anyone who drives through the zone 99% of drivers ignore the 20mph limit - complete waste of money.

Then then consult on the second zone and approve it BEFORE any real concrete data from the first zone.

Now they propose a third zone BEFORE any real concrete data from either the first zone of the second.

Thank god they're not scientists because data assessment is quite clearly a skill they do not possess.

I'll be voting no for Hangleton and will continue to ignore all the zones thank you.
That's the cost of the whole project, all three phases. It's well worth it to save lives and reduce injuries.

There's plenty of evidence from improved accident stats in other places that have implemented 20mph. Initial monitoring from phase one shows a 16-20% reduction in collisions and casualties so it seems to be working as planned.
Publish the figures then. For pre and post implementation, including the control group.

Ah, you don't work like that do you?
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: So the Greens spent £1.5m on phase one and despite their claims of speed decreases in the zone it is clear to anyone who drives through the zone 99% of drivers ignore the 20mph limit - complete waste of money. Then then consult on the second zone and approve it BEFORE any real concrete data from the first zone. Now they propose a third zone BEFORE any real concrete data from either the first zone of the second. Thank god they're not scientists because data assessment is quite clearly a skill they do not possess. I'll be voting no for Hangleton and will continue to ignore all the zones thank you.[/p][/quote]That's the cost of the whole project, all three phases. It's well worth it to save lives and reduce injuries. There's plenty of evidence from improved accident stats in other places that have implemented 20mph. Initial monitoring from phase one shows a 16-20% reduction in collisions and casualties so it seems to be working as planned.[/p][/quote]Publish the figures then. For pre and post implementation, including the control group. Ah, you don't work like that do you? cynic_the
  • Score: 87

11:54am Wed 12 Mar 14

Joshiman says...

Ahhh that means the A259 will get even worse.Sorry but since the Greens took over, the A 259 from the Marina to Peacehaven has become a nightmare car journey.It was already getting worse before them.However
they have increased traffic lights.(Stop start of course.)The new Led lights not fit for purpose .The junction at the Garage and the Thai Elephant is now a bottle neck..Surely we must have more qualified traffic control engineers/planners somewhere.
Ahhh that means the A259 will get even worse.Sorry but since the Greens took over, the A 259 from the Marina to Peacehaven has become a nightmare car journey.It was already getting worse before them.However they have increased traffic lights.(Stop start of course.)The new Led lights not fit for purpose .The junction at the Garage and the Thai Elephant is now a bottle neck..Surely we must have more qualified traffic control engineers/planners somewhere. Joshiman
  • Score: 75

11:59am Wed 12 Mar 14

Fight_Back says...

cynic_the wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
So the Greens spent £1.5m on phase one and despite their claims of speed decreases in the zone it is clear to anyone who drives through the zone 99% of drivers ignore the 20mph limit - complete waste of money.

Then then consult on the second zone and approve it BEFORE any real concrete data from the first zone.

Now they propose a third zone BEFORE any real concrete data from either the first zone of the second.

Thank god they're not scientists because data assessment is quite clearly a skill they do not possess.

I'll be voting no for Hangleton and will continue to ignore all the zones thank you.
That's the cost of the whole project, all three phases. It's well worth it to save lives and reduce injuries.

There's plenty of evidence from improved accident stats in other places that have implemented 20mph. Initial monitoring from phase one shows a 16-20% reduction in collisions and casualties so it seems to be working as planned.
Publish the figures then. For pre and post implementation, including the control group.

Ah, you don't work like that do you?
They don't have that data - or at least they don't have properly authorised and measured data rather than just Green propaganda data.

Note how Eugenius uses "improved accident stats in OTHER PLACES" - as I said data collection, management and assessment isn't a Green strong point.
[quote][p][bold]cynic_the[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: So the Greens spent £1.5m on phase one and despite their claims of speed decreases in the zone it is clear to anyone who drives through the zone 99% of drivers ignore the 20mph limit - complete waste of money. Then then consult on the second zone and approve it BEFORE any real concrete data from the first zone. Now they propose a third zone BEFORE any real concrete data from either the first zone of the second. Thank god they're not scientists because data assessment is quite clearly a skill they do not possess. I'll be voting no for Hangleton and will continue to ignore all the zones thank you.[/p][/quote]That's the cost of the whole project, all three phases. It's well worth it to save lives and reduce injuries. There's plenty of evidence from improved accident stats in other places that have implemented 20mph. Initial monitoring from phase one shows a 16-20% reduction in collisions and casualties so it seems to be working as planned.[/p][/quote]Publish the figures then. For pre and post implementation, including the control group. Ah, you don't work like that do you?[/p][/quote]They don't have that data - or at least they don't have properly authorised and measured data rather than just Green propaganda data. Note how Eugenius uses "improved accident stats in OTHER PLACES" - as I said data collection, management and assessment isn't a Green strong point. Fight_Back
  • Score: 59

12:06pm Wed 12 Mar 14

gheese77 says...

cynic_the wrote:
Mr Davey - I feel LESS SAFE on the street where I live, ever since the first wave of 20 limits caused the Police to admit they are no longer enforcing speed limits.

You take you life in your own hands crossing Montpelier Road these days, because half the vehicles are doing 20, whereas the taxis, vans and SUVs are still doing 40+

And your transport policy has no answer, does it?
Surely your comment makes the case for stricter enforcement of speed limits, not the transport policy itself. Unfortunately some drivers ignore the limit whether its 20 mph 30 mph or more. I think it is unacceptable to endanger others with this kind of selfish behaviour, the police need to do their job and prosecute offenders otherwise what is the point in having speed limits.
[quote][p][bold]cynic_the[/bold] wrote: Mr Davey - I feel LESS SAFE on the street where I live, ever since the first wave of 20 limits caused the Police to admit they are no longer enforcing speed limits. You take you life in your own hands crossing Montpelier Road these days, because half the vehicles are doing 20, whereas the taxis, vans and SUVs are still doing 40+ And your transport policy has no answer, does it?[/p][/quote]Surely your comment makes the case for stricter enforcement of speed limits, not the transport policy itself. Unfortunately some drivers ignore the limit whether its 20 mph 30 mph or more. I think it is unacceptable to endanger others with this kind of selfish behaviour, the police need to do their job and prosecute offenders otherwise what is the point in having speed limits. gheese77
  • Score: -55

12:14pm Wed 12 Mar 14

fredflintstone1 says...

Eugenius wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
So the Greens spent £1.5m on phase one and despite their claims of speed decreases in the zone it is clear to anyone who drives through the zone 99% of drivers ignore the 20mph limit - complete waste of money.

Then then consult on the second zone and approve it BEFORE any real concrete data from the first zone.

Now they propose a third zone BEFORE any real concrete data from either the first zone of the second.

Thank god they're not scientists because data assessment is quite clearly a skill they do not possess.

I'll be voting no for Hangleton and will continue to ignore all the zones thank you.
That's the cost of the whole project, all three phases. It's well worth it to save lives and reduce injuries.

There's plenty of evidence from improved accident stats in other places that have implemented 20mph. Initial monitoring from phase one shows a 16-20% reduction in collisions and casualties so it seems to be working as planned.
Right on cue to reinforce Fightback's comment about the Green's convenient inability to understand data assessment!

You simply can't claim that there is 16-20% reduction in collisions and casulties across the board as a result of the 20mph zone, unless you know the number of cases where speed was determined to be a cause in the original figures on which you are now basing your conclusions. It appears that you are wrongly assuming that all accidents are caused by excessive speed.

Also, do these figures include bike-pedestrian incidents? This is now significant, because bikes are routinely exceeding the 20mph speed limit in a number of areas of the city now, on pavements as well as roads.

One of the worst things that the Greens have achieved since being in power is to leave people completely disenchanted with local consultations and the figures that are put forward to justify the Council's actions.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: So the Greens spent £1.5m on phase one and despite their claims of speed decreases in the zone it is clear to anyone who drives through the zone 99% of drivers ignore the 20mph limit - complete waste of money. Then then consult on the second zone and approve it BEFORE any real concrete data from the first zone. Now they propose a third zone BEFORE any real concrete data from either the first zone of the second. Thank god they're not scientists because data assessment is quite clearly a skill they do not possess. I'll be voting no for Hangleton and will continue to ignore all the zones thank you.[/p][/quote]That's the cost of the whole project, all three phases. It's well worth it to save lives and reduce injuries. There's plenty of evidence from improved accident stats in other places that have implemented 20mph. Initial monitoring from phase one shows a 16-20% reduction in collisions and casualties so it seems to be working as planned.[/p][/quote]Right on cue to reinforce Fightback's comment about the Green's convenient inability to understand data assessment! You simply can't claim that there is 16-20% reduction in collisions and casulties across the board as a result of the 20mph zone, unless you know the number of cases where speed was determined to be a cause in the original figures on which you are now basing your conclusions. It appears that you are wrongly assuming that all accidents are caused by excessive speed. Also, do these figures include bike-pedestrian incidents? This is now significant, because bikes are routinely exceeding the 20mph speed limit in a number of areas of the city now, on pavements as well as roads. One of the worst things that the Greens have achieved since being in power is to leave people completely disenchanted with local consultations and the figures that are put forward to justify the Council's actions. fredflintstone1
  • Score: 47

12:16pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Zamora25 says...

How long until the Greens are voted out? £1.5m spent on unenforceable vanity project and they have the cheek to claim that council tax needed to go up by 4.5% having wasted millions on expensive vanity projects. Get the Greens out now! Can we the public not propose a vote of no confidence and get them chucked out early?
How long until the Greens are voted out? £1.5m spent on unenforceable vanity project and they have the cheek to claim that council tax needed to go up by 4.5% having wasted millions on expensive vanity projects. Get the Greens out now! Can we the public not propose a vote of no confidence and get them chucked out early? Zamora25
  • Score: 56

12:20pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Fight_Back says...

I'll add - given the council recently completely ignored TWO consultations about the CPZ in the Preston Park Station area, how are we to trust that they will respect consultations on the 20mph zones ? Of course they are coming in regardless.
I'll add - given the council recently completely ignored TWO consultations about the CPZ in the Preston Park Station area, how are we to trust that they will respect consultations on the 20mph zones ? Of course they are coming in regardless. Fight_Back
  • Score: 46

12:31pm Wed 12 Mar 14

cynic_the says...

gheese77 wrote:
cynic_the wrote:
Mr Davey - I feel LESS SAFE on the street where I live, ever since the first wave of 20 limits caused the Police to admit they are no longer enforcing speed limits.

You take you life in your own hands crossing Montpelier Road these days, because half the vehicles are doing 20, whereas the taxis, vans and SUVs are still doing 40+

And your transport policy has no answer, does it?
Surely your comment makes the case for stricter enforcement of speed limits, not the transport policy itself. Unfortunately some drivers ignore the limit whether its 20 mph 30 mph or more. I think it is unacceptable to endanger others with this kind of selfish behaviour, the police need to do their job and prosecute offenders otherwise what is the point in having speed limits.
Exactly.

You've just perfectly summed up why it's utterly ridiculous to spend a load more money on more 20 signs, but still no enforcement.
[quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cynic_the[/bold] wrote: Mr Davey - I feel LESS SAFE on the street where I live, ever since the first wave of 20 limits caused the Police to admit they are no longer enforcing speed limits. You take you life in your own hands crossing Montpelier Road these days, because half the vehicles are doing 20, whereas the taxis, vans and SUVs are still doing 40+ And your transport policy has no answer, does it?[/p][/quote]Surely your comment makes the case for stricter enforcement of speed limits, not the transport policy itself. Unfortunately some drivers ignore the limit whether its 20 mph 30 mph or more. I think it is unacceptable to endanger others with this kind of selfish behaviour, the police need to do their job and prosecute offenders otherwise what is the point in having speed limits.[/p][/quote]Exactly. You've just perfectly summed up why it's utterly ridiculous to spend a load more money on more 20 signs, but still no enforcement. cynic_the
  • Score: 32

12:32pm Wed 12 Mar 14

tekniko says...

I'll be glad when the Greens are out, maybe my blood pressure will reduce.
I'll be glad when the Greens are out, maybe my blood pressure will reduce. tekniko
  • Score: 54

12:34pm Wed 12 Mar 14

gheese77 says...

fredflintstone1 wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
So the Greens spent £1.5m on phase one and despite their claims of speed decreases in the zone it is clear to anyone who drives through the zone 99% of drivers ignore the 20mph limit - complete waste of money.

Then then consult on the second zone and approve it BEFORE any real concrete data from the first zone.

Now they propose a third zone BEFORE any real concrete data from either the first zone of the second.

Thank god they're not scientists because data assessment is quite clearly a skill they do not possess.

I'll be voting no for Hangleton and will continue to ignore all the zones thank you.
That's the cost of the whole project, all three phases. It's well worth it to save lives and reduce injuries.

There's plenty of evidence from improved accident stats in other places that have implemented 20mph. Initial monitoring from phase one shows a 16-20% reduction in collisions and casualties so it seems to be working as planned.
Right on cue to reinforce Fightback's comment about the Green's convenient inability to understand data assessment!

You simply can't claim that there is 16-20% reduction in collisions and casulties across the board as a result of the 20mph zone, unless you know the number of cases where speed was determined to be a cause in the original figures on which you are now basing your conclusions. It appears that you are wrongly assuming that all accidents are caused by excessive speed.

Also, do these figures include bike-pedestrian incidents? This is now significant, because bikes are routinely exceeding the 20mph speed limit in a number of areas of the city now, on pavements as well as roads.

One of the worst things that the Greens have achieved since being in power is to leave people completely disenchanted with local consultations and the figures that are put forward to justify the Council's actions.
There is plenty of evidence that 20 mph is safer..Take a look at the Royal Society for Prevention of Accidents fact sheet
http://www.rospa.com
/roadsafety/advice/h
ighway/info/20-mph-z
one-factsheet.pdf
There are a multitude of referenced studies in this document. Its one thing to say you don't like 20 MPH zones, quite another to deny basic principles of physics.
[quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: So the Greens spent £1.5m on phase one and despite their claims of speed decreases in the zone it is clear to anyone who drives through the zone 99% of drivers ignore the 20mph limit - complete waste of money. Then then consult on the second zone and approve it BEFORE any real concrete data from the first zone. Now they propose a third zone BEFORE any real concrete data from either the first zone of the second. Thank god they're not scientists because data assessment is quite clearly a skill they do not possess. I'll be voting no for Hangleton and will continue to ignore all the zones thank you.[/p][/quote]That's the cost of the whole project, all three phases. It's well worth it to save lives and reduce injuries. There's plenty of evidence from improved accident stats in other places that have implemented 20mph. Initial monitoring from phase one shows a 16-20% reduction in collisions and casualties so it seems to be working as planned.[/p][/quote]Right on cue to reinforce Fightback's comment about the Green's convenient inability to understand data assessment! You simply can't claim that there is 16-20% reduction in collisions and casulties across the board as a result of the 20mph zone, unless you know the number of cases where speed was determined to be a cause in the original figures on which you are now basing your conclusions. It appears that you are wrongly assuming that all accidents are caused by excessive speed. Also, do these figures include bike-pedestrian incidents? This is now significant, because bikes are routinely exceeding the 20mph speed limit in a number of areas of the city now, on pavements as well as roads. One of the worst things that the Greens have achieved since being in power is to leave people completely disenchanted with local consultations and the figures that are put forward to justify the Council's actions.[/p][/quote]There is plenty of evidence that 20 mph is safer..Take a look at the Royal Society for Prevention of Accidents fact sheet http://www.rospa.com /roadsafety/advice/h ighway/info/20-mph-z one-factsheet.pdf There are a multitude of referenced studies in this document. Its one thing to say you don't like 20 MPH zones, quite another to deny basic principles of physics. gheese77
  • Score: -49

12:37pm Wed 12 Mar 14

RobO. says...

So, the council are urging us to look at "the evidence from the many towns and cities..." but are talking about it's implementation in villages. Idiots.

How about if we look at the evidence we make sure it's appropriate to the situation. Or maybe let's look at the areas in Brighton and Hove where they've introduced it already and see that the main impact is more traffic jams and resentment!
So, the council are urging us to look at "the evidence from the many towns and cities..." but are talking about it's implementation in villages. Idiots. How about if we look at the evidence we make sure it's appropriate to the situation. Or maybe let's look at the areas in Brighton and Hove where they've introduced it already and see that the main impact is more traffic jams and resentment! RobO.
  • Score: 40

12:50pm Wed 12 Mar 14

charlie smirke says...

Eugenius wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
So the Greens spent £1.5m on phase one and despite their claims of speed decreases in the zone it is clear to anyone who drives through the zone 99% of drivers ignore the 20mph limit - complete waste of money.

Then then consult on the second zone and approve it BEFORE any real concrete data from the first zone.

Now they propose a third zone BEFORE any real concrete data from either the first zone of the second.

Thank god they're not scientists because data assessment is quite clearly a skill they do not possess.

I'll be voting no for Hangleton and will continue to ignore all the zones thank you.
That's the cost of the whole project, all three phases. It's well worth it to save lives and reduce injuries.

There's plenty of evidence from improved accident stats in other places that have implemented 20mph. Initial monitoring from phase one shows a 16-20% reduction in collisions and casualties so it seems to be working as planned.
The usual bare faced lies from the greenery....
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: So the Greens spent £1.5m on phase one and despite their claims of speed decreases in the zone it is clear to anyone who drives through the zone 99% of drivers ignore the 20mph limit - complete waste of money. Then then consult on the second zone and approve it BEFORE any real concrete data from the first zone. Now they propose a third zone BEFORE any real concrete data from either the first zone of the second. Thank god they're not scientists because data assessment is quite clearly a skill they do not possess. I'll be voting no for Hangleton and will continue to ignore all the zones thank you.[/p][/quote]That's the cost of the whole project, all three phases. It's well worth it to save lives and reduce injuries. There's plenty of evidence from improved accident stats in other places that have implemented 20mph. Initial monitoring from phase one shows a 16-20% reduction in collisions and casualties so it seems to be working as planned.[/p][/quote]The usual bare faced lies from the greenery.... charlie smirke
  • Score: 39

12:54pm Wed 12 Mar 14

cynic_the says...

gheese77 wrote:
fredflintstone1 wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
So the Greens spent £1.5m on phase one and despite their claims of speed decreases in the zone it is clear to anyone who drives through the zone 99% of drivers ignore the 20mph limit - complete waste of money.

Then then consult on the second zone and approve it BEFORE any real concrete data from the first zone.

Now they propose a third zone BEFORE any real concrete data from either the first zone of the second.

Thank god they're not scientists because data assessment is quite clearly a skill they do not possess.

I'll be voting no for Hangleton and will continue to ignore all the zones thank you.
That's the cost of the whole project, all three phases. It's well worth it to save lives and reduce injuries.

There's plenty of evidence from improved accident stats in other places that have implemented 20mph. Initial monitoring from phase one shows a 16-20% reduction in collisions and casualties so it seems to be working as planned.
Right on cue to reinforce Fightback's comment about the Green's convenient inability to understand data assessment!

You simply can't claim that there is 16-20% reduction in collisions and casulties across the board as a result of the 20mph zone, unless you know the number of cases where speed was determined to be a cause in the original figures on which you are now basing your conclusions. It appears that you are wrongly assuming that all accidents are caused by excessive speed.

Also, do these figures include bike-pedestrian incidents? This is now significant, because bikes are routinely exceeding the 20mph speed limit in a number of areas of the city now, on pavements as well as roads.

One of the worst things that the Greens have achieved since being in power is to leave people completely disenchanted with local consultations and the figures that are put forward to justify the Council's actions.
There is plenty of evidence that 20 mph is safer..Take a look at the Royal Society for Prevention of Accidents fact sheet
http://www.rospa.com

/roadsafety/advice/h

ighway/info/20-mph-z

one-factsheet.pdf
There are a multitude of referenced studies in this document. Its one thing to say you don't like 20 MPH zones, quite another to deny basic principles of physics.
To which basic principles of Physics are you referring? And where exactly did you study Physics?

Such studies compare the damage caused when hitting an object or pedestrian at 20, 30 or 40 mph etc. No right minded person would claim that less damage is done at higher speeds, would they?

A vehicle can kill at 1mph, so the key is to stop the accidents happening in the first place. Little 20 signs are not going to do that. Proper road policing could.
[quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: So the Greens spent £1.5m on phase one and despite their claims of speed decreases in the zone it is clear to anyone who drives through the zone 99% of drivers ignore the 20mph limit - complete waste of money. Then then consult on the second zone and approve it BEFORE any real concrete data from the first zone. Now they propose a third zone BEFORE any real concrete data from either the first zone of the second. Thank god they're not scientists because data assessment is quite clearly a skill they do not possess. I'll be voting no for Hangleton and will continue to ignore all the zones thank you.[/p][/quote]That's the cost of the whole project, all three phases. It's well worth it to save lives and reduce injuries. There's plenty of evidence from improved accident stats in other places that have implemented 20mph. Initial monitoring from phase one shows a 16-20% reduction in collisions and casualties so it seems to be working as planned.[/p][/quote]Right on cue to reinforce Fightback's comment about the Green's convenient inability to understand data assessment! You simply can't claim that there is 16-20% reduction in collisions and casulties across the board as a result of the 20mph zone, unless you know the number of cases where speed was determined to be a cause in the original figures on which you are now basing your conclusions. It appears that you are wrongly assuming that all accidents are caused by excessive speed. Also, do these figures include bike-pedestrian incidents? This is now significant, because bikes are routinely exceeding the 20mph speed limit in a number of areas of the city now, on pavements as well as roads. One of the worst things that the Greens have achieved since being in power is to leave people completely disenchanted with local consultations and the figures that are put forward to justify the Council's actions.[/p][/quote]There is plenty of evidence that 20 mph is safer..Take a look at the Royal Society for Prevention of Accidents fact sheet http://www.rospa.com /roadsafety/advice/h ighway/info/20-mph-z one-factsheet.pdf There are a multitude of referenced studies in this document. Its one thing to say you don't like 20 MPH zones, quite another to deny basic principles of physics.[/p][/quote]To which basic principles of Physics are you referring? And where exactly did you study Physics? Such studies compare the damage caused when hitting an object or pedestrian at 20, 30 or 40 mph etc. No right minded person would claim that less damage is done at higher speeds, would they? A vehicle can kill at 1mph, so the key is to stop the accidents happening in the first place. Little 20 signs are not going to do that. Proper road policing could. cynic_the
  • Score: 32

1:02pm Wed 12 Mar 14

PJW Brighton says...

This is hardly news: it has been national Government policy to encourage Local Authorities to spread 20mph zones since January 2013. All councils are doing it. This doesn't fit with the 'Nasty Greens to blame for doing horrible things to us' line, but why let the truth catch up and spoil the story.
This is hardly news: it has been national Government policy to encourage Local Authorities to spread 20mph zones since January 2013. All councils are doing it. This doesn't fit with the 'Nasty Greens to blame for doing horrible things to us' line, but why let the truth catch up and spoil the story. PJW Brighton
  • Score: -45

1:06pm Wed 12 Mar 14

BURIRAM says...

How about looking at the Lewes road, reduced to 30mph and more accidents then ever. So dangerous coming out of the side streets to join the main traffic between the bus depot and railway bridge.
How about looking at the Lewes road, reduced to 30mph and more accidents then ever. So dangerous coming out of the side streets to join the main traffic between the bus depot and railway bridge. BURIRAM
  • Score: 40

1:19pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Fight_Back says...

PJW Brighton wrote:
This is hardly news: it has been national Government policy to encourage Local Authorities to spread 20mph zones since January 2013. All councils are doing it. This doesn't fit with the 'Nasty Greens to blame for doing horrible things to us' line, but why let the truth catch up and spoil the story.
*** cough *** Which party in this city is rolling them out ? Strange that when it comes to budget policy the Green council are happy to fight central government suggestions but as soon as the 20mph policy is criticised then it's central government policy. They could ignore it if they wished.
[quote][p][bold]PJW Brighton[/bold] wrote: This is hardly news: it has been national Government policy to encourage Local Authorities to spread 20mph zones since January 2013. All councils are doing it. This doesn't fit with the 'Nasty Greens to blame for doing horrible things to us' line, but why let the truth catch up and spoil the story.[/p][/quote]*** cough *** Which party in this city is rolling them out ? Strange that when it comes to budget policy the Green council are happy to fight central government suggestions but as soon as the 20mph policy is criticised then it's central government policy. They could ignore it if they wished. Fight_Back
  • Score: 35

1:22pm Wed 12 Mar 14

PJW Brighton says...

Fight_Back wrote:
PJW Brighton wrote:
This is hardly news: it has been national Government policy to encourage Local Authorities to spread 20mph zones since January 2013. All councils are doing it. This doesn't fit with the 'Nasty Greens to blame for doing horrible things to us' line, but why let the truth catch up and spoil the story.
*** cough *** Which party in this city is rolling them out ? Strange that when it comes to budget policy the Green council are happy to fight central government suggestions but as soon as the 20mph policy is criticised then it's central government policy. They could ignore it if they wished.
Which party is rolling them out? The one which runs the Administration of the Council, surprise surprise. Yes they could ignore Central Government policy in this area, but they would be wrong because it makes sense. I am not suggesting that the only reason that the Green Council is rolling these zones out is because it is Central government policy, but I was addressing those on this site who are trying to pretend that this is some isolated lunatic green idea only happening in Brighton.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PJW Brighton[/bold] wrote: This is hardly news: it has been national Government policy to encourage Local Authorities to spread 20mph zones since January 2013. All councils are doing it. This doesn't fit with the 'Nasty Greens to blame for doing horrible things to us' line, but why let the truth catch up and spoil the story.[/p][/quote]*** cough *** Which party in this city is rolling them out ? Strange that when it comes to budget policy the Green council are happy to fight central government suggestions but as soon as the 20mph policy is criticised then it's central government policy. They could ignore it if they wished.[/p][/quote]Which party is rolling them out? The one which runs the Administration of the Council, surprise surprise. Yes they could ignore Central Government policy in this area, but they would be wrong because it makes sense. I am not suggesting that the only reason that the Green Council is rolling these zones out is because it is Central government policy, but I was addressing those on this site who are trying to pretend that this is some isolated lunatic green idea only happening in Brighton. PJW Brighton
  • Score: -39

1:30pm Wed 12 Mar 14

CharlotteP says...

Joshiman wrote:
Ahhh that means the A259 will get even worse.Sorry but since the Greens took over, the A 259 from the Marina to Peacehaven has become a nightmare car journey.It was already getting worse before them.However
they have increased traffic lights.(Stop start of course.)The new Led lights not fit for purpose .The junction at the Garage and the Thai Elephant is now a bottle neck..Surely we must have more qualified traffic control engineers/planners somewhere.
To be fair doing 20mph on the A259 in rush hour would be an improvement on the 5mph it currently is! That stretch of road is an absolute joke.
As usual another bad idea made worse by the greens,...
[quote][p][bold]Joshiman[/bold] wrote: Ahhh that means the A259 will get even worse.Sorry but since the Greens took over, the A 259 from the Marina to Peacehaven has become a nightmare car journey.It was already getting worse before them.However they have increased traffic lights.(Stop start of course.)The new Led lights not fit for purpose .The junction at the Garage and the Thai Elephant is now a bottle neck..Surely we must have more qualified traffic control engineers/planners somewhere.[/p][/quote]To be fair doing 20mph on the A259 in rush hour would be an improvement on the 5mph it currently is! That stretch of road is an absolute joke. As usual another bad idea made worse by the greens,... CharlotteP
  • Score: 40

1:30pm Wed 12 Mar 14

gheese77 says...

cynic_the wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
fredflintstone1 wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
So the Greens spent £1.5m on phase one and despite their claims of speed decreases in the zone it is clear to anyone who drives through the zone 99% of drivers ignore the 20mph limit - complete waste of money.

Then then consult on the second zone and approve it BEFORE any real concrete data from the first zone.

Now they propose a third zone BEFORE any real concrete data from either the first zone of the second.

Thank god they're not scientists because data assessment is quite clearly a skill they do not possess.

I'll be voting no for Hangleton and will continue to ignore all the zones thank you.
That's the cost of the whole project, all three phases. It's well worth it to save lives and reduce injuries.

There's plenty of evidence from improved accident stats in other places that have implemented 20mph. Initial monitoring from phase one shows a 16-20% reduction in collisions and casualties so it seems to be working as planned.
Right on cue to reinforce Fightback's comment about the Green's convenient inability to understand data assessment!

You simply can't claim that there is 16-20% reduction in collisions and casulties across the board as a result of the 20mph zone, unless you know the number of cases where speed was determined to be a cause in the original figures on which you are now basing your conclusions. It appears that you are wrongly assuming that all accidents are caused by excessive speed.

Also, do these figures include bike-pedestrian incidents? This is now significant, because bikes are routinely exceeding the 20mph speed limit in a number of areas of the city now, on pavements as well as roads.

One of the worst things that the Greens have achieved since being in power is to leave people completely disenchanted with local consultations and the figures that are put forward to justify the Council's actions.
There is plenty of evidence that 20 mph is safer..Take a look at the Royal Society for Prevention of Accidents fact sheet
http://www.rospa.com


/roadsafety/advice/h


ighway/info/20-mph-z


one-factsheet.pdf
There are a multitude of referenced studies in this document. Its one thing to say you don't like 20 MPH zones, quite another to deny basic principles of physics.
To which basic principles of Physics are you referring? And where exactly did you study Physics?

Such studies compare the damage caused when hitting an object or pedestrian at 20, 30 or 40 mph etc. No right minded person would claim that less damage is done at higher speeds, would they?

A vehicle can kill at 1mph, so the key is to stop the accidents happening in the first place. Little 20 signs are not going to do that. Proper road policing could.
The basic equation of momentum where momentum = mass * velocity. So doubling the velocity doubles the momentum, its the change in momentum or kinetic energy that causes death or injury. Yes and you are correct in that no no right minded person would deny this, which says something about the thinking of those that do. And of course a vehicle can still kill at 1 mph its just a lot less likely to.
[quote][p][bold]cynic_the[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: So the Greens spent £1.5m on phase one and despite their claims of speed decreases in the zone it is clear to anyone who drives through the zone 99% of drivers ignore the 20mph limit - complete waste of money. Then then consult on the second zone and approve it BEFORE any real concrete data from the first zone. Now they propose a third zone BEFORE any real concrete data from either the first zone of the second. Thank god they're not scientists because data assessment is quite clearly a skill they do not possess. I'll be voting no for Hangleton and will continue to ignore all the zones thank you.[/p][/quote]That's the cost of the whole project, all three phases. It's well worth it to save lives and reduce injuries. There's plenty of evidence from improved accident stats in other places that have implemented 20mph. Initial monitoring from phase one shows a 16-20% reduction in collisions and casualties so it seems to be working as planned.[/p][/quote]Right on cue to reinforce Fightback's comment about the Green's convenient inability to understand data assessment! You simply can't claim that there is 16-20% reduction in collisions and casulties across the board as a result of the 20mph zone, unless you know the number of cases where speed was determined to be a cause in the original figures on which you are now basing your conclusions. It appears that you are wrongly assuming that all accidents are caused by excessive speed. Also, do these figures include bike-pedestrian incidents? This is now significant, because bikes are routinely exceeding the 20mph speed limit in a number of areas of the city now, on pavements as well as roads. One of the worst things that the Greens have achieved since being in power is to leave people completely disenchanted with local consultations and the figures that are put forward to justify the Council's actions.[/p][/quote]There is plenty of evidence that 20 mph is safer..Take a look at the Royal Society for Prevention of Accidents fact sheet http://www.rospa.com /roadsafety/advice/h ighway/info/20-mph-z one-factsheet.pdf There are a multitude of referenced studies in this document. Its one thing to say you don't like 20 MPH zones, quite another to deny basic principles of physics.[/p][/quote]To which basic principles of Physics are you referring? And where exactly did you study Physics? Such studies compare the damage caused when hitting an object or pedestrian at 20, 30 or 40 mph etc. No right minded person would claim that less damage is done at higher speeds, would they? A vehicle can kill at 1mph, so the key is to stop the accidents happening in the first place. Little 20 signs are not going to do that. Proper road policing could.[/p][/quote]The basic equation of momentum where momentum = mass * velocity. So doubling the velocity doubles the momentum, its the change in momentum or kinetic energy that causes death or injury. Yes and you are correct in that no no right minded person would deny this, which says something about the thinking of those that do. And of course a vehicle can still kill at 1 mph its just a lot less likely to. gheese77
  • Score: -24

1:30pm Wed 12 Mar 14

gheese77 says...

cynic_the wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
fredflintstone1 wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
So the Greens spent £1.5m on phase one and despite their claims of speed decreases in the zone it is clear to anyone who drives through the zone 99% of drivers ignore the 20mph limit - complete waste of money.

Then then consult on the second zone and approve it BEFORE any real concrete data from the first zone.

Now they propose a third zone BEFORE any real concrete data from either the first zone of the second.

Thank god they're not scientists because data assessment is quite clearly a skill they do not possess.

I'll be voting no for Hangleton and will continue to ignore all the zones thank you.
That's the cost of the whole project, all three phases. It's well worth it to save lives and reduce injuries.

There's plenty of evidence from improved accident stats in other places that have implemented 20mph. Initial monitoring from phase one shows a 16-20% reduction in collisions and casualties so it seems to be working as planned.
Right on cue to reinforce Fightback's comment about the Green's convenient inability to understand data assessment!

You simply can't claim that there is 16-20% reduction in collisions and casulties across the board as a result of the 20mph zone, unless you know the number of cases where speed was determined to be a cause in the original figures on which you are now basing your conclusions. It appears that you are wrongly assuming that all accidents are caused by excessive speed.

Also, do these figures include bike-pedestrian incidents? This is now significant, because bikes are routinely exceeding the 20mph speed limit in a number of areas of the city now, on pavements as well as roads.

One of the worst things that the Greens have achieved since being in power is to leave people completely disenchanted with local consultations and the figures that are put forward to justify the Council's actions.
There is plenty of evidence that 20 mph is safer..Take a look at the Royal Society for Prevention of Accidents fact sheet
http://www.rospa.com


/roadsafety/advice/h


ighway/info/20-mph-z


one-factsheet.pdf
There are a multitude of referenced studies in this document. Its one thing to say you don't like 20 MPH zones, quite another to deny basic principles of physics.
To which basic principles of Physics are you referring? And where exactly did you study Physics?

Such studies compare the damage caused when hitting an object or pedestrian at 20, 30 or 40 mph etc. No right minded person would claim that less damage is done at higher speeds, would they?

A vehicle can kill at 1mph, so the key is to stop the accidents happening in the first place. Little 20 signs are not going to do that. Proper road policing could.
The basic equation of momentum where momentum = mass * velocity. So doubling the velocity doubles the momentum, its the change in momentum or kinetic energy that causes death or injury. Yes and you are correct in that no no right minded person would deny this, which says something about the thinking of those that do. And of course a vehicle can still kill at 1 mph its just a lot less likely to.
[quote][p][bold]cynic_the[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: So the Greens spent £1.5m on phase one and despite their claims of speed decreases in the zone it is clear to anyone who drives through the zone 99% of drivers ignore the 20mph limit - complete waste of money. Then then consult on the second zone and approve it BEFORE any real concrete data from the first zone. Now they propose a third zone BEFORE any real concrete data from either the first zone of the second. Thank god they're not scientists because data assessment is quite clearly a skill they do not possess. I'll be voting no for Hangleton and will continue to ignore all the zones thank you.[/p][/quote]That's the cost of the whole project, all three phases. It's well worth it to save lives and reduce injuries. There's plenty of evidence from improved accident stats in other places that have implemented 20mph. Initial monitoring from phase one shows a 16-20% reduction in collisions and casualties so it seems to be working as planned.[/p][/quote]Right on cue to reinforce Fightback's comment about the Green's convenient inability to understand data assessment! You simply can't claim that there is 16-20% reduction in collisions and casulties across the board as a result of the 20mph zone, unless you know the number of cases where speed was determined to be a cause in the original figures on which you are now basing your conclusions. It appears that you are wrongly assuming that all accidents are caused by excessive speed. Also, do these figures include bike-pedestrian incidents? This is now significant, because bikes are routinely exceeding the 20mph speed limit in a number of areas of the city now, on pavements as well as roads. One of the worst things that the Greens have achieved since being in power is to leave people completely disenchanted with local consultations and the figures that are put forward to justify the Council's actions.[/p][/quote]There is plenty of evidence that 20 mph is safer..Take a look at the Royal Society for Prevention of Accidents fact sheet http://www.rospa.com /roadsafety/advice/h ighway/info/20-mph-z one-factsheet.pdf There are a multitude of referenced studies in this document. Its one thing to say you don't like 20 MPH zones, quite another to deny basic principles of physics.[/p][/quote]To which basic principles of Physics are you referring? And where exactly did you study Physics? Such studies compare the damage caused when hitting an object or pedestrian at 20, 30 or 40 mph etc. No right minded person would claim that less damage is done at higher speeds, would they? A vehicle can kill at 1mph, so the key is to stop the accidents happening in the first place. Little 20 signs are not going to do that. Proper road policing could.[/p][/quote]The basic equation of momentum where momentum = mass * velocity. So doubling the velocity doubles the momentum, its the change in momentum or kinetic energy that causes death or injury. Yes and you are correct in that no no right minded person would deny this, which says something about the thinking of those that do. And of course a vehicle can still kill at 1 mph its just a lot less likely to. gheese77
  • Score: -20

1:48pm Wed 12 Mar 14

cynic_the says...

gheese77 wrote:
cynic_the wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
fredflintstone1 wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
So the Greens spent £1.5m on phase one and despite their claims of speed decreases in the zone it is clear to anyone who drives through the zone 99% of drivers ignore the 20mph limit - complete waste of money.

Then then consult on the second zone and approve it BEFORE any real concrete data from the first zone.

Now they propose a third zone BEFORE any real concrete data from either the first zone of the second.

Thank god they're not scientists because data assessment is quite clearly a skill they do not possess.

I'll be voting no for Hangleton and will continue to ignore all the zones thank you.
That's the cost of the whole project, all three phases. It's well worth it to save lives and reduce injuries.

There's plenty of evidence from improved accident stats in other places that have implemented 20mph. Initial monitoring from phase one shows a 16-20% reduction in collisions and casualties so it seems to be working as planned.
Right on cue to reinforce Fightback's comment about the Green's convenient inability to understand data assessment!

You simply can't claim that there is 16-20% reduction in collisions and casulties across the board as a result of the 20mph zone, unless you know the number of cases where speed was determined to be a cause in the original figures on which you are now basing your conclusions. It appears that you are wrongly assuming that all accidents are caused by excessive speed.

Also, do these figures include bike-pedestrian incidents? This is now significant, because bikes are routinely exceeding the 20mph speed limit in a number of areas of the city now, on pavements as well as roads.

One of the worst things that the Greens have achieved since being in power is to leave people completely disenchanted with local consultations and the figures that are put forward to justify the Council's actions.
There is plenty of evidence that 20 mph is safer..Take a look at the Royal Society for Prevention of Accidents fact sheet
http://www.rospa.com



/roadsafety/advice/h



ighway/info/20-mph-z



one-factsheet.pdf
There are a multitude of referenced studies in this document. Its one thing to say you don't like 20 MPH zones, quite another to deny basic principles of physics.
To which basic principles of Physics are you referring? And where exactly did you study Physics?

Such studies compare the damage caused when hitting an object or pedestrian at 20, 30 or 40 mph etc. No right minded person would claim that less damage is done at higher speeds, would they?

A vehicle can kill at 1mph, so the key is to stop the accidents happening in the first place. Little 20 signs are not going to do that. Proper road policing could.
The basic equation of momentum where momentum = mass * velocity. So doubling the velocity doubles the momentum, its the change in momentum or kinetic energy that causes death or injury. Yes and you are correct in that no no right minded person would deny this, which says something about the thinking of those that do. And of course a vehicle can still kill at 1 mph its just a lot less likely to.
So you agree with me then...!?
[quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cynic_the[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: So the Greens spent £1.5m on phase one and despite their claims of speed decreases in the zone it is clear to anyone who drives through the zone 99% of drivers ignore the 20mph limit - complete waste of money. Then then consult on the second zone and approve it BEFORE any real concrete data from the first zone. Now they propose a third zone BEFORE any real concrete data from either the first zone of the second. Thank god they're not scientists because data assessment is quite clearly a skill they do not possess. I'll be voting no for Hangleton and will continue to ignore all the zones thank you.[/p][/quote]That's the cost of the whole project, all three phases. It's well worth it to save lives and reduce injuries. There's plenty of evidence from improved accident stats in other places that have implemented 20mph. Initial monitoring from phase one shows a 16-20% reduction in collisions and casualties so it seems to be working as planned.[/p][/quote]Right on cue to reinforce Fightback's comment about the Green's convenient inability to understand data assessment! You simply can't claim that there is 16-20% reduction in collisions and casulties across the board as a result of the 20mph zone, unless you know the number of cases where speed was determined to be a cause in the original figures on which you are now basing your conclusions. It appears that you are wrongly assuming that all accidents are caused by excessive speed. Also, do these figures include bike-pedestrian incidents? This is now significant, because bikes are routinely exceeding the 20mph speed limit in a number of areas of the city now, on pavements as well as roads. One of the worst things that the Greens have achieved since being in power is to leave people completely disenchanted with local consultations and the figures that are put forward to justify the Council's actions.[/p][/quote]There is plenty of evidence that 20 mph is safer..Take a look at the Royal Society for Prevention of Accidents fact sheet http://www.rospa.com /roadsafety/advice/h ighway/info/20-mph-z one-factsheet.pdf There are a multitude of referenced studies in this document. Its one thing to say you don't like 20 MPH zones, quite another to deny basic principles of physics.[/p][/quote]To which basic principles of Physics are you referring? And where exactly did you study Physics? Such studies compare the damage caused when hitting an object or pedestrian at 20, 30 or 40 mph etc. No right minded person would claim that less damage is done at higher speeds, would they? A vehicle can kill at 1mph, so the key is to stop the accidents happening in the first place. Little 20 signs are not going to do that. Proper road policing could.[/p][/quote]The basic equation of momentum where momentum = mass * velocity. So doubling the velocity doubles the momentum, its the change in momentum or kinetic energy that causes death or injury. Yes and you are correct in that no no right minded person would deny this, which says something about the thinking of those that do. And of course a vehicle can still kill at 1 mph its just a lot less likely to.[/p][/quote]So you agree with me then...!? cynic_the
  • Score: 6

2:02pm Wed 12 Mar 14

gheese77 says...

cynic_the wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
cynic_the wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
fredflintstone1 wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
So the Greens spent £1.5m on phase one and despite their claims of speed decreases in the zone it is clear to anyone who drives through the zone 99% of drivers ignore the 20mph limit - complete waste of money.

Then then consult on the second zone and approve it BEFORE any real concrete data from the first zone.

Now they propose a third zone BEFORE any real concrete data from either the first zone of the second.

Thank god they're not scientists because data assessment is quite clearly a skill they do not possess.

I'll be voting no for Hangleton and will continue to ignore all the zones thank you.
That's the cost of the whole project, all three phases. It's well worth it to save lives and reduce injuries.

There's plenty of evidence from improved accident stats in other places that have implemented 20mph. Initial monitoring from phase one shows a 16-20% reduction in collisions and casualties so it seems to be working as planned.
Right on cue to reinforce Fightback's comment about the Green's convenient inability to understand data assessment!

You simply can't claim that there is 16-20% reduction in collisions and casulties across the board as a result of the 20mph zone, unless you know the number of cases where speed was determined to be a cause in the original figures on which you are now basing your conclusions. It appears that you are wrongly assuming that all accidents are caused by excessive speed.

Also, do these figures include bike-pedestrian incidents? This is now significant, because bikes are routinely exceeding the 20mph speed limit in a number of areas of the city now, on pavements as well as roads.

One of the worst things that the Greens have achieved since being in power is to leave people completely disenchanted with local consultations and the figures that are put forward to justify the Council's actions.
There is plenty of evidence that 20 mph is safer..Take a look at the Royal Society for Prevention of Accidents fact sheet
http://www.rospa.com




/roadsafety/advice/h




ighway/info/20-mph-z




one-factsheet.pdf
There are a multitude of referenced studies in this document. Its one thing to say you don't like 20 MPH zones, quite another to deny basic principles of physics.
To which basic principles of Physics are you referring? And where exactly did you study Physics?

Such studies compare the damage caused when hitting an object or pedestrian at 20, 30 or 40 mph etc. No right minded person would claim that less damage is done at higher speeds, would they?

A vehicle can kill at 1mph, so the key is to stop the accidents happening in the first place. Little 20 signs are not going to do that. Proper road policing could.
The basic equation of momentum where momentum = mass * velocity. So doubling the velocity doubles the momentum, its the change in momentum or kinetic energy that causes death or injury. Yes and you are correct in that no no right minded person would deny this, which says something about the thinking of those that do. And of course a vehicle can still kill at 1 mph its just a lot less likely to.
So you agree with me then...!?
Yes - I never said I didn't, the original response was to fredflintstone1
[quote][p][bold]cynic_the[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cynic_the[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: So the Greens spent £1.5m on phase one and despite their claims of speed decreases in the zone it is clear to anyone who drives through the zone 99% of drivers ignore the 20mph limit - complete waste of money. Then then consult on the second zone and approve it BEFORE any real concrete data from the first zone. Now they propose a third zone BEFORE any real concrete data from either the first zone of the second. Thank god they're not scientists because data assessment is quite clearly a skill they do not possess. I'll be voting no for Hangleton and will continue to ignore all the zones thank you.[/p][/quote]That's the cost of the whole project, all three phases. It's well worth it to save lives and reduce injuries. There's plenty of evidence from improved accident stats in other places that have implemented 20mph. Initial monitoring from phase one shows a 16-20% reduction in collisions and casualties so it seems to be working as planned.[/p][/quote]Right on cue to reinforce Fightback's comment about the Green's convenient inability to understand data assessment! You simply can't claim that there is 16-20% reduction in collisions and casulties across the board as a result of the 20mph zone, unless you know the number of cases where speed was determined to be a cause in the original figures on which you are now basing your conclusions. It appears that you are wrongly assuming that all accidents are caused by excessive speed. Also, do these figures include bike-pedestrian incidents? This is now significant, because bikes are routinely exceeding the 20mph speed limit in a number of areas of the city now, on pavements as well as roads. One of the worst things that the Greens have achieved since being in power is to leave people completely disenchanted with local consultations and the figures that are put forward to justify the Council's actions.[/p][/quote]There is plenty of evidence that 20 mph is safer..Take a look at the Royal Society for Prevention of Accidents fact sheet http://www.rospa.com /roadsafety/advice/h ighway/info/20-mph-z one-factsheet.pdf There are a multitude of referenced studies in this document. Its one thing to say you don't like 20 MPH zones, quite another to deny basic principles of physics.[/p][/quote]To which basic principles of Physics are you referring? And where exactly did you study Physics? Such studies compare the damage caused when hitting an object or pedestrian at 20, 30 or 40 mph etc. No right minded person would claim that less damage is done at higher speeds, would they? A vehicle can kill at 1mph, so the key is to stop the accidents happening in the first place. Little 20 signs are not going to do that. Proper road policing could.[/p][/quote]The basic equation of momentum where momentum = mass * velocity. So doubling the velocity doubles the momentum, its the change in momentum or kinetic energy that causes death or injury. Yes and you are correct in that no no right minded person would deny this, which says something about the thinking of those that do. And of course a vehicle can still kill at 1 mph its just a lot less likely to.[/p][/quote]So you agree with me then...!?[/p][/quote]Yes - I never said I didn't, the original response was to fredflintstone1 gheese77
  • Score: -3

2:02pm Wed 12 Mar 14

kopite_rob says...

Isn't Rottingdean already 20mph?
Isn't Rottingdean already 20mph? kopite_rob
  • Score: 8

2:03pm Wed 12 Mar 14

fredflintstone1 says...

gheese77 wrote:
fredflintstone1 wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
So the Greens spent £1.5m on phase one and despite their claims of speed decreases in the zone it is clear to anyone who drives through the zone 99% of drivers ignore the 20mph limit - complete waste of money.

Then then consult on the second zone and approve it BEFORE any real concrete data from the first zone.

Now they propose a third zone BEFORE any real concrete data from either the first zone of the second.

Thank god they're not scientists because data assessment is quite clearly a skill they do not possess.

I'll be voting no for Hangleton and will continue to ignore all the zones thank you.
That's the cost of the whole project, all three phases. It's well worth it to save lives and reduce injuries.

There's plenty of evidence from improved accident stats in other places that have implemented 20mph. Initial monitoring from phase one shows a 16-20% reduction in collisions and casualties so it seems to be working as planned.
Right on cue to reinforce Fightback's comment about the Green's convenient inability to understand data assessment!

You simply can't claim that there is 16-20% reduction in collisions and casulties across the board as a result of the 20mph zone, unless you know the number of cases where speed was determined to be a cause in the original figures on which you are now basing your conclusions. It appears that you are wrongly assuming that all accidents are caused by excessive speed.

Also, do these figures include bike-pedestrian incidents? This is now significant, because bikes are routinely exceeding the 20mph speed limit in a number of areas of the city now, on pavements as well as roads.

One of the worst things that the Greens have achieved since being in power is to leave people completely disenchanted with local consultations and the figures that are put forward to justify the Council's actions.
There is plenty of evidence that 20 mph is safer..Take a look at the Royal Society for Prevention of Accidents fact sheet
http://www.rospa.com

/roadsafety/advice/h

ighway/info/20-mph-z

one-factsheet.pdf
There are a multitude of referenced studies in this document. Its one thing to say you don't like 20 MPH zones, quite another to deny basic principles of physics.
As other people have pointed out, 0mph is safer still.

But you conveniently ignored my point. I'm not expressing a view on 20mph. I'm pointing out that the claims made by Eugenius cannot be supported by the data that he is quoting to justify extending the zones. That is my concern. Also, percentages may sound impressive, but how do they translate into actual numbers?
[quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: So the Greens spent £1.5m on phase one and despite their claims of speed decreases in the zone it is clear to anyone who drives through the zone 99% of drivers ignore the 20mph limit - complete waste of money. Then then consult on the second zone and approve it BEFORE any real concrete data from the first zone. Now they propose a third zone BEFORE any real concrete data from either the first zone of the second. Thank god they're not scientists because data assessment is quite clearly a skill they do not possess. I'll be voting no for Hangleton and will continue to ignore all the zones thank you.[/p][/quote]That's the cost of the whole project, all three phases. It's well worth it to save lives and reduce injuries. There's plenty of evidence from improved accident stats in other places that have implemented 20mph. Initial monitoring from phase one shows a 16-20% reduction in collisions and casualties so it seems to be working as planned.[/p][/quote]Right on cue to reinforce Fightback's comment about the Green's convenient inability to understand data assessment! You simply can't claim that there is 16-20% reduction in collisions and casulties across the board as a result of the 20mph zone, unless you know the number of cases where speed was determined to be a cause in the original figures on which you are now basing your conclusions. It appears that you are wrongly assuming that all accidents are caused by excessive speed. Also, do these figures include bike-pedestrian incidents? This is now significant, because bikes are routinely exceeding the 20mph speed limit in a number of areas of the city now, on pavements as well as roads. One of the worst things that the Greens have achieved since being in power is to leave people completely disenchanted with local consultations and the figures that are put forward to justify the Council's actions.[/p][/quote]There is plenty of evidence that 20 mph is safer..Take a look at the Royal Society for Prevention of Accidents fact sheet http://www.rospa.com /roadsafety/advice/h ighway/info/20-mph-z one-factsheet.pdf There are a multitude of referenced studies in this document. Its one thing to say you don't like 20 MPH zones, quite another to deny basic principles of physics.[/p][/quote]As other people have pointed out, 0mph is safer still. But you conveniently ignored my point. I'm not expressing a view on 20mph. I'm pointing out that the claims made by Eugenius cannot be supported by the data that he is quoting to justify extending the zones. That is my concern. Also, percentages may sound impressive, but how do they translate into actual numbers? fredflintstone1
  • Score: 28

2:04pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Richada says...

kopite_rob wrote:
Isn't Rottingdean already 20mph?
Yep!
[quote][p][bold]kopite_rob[/bold] wrote: Isn't Rottingdean already 20mph?[/p][/quote]Yep! Richada
  • Score: 8

2:12pm Wed 12 Mar 14

whatevernext2013 says...

the effects of the current green councils transport policy ,i like most people now shop on line my latest purchase dropped to my door for less than 30 pounds ,it cost more in the shops in brighton ,so like most folk i spend my monet elsewhere
the effects of the current green councils transport policy ,i like most people now shop on line my latest purchase dropped to my door for less than 30 pounds ,it cost more in the shops in brighton ,so like most folk i spend my monet elsewhere whatevernext2013
  • Score: 22

2:19pm Wed 12 Mar 14

kopite_rob says...

Well I'd love it in Saltdean, especially around the Oval and along the Vale.
There's 3 nurseries and a junior school along that road yet vehicles go along there at 40+ mph.
It's a mystery why they would, particulary the ones that are sign painted for local businesses.
Perhaps they want a bad rep, but I can think of a couple of electricians, scaffolders, alarm companies and a particular bus company that I won't consider using based on their attitude to being a good neighbour.
Well I'd love it in Saltdean, especially around the Oval and along the Vale. There's 3 nurseries and a junior school along that road yet vehicles go along there at 40+ mph. It's a mystery why they would, particulary the ones that are sign painted for local businesses. Perhaps they want a bad rep, but I can think of a couple of electricians, scaffolders, alarm companies and a particular bus company that I won't consider using based on their attitude to being a good neighbour. kopite_rob
  • Score: 2

2:26pm Wed 12 Mar 14

salty_pete says...

Notwithstanding the points that the council (of whatever stripe) will ignore any consultation (they always do) and that this is an exercise to justify the large number of staff in the Sustainable Transport Dept.
How the heck are you going to keep to 20mph going down the steep hills in these localities. The topography is totally different to central Brighton or Hove. Knowing that common sense is a quality rarely found in the council, maybe they’ll apply this limit to only cars going uphill ?
Notwithstanding the points that the council (of whatever stripe) will ignore any consultation (they always do) and that this is an exercise to justify the large number of staff in the Sustainable Transport Dept. How the heck are you going to keep to 20mph going down the steep hills in these localities. The topography is totally different to central Brighton or Hove. Knowing that common sense is a quality rarely found in the council, maybe they’ll apply this limit to only cars going uphill ? salty_pete
  • Score: 17

2:31pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Richada says...

RobO. wrote:
So, the council are urging us to look at "the evidence from the many towns and cities..." but are talking about it's implementation in villages. Idiots.

How about if we look at the evidence we make sure it's appropriate to the situation. Or maybe let's look at the areas in Brighton and Hove where they've introduced it already and see that the main impact is more traffic jams and resentment!
Precisely!

Had this been implemented in a more sensible way then the great majority would have far more respect for it. As it is, the 20 limits are unenforceable and widely ignored - in many cases they are totally irrelevant anyway as the traffic mismanagement system has ensured that the majority of traffic is either at a crawl or is totally stopped in endless traffic jams - both highly polluting and time wasting.

The truth of this is that the administration are purely hell bent on waging war on those who dare to use cars or vans here - no matter what their purpose in doing so.
[quote][p][bold]RobO.[/bold] wrote: So, the council are urging us to look at "the evidence from the many towns and cities..." but are talking about it's implementation in villages. Idiots. How about if we look at the evidence we make sure it's appropriate to the situation. Or maybe let's look at the areas in Brighton and Hove where they've introduced it already and see that the main impact is more traffic jams and resentment![/p][/quote]Precisely! Had this been implemented in a more sensible way then the great majority would have far more respect for it. As it is, the 20 limits are unenforceable and widely ignored - in many cases they are totally irrelevant anyway as the traffic mismanagement system has ensured that the majority of traffic is either at a crawl or is totally stopped in endless traffic jams - both highly polluting and time wasting. The truth of this is that the administration are purely hell bent on waging war on those who dare to use cars or vans here - no matter what their purpose in doing so. Richada
  • Score: 23

2:47pm Wed 12 Mar 14

mackeson says...

I must be miss-reading the articles that the Argus publishes, because today it was announced that there are 3% fewer cars registered in Brighton. Surely if there are fewer cars on the road, there will be fewer accidents.!!!
I must be miss-reading the articles that the Argus publishes, because today it was announced that there are 3% fewer cars registered in Brighton. Surely if there are fewer cars on the road, there will be fewer accidents.!!! mackeson
  • Score: 16

2:51pm Wed 12 Mar 14

gheese77 says...

fredflintstone1 wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
fredflintstone1 wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
So the Greens spent £1.5m on phase one and despite their claims of speed decreases in the zone it is clear to anyone who drives through the zone 99% of drivers ignore the 20mph limit - complete waste of money.

Then then consult on the second zone and approve it BEFORE any real concrete data from the first zone.

Now they propose a third zone BEFORE any real concrete data from either the first zone of the second.

Thank god they're not scientists because data assessment is quite clearly a skill they do not possess.

I'll be voting no for Hangleton and will continue to ignore all the zones thank you.
That's the cost of the whole project, all three phases. It's well worth it to save lives and reduce injuries.

There's plenty of evidence from improved accident stats in other places that have implemented 20mph. Initial monitoring from phase one shows a 16-20% reduction in collisions and casualties so it seems to be working as planned.
Right on cue to reinforce Fightback's comment about the Green's convenient inability to understand data assessment!

You simply can't claim that there is 16-20% reduction in collisions and casulties across the board as a result of the 20mph zone, unless you know the number of cases where speed was determined to be a cause in the original figures on which you are now basing your conclusions. It appears that you are wrongly assuming that all accidents are caused by excessive speed.

Also, do these figures include bike-pedestrian incidents? This is now significant, because bikes are routinely exceeding the 20mph speed limit in a number of areas of the city now, on pavements as well as roads.

One of the worst things that the Greens have achieved since being in power is to leave people completely disenchanted with local consultations and the figures that are put forward to justify the Council's actions.
There is plenty of evidence that 20 mph is safer..Take a look at the Royal Society for Prevention of Accidents fact sheet
http://www.rospa.com


/roadsafety/advice/h


ighway/info/20-mph-z


one-factsheet.pdf
There are a multitude of referenced studies in this document. Its one thing to say you don't like 20 MPH zones, quite another to deny basic principles of physics.
As other people have pointed out, 0mph is safer still.

But you conveniently ignored my point. I'm not expressing a view on 20mph. I'm pointing out that the claims made by Eugenius cannot be supported by the data that he is quoting to justify extending the zones. That is my concern. Also, percentages may sound impressive, but how do they translate into actual numbers?
There is plenty of data to indicate that 20 mph is safer, take a look at the RoSPA link if you don't believe me
[quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: So the Greens spent £1.5m on phase one and despite their claims of speed decreases in the zone it is clear to anyone who drives through the zone 99% of drivers ignore the 20mph limit - complete waste of money. Then then consult on the second zone and approve it BEFORE any real concrete data from the first zone. Now they propose a third zone BEFORE any real concrete data from either the first zone of the second. Thank god they're not scientists because data assessment is quite clearly a skill they do not possess. I'll be voting no for Hangleton and will continue to ignore all the zones thank you.[/p][/quote]That's the cost of the whole project, all three phases. It's well worth it to save lives and reduce injuries. There's plenty of evidence from improved accident stats in other places that have implemented 20mph. Initial monitoring from phase one shows a 16-20% reduction in collisions and casualties so it seems to be working as planned.[/p][/quote]Right on cue to reinforce Fightback's comment about the Green's convenient inability to understand data assessment! You simply can't claim that there is 16-20% reduction in collisions and casulties across the board as a result of the 20mph zone, unless you know the number of cases where speed was determined to be a cause in the original figures on which you are now basing your conclusions. It appears that you are wrongly assuming that all accidents are caused by excessive speed. Also, do these figures include bike-pedestrian incidents? This is now significant, because bikes are routinely exceeding the 20mph speed limit in a number of areas of the city now, on pavements as well as roads. One of the worst things that the Greens have achieved since being in power is to leave people completely disenchanted with local consultations and the figures that are put forward to justify the Council's actions.[/p][/quote]There is plenty of evidence that 20 mph is safer..Take a look at the Royal Society for Prevention of Accidents fact sheet http://www.rospa.com /roadsafety/advice/h ighway/info/20-mph-z one-factsheet.pdf There are a multitude of referenced studies in this document. Its one thing to say you don't like 20 MPH zones, quite another to deny basic principles of physics.[/p][/quote]As other people have pointed out, 0mph is safer still. But you conveniently ignored my point. I'm not expressing a view on 20mph. I'm pointing out that the claims made by Eugenius cannot be supported by the data that he is quoting to justify extending the zones. That is my concern. Also, percentages may sound impressive, but how do they translate into actual numbers?[/p][/quote]There is plenty of data to indicate that 20 mph is safer, take a look at the RoSPA link if you don't believe me gheese77
  • Score: -24

4:21pm Wed 12 Mar 14

ronrostog says...

Around schools etc, yay, everywhere else, nay. So do what most do, be sensible around obvious places and the rest of the time just ignore the signs. Just a shame the greens love implementing lights at pedestrian crossings etc to change at inappropriate times. Still, get out early enough and you can whizz around Brighton and Hove quite happily until the mother's come out to drive their brats a couple of hundred yards to the local learning establishment.
Around schools etc, yay, everywhere else, nay. So do what most do, be sensible around obvious places and the rest of the time just ignore the signs. Just a shame the greens love implementing lights at pedestrian crossings etc to change at inappropriate times. Still, get out early enough and you can whizz around Brighton and Hove quite happily until the mother's come out to drive their brats a couple of hundred yards to the local learning establishment. ronrostog
  • Score: 27

4:22pm Wed 12 Mar 14

ARMANA says...

Until its enforced , nobody gives a shxt, 30mph for me, OK
Until its enforced , nobody gives a shxt, 30mph for me, OK ARMANA
  • Score: 29

4:30pm Wed 12 Mar 14

brightonaire says...

It's the labour party as well that have voted through these daft schemes... voters should remember that it's not just the greens who are effing everything up
It's the labour party as well that have voted through these daft schemes... voters should remember that it's not just the greens who are effing everything up brightonaire
  • Score: 9

4:43pm Wed 12 Mar 14

taman says...

I will personally vote in favour of a 4.95% council tax rise for any party who pledges to undo what this bunch of cranks have done and continue to do to our city ....for or against them and politics aside what a total waste of good money its financial vandalism
I will personally vote in favour of a 4.95% council tax rise for any party who pledges to undo what this bunch of cranks have done and continue to do to our city ....for or against them and politics aside what a total waste of good money its financial vandalism taman
  • Score: 22

4:57pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Monkeymoo1 says...

Sorry for being late into this but what exactly is the problem with 20 MPH. I am not a green or whatever but you all seem either for or against but very few of you say why other than the anti green comments. This is being implemented all over the country weather we like it or not
Sorry for being late into this but what exactly is the problem with 20 MPH. I am not a green or whatever but you all seem either for or against but very few of you say why other than the anti green comments. This is being implemented all over the country weather we like it or not Monkeymoo1
  • Score: -19

5:24pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Juleyanne says...

Actually it is not just about humans. What about domestic pets and wildlife?
Lowering the speed limit will not just reduce accidents and their likely impact on humans, it will also save a lot of animal lives too. For that reason I'm In!
Actually it is not just about humans. What about domestic pets and wildlife? Lowering the speed limit will not just reduce accidents and their likely impact on humans, it will also save a lot of animal lives too. For that reason I'm In! Juleyanne
  • Score: -15

5:31pm Wed 12 Mar 14

tez1959 says...

CANT WAIT FOR THE NEXT PHASE WHEN EVERYBODY IN SUSSEX WILL BE GETTING A FREE BIKE TO RIDE GOOD OLD GREENS GET EM OUT SOONER THE BETTER
CANT WAIT FOR THE NEXT PHASE WHEN EVERYBODY IN SUSSEX WILL BE GETTING A FREE BIKE TO RIDE GOOD OLD GREENS GET EM OUT SOONER THE BETTER tez1959
  • Score: 16

6:24pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

I thought the council was so broke the poor were going to starve if we didn't hand over 4.75 percent increase in our council tax.
Jason Kitkat you tell lies and emotionally blackmail people with tales of not having a penny in the pot.
I thought the council was so broke the poor were going to starve if we didn't hand over 4.75 percent increase in our council tax. Jason Kitkat you tell lies and emotionally blackmail people with tales of not having a penny in the pot. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 15

6:27pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Withdean-er says...

Joshiman wrote:
Ahhh that means the A259 will get even worse.Sorry but since the Greens took over, the A 259 from the Marina to Peacehaven has become a nightmare car journey.It was already getting worse before them.However
they have increased traffic lights.(Stop start of course.)The new Led lights not fit for purpose .The junction at the Garage and the Thai Elephant is now a bottle neck..Surely we must have more qualified traffic control engineers/planners somewhere.
You may need to check some of your facts:
Some of the areas you mention are a long way from the Greens controlled B&HCC, but more importantly the traffic jams on the A259, there for decades, became a complete nightmare once a previous B&HCC/ESCC jointly brought in the bus lanes in 2008 between Rottingdean mini golf course and Peacehaven, and so cannot be pinned on the Greens who have led BHCC since 2011. The Greens may have done some stupid things, but can't be singularly blamed for the Rottingdean jams.
[quote][p][bold]Joshiman[/bold] wrote: Ahhh that means the A259 will get even worse.Sorry but since the Greens took over, the A 259 from the Marina to Peacehaven has become a nightmare car journey.It was already getting worse before them.However they have increased traffic lights.(Stop start of course.)The new Led lights not fit for purpose .The junction at the Garage and the Thai Elephant is now a bottle neck..Surely we must have more qualified traffic control engineers/planners somewhere.[/p][/quote]You may need to check some of your facts: Some of the areas you mention are a long way from the Greens controlled B&HCC, but more importantly the traffic jams on the A259, there for decades, became a complete nightmare once a previous B&HCC/ESCC jointly brought in the bus lanes in 2008 between Rottingdean mini golf course and Peacehaven, and so cannot be pinned on the Greens who have led BHCC since 2011. The Greens may have done some stupid things, but can't be singularly blamed for the Rottingdean jams. Withdean-er
  • Score: 0

6:49pm Wed 12 Mar 14

stir up says...

it
it stir up
  • Score: -1

6:55pm Wed 12 Mar 14

stir up says...

Sorry for shot note I mealy wanted to say how long will it be before the greens bring back the need for a man to walk in front of the car with a red flag as was the case when motoring first started.
there is no doubt that speed kills, however there will always be one person travelling in a line of cars at 20mph who will not want to wait and will pull out to accelerate away, and this is often the case on motorways and often this leads to a crash, so going slowly is not always the best way to solve the problem. There is also the time of day/night to take into account, if you are travelling along a road in the middle of the night and there is no other traffic around the 20mph will be ignored
Sorry for shot note I mealy wanted to say how long will it be before the greens bring back the need for a man to walk in front of the car with a red flag as was the case when motoring first started. there is no doubt that speed kills, however there will always be one person travelling in a line of cars at 20mph who will not want to wait and will pull out to accelerate away, and this is often the case on motorways and often this leads to a crash, so going slowly is not always the best way to solve the problem. There is also the time of day/night to take into account, if you are travelling along a road in the middle of the night and there is no other traffic around the 20mph will be ignored stir up
  • Score: 8

7:07pm Wed 12 Mar 14

thevoiceoftruth says...

I rarely see anyone doing 20mph so not sure how collisions and casualties can be down. Where is the data? Please publish it - if it even exists!
I rarely see anyone doing 20mph so not sure how collisions and casualties can be down. Where is the data? Please publish it - if it even exists! thevoiceoftruth
  • Score: 13

7:56pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Sir Prised says...

This is just yet another example of penalising the majority, rather than tackling the real problem, the dangerous driver. Morality in this country has been turned on it's head where you get rewarded for giving up drugs, paid to give up smoking, paid to have a flu jab, allowed to camp on public parks if you cause enough grief, get housed if you have kids but don't feel like getting a job, get free school meals if you can't be a***d to cook, block up A&E if you can't be bothered to buy a pack of plasters, etc. etc. Keep your nose clean and pay your way and you're just seen as a cash-cow, to be treated like an idiot. Roll on the day when we have a politcal party who represents the grown ups.
This is just yet another example of penalising the majority, rather than tackling the real problem, the dangerous driver. Morality in this country has been turned on it's head where you get rewarded for giving up drugs, paid to give up smoking, paid to have a flu jab, allowed to camp on public parks if you cause enough grief, get housed if you have kids but don't feel like getting a job, get free school meals if you can't be a***d to cook, block up A&E if you can't be bothered to buy a pack of plasters, etc. etc. Keep your nose clean and pay your way and you're just seen as a cash-cow, to be treated like an idiot. Roll on the day when we have a politcal party who represents the grown ups. Sir Prised
  • Score: 19

8:11pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Nick Brighton says...

cynic_the wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
So the Greens spent £1.5m on phase one and despite their claims of speed decreases in the zone it is clear to anyone who drives through the zone 99% of drivers ignore the 20mph limit - complete waste of money.

Then then consult on the second zone and approve it BEFORE any real concrete data from the first zone.

Now they propose a third zone BEFORE any real concrete data from either the first zone of the second.

Thank god they're not scientists because data assessment is quite clearly a skill they do not possess.

I'll be voting no for Hangleton and will continue to ignore all the zones thank you.
That's the cost of the whole project, all three phases. It's well worth it to save lives and reduce injuries.

There's plenty of evidence from improved accident stats in other places that have implemented 20mph. Initial monitoring from phase one shows a 16-20% reduction in collisions and casualties so it seems to be working as planned.
Publish the figures then. For pre and post implementation, including the control group.

Ah, you don't work like that do you?
http://www.rospa.com
/roadsafety/advicean
dinformation/highway
/20-mph-zones.aspx
[quote][p][bold]cynic_the[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: So the Greens spent £1.5m on phase one and despite their claims of speed decreases in the zone it is clear to anyone who drives through the zone 99% of drivers ignore the 20mph limit - complete waste of money. Then then consult on the second zone and approve it BEFORE any real concrete data from the first zone. Now they propose a third zone BEFORE any real concrete data from either the first zone of the second. Thank god they're not scientists because data assessment is quite clearly a skill they do not possess. I'll be voting no for Hangleton and will continue to ignore all the zones thank you.[/p][/quote]That's the cost of the whole project, all three phases. It's well worth it to save lives and reduce injuries. There's plenty of evidence from improved accident stats in other places that have implemented 20mph. Initial monitoring from phase one shows a 16-20% reduction in collisions and casualties so it seems to be working as planned.[/p][/quote]Publish the figures then. For pre and post implementation, including the control group. Ah, you don't work like that do you?[/p][/quote]http://www.rospa.com /roadsafety/advicean dinformation/highway /20-mph-zones.aspx Nick Brighton
  • Score: -4

8:13pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Nick Brighton says...

thevoiceoftruth wrote:
I rarely see anyone doing 20mph so not sure how collisions and casualties can be down. Where is the data? Please publish it - if it even exists!
http://www.rospa.com
/roadsafety/advicean
dinformation/highway
/20-mph-zones.aspx
[quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: I rarely see anyone doing 20mph so not sure how collisions and casualties can be down. Where is the data? Please publish it - if it even exists![/p][/quote]http://www.rospa.com /roadsafety/advicean dinformation/highway /20-mph-zones.aspx Nick Brighton
  • Score: -6

8:14pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Nick Brighton says...

Fight_Back wrote:
cynic_the wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
So the Greens spent £1.5m on phase one and despite their claims of speed decreases in the zone it is clear to anyone who drives through the zone 99% of drivers ignore the 20mph limit - complete waste of money.

Then then consult on the second zone and approve it BEFORE any real concrete data from the first zone.

Now they propose a third zone BEFORE any real concrete data from either the first zone of the second.

Thank god they're not scientists because data assessment is quite clearly a skill they do not possess.

I'll be voting no for Hangleton and will continue to ignore all the zones thank you.
That's the cost of the whole project, all three phases. It's well worth it to save lives and reduce injuries.

There's plenty of evidence from improved accident stats in other places that have implemented 20mph. Initial monitoring from phase one shows a 16-20% reduction in collisions and casualties so it seems to be working as planned.
Publish the figures then. For pre and post implementation, including the control group.

Ah, you don't work like that do you?
They don't have that data - or at least they don't have properly authorised and measured data rather than just Green propaganda data.

Note how Eugenius uses "improved accident stats in OTHER PLACES" - as I said data collection, management and assessment isn't a Green strong point.
http://www.rospa.com
/roadsafety/advicean
dinformation/highway
/20-mph-zones.aspx
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cynic_the[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: So the Greens spent £1.5m on phase one and despite their claims of speed decreases in the zone it is clear to anyone who drives through the zone 99% of drivers ignore the 20mph limit - complete waste of money. Then then consult on the second zone and approve it BEFORE any real concrete data from the first zone. Now they propose a third zone BEFORE any real concrete data from either the first zone of the second. Thank god they're not scientists because data assessment is quite clearly a skill they do not possess. I'll be voting no for Hangleton and will continue to ignore all the zones thank you.[/p][/quote]That's the cost of the whole project, all three phases. It's well worth it to save lives and reduce injuries. There's plenty of evidence from improved accident stats in other places that have implemented 20mph. Initial monitoring from phase one shows a 16-20% reduction in collisions and casualties so it seems to be working as planned.[/p][/quote]Publish the figures then. For pre and post implementation, including the control group. Ah, you don't work like that do you?[/p][/quote]They don't have that data - or at least they don't have properly authorised and measured data rather than just Green propaganda data. Note how Eugenius uses "improved accident stats in OTHER PLACES" - as I said data collection, management and assessment isn't a Green strong point.[/p][/quote]http://www.rospa.com /roadsafety/advicean dinformation/highway /20-mph-zones.aspx Nick Brighton
  • Score: -6

8:32pm Wed 12 Mar 14

p a t r i c k says...

I am very pleased that the 20 mph zone is to be extended. However I want the 20 mph limit to be properly enforced.

The streets of Brighton & Hove are greatly improved with the speed limit but too many drivers ignore it.

These speeding drivers are selfish and dangerous to other road users. If you are a pedestrian or a cyclist and one of these speeding cars drives into you then you will be injured more severely if they are exceeding 20 mph.
I am very pleased that the 20 mph zone is to be extended. However I want the 20 mph limit to be properly enforced. The streets of Brighton & Hove are greatly improved with the speed limit but too many drivers ignore it. These speeding drivers are selfish and dangerous to other road users. If you are a pedestrian or a cyclist and one of these speeding cars drives into you then you will be injured more severely if they are exceeding 20 mph. p a t r i c k
  • Score: -25

8:36pm Wed 12 Mar 14

p a t r i c k says...

brightonaire wrote:
It's the labour party as well that have voted through these daft schemes... voters should remember that it's not just the greens who are effing everything up
Well done to the Labour party.
[quote][p][bold]brightonaire[/bold] wrote: It's the labour party as well that have voted through these daft schemes... voters should remember that it's not just the greens who are effing everything up[/p][/quote]Well done to the Labour party. p a t r i c k
  • Score: -12

8:36pm Wed 12 Mar 14

thevoiceoftruth says...

Nick Brighton wrote:
thevoiceoftruth wrote:
I rarely see anyone doing 20mph so not sure how collisions and casualties can be down. Where is the data? Please publish it - if it even exists!
http://www.rospa.com

/roadsafety/advicean

dinformation/highway

/20-mph-zones.aspx
The data for Brighton before and after these changes, Nick. This is dated 2012. Also the research you have quoted clearly states that 20mph speed limits (rather than zones) are less effective. Bristol shows a 1.4mph - 1.7mph drop in speed. Hardly significant. It also clearly states that 20mph speed limits (eg just signage) are most appropriate on roads where speeds are already low. So what you are showing us here is a load of research on speed humps and traffic calming measures being effective in other places. That is not what the council are proposing.
[quote][p][bold]Nick Brighton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: I rarely see anyone doing 20mph so not sure how collisions and casualties can be down. Where is the data? Please publish it - if it even exists![/p][/quote]http://www.rospa.com /roadsafety/advicean dinformation/highway /20-mph-zones.aspx[/p][/quote]The data for Brighton before and after these changes, Nick. This is dated 2012. Also the research you have quoted clearly states that 20mph speed limits (rather than zones) are less effective. Bristol shows a 1.4mph - 1.7mph drop in speed. Hardly significant. It also clearly states that 20mph speed limits (eg just signage) are most appropriate on roads where speeds are already low. So what you are showing us here is a load of research on speed humps and traffic calming measures being effective in other places. That is not what the council are proposing. thevoiceoftruth
  • Score: 8

8:41pm Wed 12 Mar 14

p a t r i c k says...

Zamora25 wrote:
How long until the Greens are voted out? £1.5m spent on unenforceable vanity project and they have the cheek to claim that council tax needed to go up by 4.5% having wasted millions on expensive vanity projects. Get the Greens out now! Can we the public not propose a vote of no confidence and get them chucked out early?
The 20 mph limits are an excellent thing. A great benefit for Brighton & Hove. The streets are now a bit more friendly for pedestrians and cyclists.

It would be better still if these 20 mph limits were properly enforced.
[quote][p][bold]Zamora25[/bold] wrote: How long until the Greens are voted out? £1.5m spent on unenforceable vanity project and they have the cheek to claim that council tax needed to go up by 4.5% having wasted millions on expensive vanity projects. Get the Greens out now! Can we the public not propose a vote of no confidence and get them chucked out early?[/p][/quote]The 20 mph limits are an excellent thing. A great benefit for Brighton & Hove. The streets are now a bit more friendly for pedestrians and cyclists. It would be better still if these 20 mph limits were properly enforced. p a t r i c k
  • Score: -16

8:54pm Wed 12 Mar 14

PorkyChopper says...

Their karma will run over their dogma.
Their karma will run over their dogma. PorkyChopper
  • Score: 8

8:58pm Wed 12 Mar 14

DCCCCCC says...

Eugenius wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
So the Greens spent £1.5m on phase one and despite their claims of speed decreases in the zone it is clear to anyone who drives through the zone 99% of drivers ignore the 20mph limit - complete waste of money.

Then then consult on the second zone and approve it BEFORE any real concrete data from the first zone.

Now they propose a third zone BEFORE any real concrete data from either the first zone of the second.

Thank god they're not scientists because data assessment is quite clearly a skill they do not possess.

I'll be voting no for Hangleton and will continue to ignore all the zones thank you.
That's the cost of the whole project, all three phases. It's well worth it to save lives and reduce injuries.

There's plenty of evidence from improved accident stats in other places that have implemented 20mph. Initial monitoring from phase one shows a 16-20% reduction in collisions and casualties so it seems to be working as planned.
And you can see by the number of negative votes you have received re your comment that very few people are in favour of these ridiculous speed limits.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: So the Greens spent £1.5m on phase one and despite their claims of speed decreases in the zone it is clear to anyone who drives through the zone 99% of drivers ignore the 20mph limit - complete waste of money. Then then consult on the second zone and approve it BEFORE any real concrete data from the first zone. Now they propose a third zone BEFORE any real concrete data from either the first zone of the second. Thank god they're not scientists because data assessment is quite clearly a skill they do not possess. I'll be voting no for Hangleton and will continue to ignore all the zones thank you.[/p][/quote]That's the cost of the whole project, all three phases. It's well worth it to save lives and reduce injuries. There's plenty of evidence from improved accident stats in other places that have implemented 20mph. Initial monitoring from phase one shows a 16-20% reduction in collisions and casualties so it seems to be working as planned.[/p][/quote]And you can see by the number of negative votes you have received re your comment that very few people are in favour of these ridiculous speed limits. DCCCCCC
  • Score: 11

9:10pm Wed 12 Mar 14

DCCCCCC says...

ronrostog wrote:
Around schools etc, yay, everywhere else, nay. So do what most do, be sensible around obvious places and the rest of the time just ignore the signs. Just a shame the greens love implementing lights at pedestrian crossings etc to change at inappropriate times. Still, get out early enough and you can whizz around Brighton and Hove quite happily until the mother's come out to drive their brats a couple of hundred yards to the local learning establishment.
Well said. On my way to work every morning (and yes I have to use my car for work), I reckon 80% of cars that I pass are parents driving their senior aged kids to school. Very very sad. No, I ignore and will continue to ignore these ridiculous 20mph limits except around schools.
[quote][p][bold]ronrostog[/bold] wrote: Around schools etc, yay, everywhere else, nay. So do what most do, be sensible around obvious places and the rest of the time just ignore the signs. Just a shame the greens love implementing lights at pedestrian crossings etc to change at inappropriate times. Still, get out early enough and you can whizz around Brighton and Hove quite happily until the mother's come out to drive their brats a couple of hundred yards to the local learning establishment.[/p][/quote]Well said. On my way to work every morning (and yes I have to use my car for work), I reckon 80% of cars that I pass are parents driving their senior aged kids to school. Very very sad. No, I ignore and will continue to ignore these ridiculous 20mph limits except around schools. DCCCCCC
  • Score: 15

9:13pm Wed 12 Mar 14

DCCCCCC says...

p a t r i c k wrote:
Zamora25 wrote:
How long until the Greens are voted out? £1.5m spent on unenforceable vanity project and they have the cheek to claim that council tax needed to go up by 4.5% having wasted millions on expensive vanity projects. Get the Greens out now! Can we the public not propose a vote of no confidence and get them chucked out early?
The 20 mph limits are an excellent thing. A great benefit for Brighton & Hove. The streets are now a bit more friendly for pedestrians and cyclists.

It would be better still if these 20 mph limits were properly enforced.
Friendlier for pedestrians but not for car drivers. I have seen too many road rage incidents since these ridiculous 20mph zones have been introduced.
[quote][p][bold]p a t r i c k[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zamora25[/bold] wrote: How long until the Greens are voted out? £1.5m spent on unenforceable vanity project and they have the cheek to claim that council tax needed to go up by 4.5% having wasted millions on expensive vanity projects. Get the Greens out now! Can we the public not propose a vote of no confidence and get them chucked out early?[/p][/quote]The 20 mph limits are an excellent thing. A great benefit for Brighton & Hove. The streets are now a bit more friendly for pedestrians and cyclists. It would be better still if these 20 mph limits were properly enforced.[/p][/quote]Friendlier for pedestrians but not for car drivers. I have seen too many road rage incidents since these ridiculous 20mph zones have been introduced. DCCCCCC
  • Score: 14

9:16pm Wed 12 Mar 14

DCCCCCC says...

p a t r i c k wrote:
I am very pleased that the 20 mph zone is to be extended. However I want the 20 mph limit to be properly enforced.

The streets of Brighton & Hove are greatly improved with the speed limit but too many drivers ignore it.

These speeding drivers are selfish and dangerous to other road users. If you are a pedestrian or a cyclist and one of these speeding cars drives into you then you will be injured more severely if they are exceeding 20 mph.
And how likely in all honesty is that going to happen? This is risk assessment gone mad!
[quote][p][bold]p a t r i c k[/bold] wrote: I am very pleased that the 20 mph zone is to be extended. However I want the 20 mph limit to be properly enforced. The streets of Brighton & Hove are greatly improved with the speed limit but too many drivers ignore it. These speeding drivers are selfish and dangerous to other road users. If you are a pedestrian or a cyclist and one of these speeding cars drives into you then you will be injured more severely if they are exceeding 20 mph.[/p][/quote]And how likely in all honesty is that going to happen? This is risk assessment gone mad! DCCCCCC
  • Score: 7

9:27pm Wed 12 Mar 14

DCCCCCC says...

Slow drivers cause the most frustration
Motorists call for 'slow-speed cameras' to crack down on dawdlers who cause other drivers to attempt risky overtaking manoeuvres.

Just read this, A Telegraph heading from 2011. I wonder if the number of people suffering strokes has risen since the stupid 20mph limits have been introduced?
Slow drivers cause the most frustration Motorists call for 'slow-speed cameras' to crack down on dawdlers who cause other drivers to attempt risky overtaking manoeuvres. Just read this, A Telegraph heading from 2011. I wonder if the number of people suffering strokes has risen since the stupid 20mph limits have been introduced? DCCCCCC
  • Score: 9

9:31pm Wed 12 Mar 14

xlaughingx says...

To be fair I drive slowly anyway - to avoid the zillions of pot holes that are yet to be fixed. The cyclists often zoom past me- how are they going to know what 20 mph looks like? (surely that's only third gear!)
To be fair I drive slowly anyway - to avoid the zillions of pot holes that are yet to be fixed. The cyclists often zoom past me- how are they going to know what 20 mph looks like? (surely that's only third gear!) xlaughingx
  • Score: 11

11:30pm Wed 12 Mar 14

ARMANA says...

kopite_rob wrote:
Isn't Rottingdean already 20mph?
Na, its 40mph, Early mornings,
[quote][p][bold]kopite_rob[/bold] wrote: Isn't Rottingdean already 20mph?[/p][/quote]Na, its 40mph, Early mornings, ARMANA
  • Score: 2

12:13am Thu 13 Mar 14

roystony says...

thevoiceoftruth wrote:
I rarely see anyone doing 20mph so not sure how collisions and casualties can be down. Where is the data? Please publish it - if it even exists!
I'm sure they can make something up like the rest of their data
[quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: I rarely see anyone doing 20mph so not sure how collisions and casualties can be down. Where is the data? Please publish it - if it even exists![/p][/quote]I'm sure they can make something up like the rest of their data roystony
  • Score: 6

12:35am Thu 13 Mar 14

In the sticks says...

I llke the idea : As an outsider who comes into Brighton regularly to work it makes driving less stressful and safer.

You know you;re still going to get to your destination, you're normally crawling along at 5mph anyway, the only time you might hit 30 is if you're at the front of a queue at the traffic lights and the lights go green.

To put some relevance to my being able to comment I lived and worked in Brighton for 20+ years so know what a PITA it is getting about.

At 20mph you're less pressured and you know if there are any incidents there'll be less damage.
I llke the idea : As an outsider who comes into Brighton regularly to work it makes driving less stressful and safer. You know you;re still going to get to your destination, you're normally crawling along at 5mph anyway, the only time you might hit 30 is if you're at the front of a queue at the traffic lights and the lights go green. To put some relevance to my being able to comment I lived and worked in Brighton for 20+ years so know what a PITA it is getting about. At 20mph you're less pressured and you know if there are any incidents there'll be less damage. In the sticks
  • Score: -9

8:08am Thu 13 Mar 14

Phani Tikkala says...

Ohhhhh I so can't wait to see all these green idiots, sorry "councillors", getting the boot in 2015 (if not before) and having to come to people like us to get jobs.

Who on earth would hire any of these people?

Oh the pleasure of seeing Kitkat and his chums sitting in traffic jams they've created as they try to commute to find work….
Ohhhhh I so can't wait to see all these green idiots, sorry "councillors", getting the boot in 2015 (if not before) and having to come to people like us to get jobs. Who on earth would hire any of these people? Oh the pleasure of seeing Kitkat and his chums sitting in traffic jams they've created as they try to commute to find work…. Phani Tikkala
  • Score: 7

11:55am Thu 13 Mar 14

Richada says...

Phani Tikkala wrote:
Ohhhhh I so can't wait to see all these green idiots, sorry "councillors", getting the boot in 2015 (if not before) and having to come to people like us to get jobs.

Who on earth would hire any of these people?

Oh the pleasure of seeing Kitkat and his chums sitting in traffic jams they've created as they try to commute to find work….
No, you've got that slightly wrong - they're going to leave Brighton in "disgust" after being voted out "after all we've done for you".

I agree, we wouldn't employ these people, irresponsible and disorganised, unable to communicate with their colleagues, blatantly disrespectful, or ignoring altogether, their customers.......

......never mind, we'll have some more 20 signs to remember them by very soon in a street near us.......

.......and an all too inappropriate single fingered monument on the Sea Front!
[quote][p][bold]Phani Tikkala[/bold] wrote: Ohhhhh I so can't wait to see all these green idiots, sorry "councillors", getting the boot in 2015 (if not before) and having to come to people like us to get jobs. Who on earth would hire any of these people? Oh the pleasure of seeing Kitkat and his chums sitting in traffic jams they've created as they try to commute to find work….[/p][/quote]No, you've got that slightly wrong - they're going to leave Brighton in "disgust" after being voted out "after all we've done for you". I agree, we wouldn't employ these people, irresponsible and disorganised, unable to communicate with their colleagues, blatantly disrespectful, or ignoring altogether, their customers....... ......never mind, we'll have some more 20 signs to remember them by very soon in a street near us....... .......and an all too inappropriate single fingered monument on the Sea Front! Richada
  • Score: 3

3:57pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Joshiman says...

Withdean-er wrote:
Joshiman wrote:
Ahhh that means the A259 will get even worse.Sorry but since the Greens took over, the A 259 from the Marina to Peacehaven has become a nightmare car journey.It was already getting worse before them.However
they have increased traffic lights.(Stop start of course.)The new Led lights not fit for purpose .The junction at the Garage and the Thai Elephant is now a bottle neck..Surely we must have more qualified traffic control engineers/planners somewhere.
You may need to check some of your facts:
Some of the areas you mention are a long way from the Greens controlled B&HCC, but more importantly the traffic jams on the A259, there for decades, became a complete nightmare once a previous B&HCC/ESCC jointly brought in the bus lanes in 2008 between Rottingdean mini golf course and Peacehaven, and so cannot be pinned on the Greens who have led BHCC since 2011. The Greens may have done some stupid things, but can't be singularly blamed for the Rottingdean jams.
Facts checked.The Greens have definately made it worse.I have been using this road for 13 years and yes we started to get problems when the bus lanes were introduced but now its unbearable.Some very angry and frustrated drivers out there
[quote][p][bold]Withdean-er[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joshiman[/bold] wrote: Ahhh that means the A259 will get even worse.Sorry but since the Greens took over, the A 259 from the Marina to Peacehaven has become a nightmare car journey.It was already getting worse before them.However they have increased traffic lights.(Stop start of course.)The new Led lights not fit for purpose .The junction at the Garage and the Thai Elephant is now a bottle neck..Surely we must have more qualified traffic control engineers/planners somewhere.[/p][/quote]You may need to check some of your facts: Some of the areas you mention are a long way from the Greens controlled B&HCC, but more importantly the traffic jams on the A259, there for decades, became a complete nightmare once a previous B&HCC/ESCC jointly brought in the bus lanes in 2008 between Rottingdean mini golf course and Peacehaven, and so cannot be pinned on the Greens who have led BHCC since 2011. The Greens may have done some stupid things, but can't be singularly blamed for the Rottingdean jams.[/p][/quote]Facts checked.The Greens have definately made it worse.I have been using this road for 13 years and yes we started to get problems when the bus lanes were introduced but now its unbearable.Some very angry and frustrated drivers out there Joshiman
  • Score: 4

11:09pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Juleyanne says...

Once again I ask to a mainly selfish readership ........ what about the animals - the pets the wildlife. Speeding idiots are a risk to everyone and to our pets and wildlife too. So many dogs and cats get killed and in spring foxes, badgers, squirrels and hedgehogs and gulls are victims of peddle happy idiots.
Once again I ask to a mainly selfish readership ........ what about the animals - the pets the wildlife. Speeding idiots are a risk to everyone and to our pets and wildlife too. So many dogs and cats get killed and in spring foxes, badgers, squirrels and hedgehogs and gulls are victims of peddle happy idiots. Juleyanne
  • Score: -6

11:24pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Juleyanne says...

DCCC's insensitive comments relating to Strokes to try and add substance to his witterings is disgusting. Many families have loved ones who have Strokes and others have lost family members to a catastrophic stroke. I too have recent experience of this and find his casual thoughtless offensive.
DCCC's insensitive comments relating to Strokes to try and add substance to his witterings is disgusting. Many families have loved ones who have Strokes and others have lost family members to a catastrophic stroke. I too have recent experience of this and find his casual thoughtless offensive. Juleyanne
  • Score: -3

4:58pm Fri 14 Mar 14

DCCCCCC says...

Juleyanne wrote:
DCCC's insensitive comments relating to Strokes to try and add substance to his witterings is disgusting. Many families have loved ones who have Strokes and others have lost family members to a catastrophic stroke. I too have recent experience of this and find his casual thoughtless offensive.
Then you would know that stress can be a causal factor!
[quote][p][bold]Juleyanne[/bold] wrote: DCCC's insensitive comments relating to Strokes to try and add substance to his witterings is disgusting. Many families have loved ones who have Strokes and others have lost family members to a catastrophic stroke. I too have recent experience of this and find his casual thoughtless offensive.[/p][/quote]Then you would know that stress can be a causal factor! DCCCCCC
  • Score: 4

5:18pm Fri 14 Mar 14

DCCCCCC says...

Juleyanne wrote:
Once again I ask to a mainly selfish readership ........ what about the animals - the pets the wildlife. Speeding idiots are a risk to everyone and to our pets and wildlife too. So many dogs and cats get killed and in spring foxes, badgers, squirrels and hedgehogs and gulls are victims of peddle happy idiots.
My dogs are kept on leads near roads. Most are. Wildlife will get killed no matter what speed people drive at. I squashed a hedgehog at 10 miles an hour once. I tried to swerve but it was too late. Many times I've seen cats lay in the road (alive). My sisters cat got hit by a reversing car that was crawling along. So, just because you are for the 20mph limit, leave us people who are anti them alone and find another forum to rant on!
[quote][p][bold]Juleyanne[/bold] wrote: Once again I ask to a mainly selfish readership ........ what about the animals - the pets the wildlife. Speeding idiots are a risk to everyone and to our pets and wildlife too. So many dogs and cats get killed and in spring foxes, badgers, squirrels and hedgehogs and gulls are victims of peddle happy idiots.[/p][/quote]My dogs are kept on leads near roads. Most are. Wildlife will get killed no matter what speed people drive at. I squashed a hedgehog at 10 miles an hour once. I tried to swerve but it was too late. Many times I've seen cats lay in the road (alive). My sisters cat got hit by a reversing car that was crawling along. So, just because you are for the 20mph limit, leave us people who are anti them alone and find another forum to rant on! DCCCCCC
  • Score: 3

10:20pm Sat 15 Mar 14

hubby says...

cynic_the wrote:
Mr Davey - I feel LESS SAFE on the street where I live, ever since the first wave of 20 limits caused the Police to admit they are no longer enforcing speed limits.

You take you life in your own hands crossing Montpelier Road these days, because half the vehicles are doing 20, whereas the taxis, vans and SUVs are still doing 40+

And your transport policy has no answer, does it?
Doncha just love Brighton.....and the UK in general?
Hardly worth having a car,or savings,or being a white honest taxpayer.
[quote][p][bold]cynic_the[/bold] wrote: Mr Davey - I feel LESS SAFE on the street where I live, ever since the first wave of 20 limits caused the Police to admit they are no longer enforcing speed limits. You take you life in your own hands crossing Montpelier Road these days, because half the vehicles are doing 20, whereas the taxis, vans and SUVs are still doing 40+ And your transport policy has no answer, does it?[/p][/quote]Doncha just love Brighton.....and the UK in general? Hardly worth having a car,or savings,or being a white honest taxpayer. hubby
  • Score: 3

10:59am Sun 16 Mar 14

Fairfax Aches says...

Juleyanne wrote:
Once again I ask to a mainly selfish readership ........ what about the animals - the pets the wildlife. Speeding idiots are a risk to everyone and to our pets and wildlife too. So many dogs and cats get killed and in spring foxes, badgers, squirrels and hedgehogs and gulls are victims of peddle happy idiots.
and what about the slugs, the snails, and countless billions of insects who die needlessly at the hands of these so called "drivers"??
[quote][p][bold]Juleyanne[/bold] wrote: Once again I ask to a mainly selfish readership ........ what about the animals - the pets the wildlife. Speeding idiots are a risk to everyone and to our pets and wildlife too. So many dogs and cats get killed and in spring foxes, badgers, squirrels and hedgehogs and gulls are victims of peddle happy idiots.[/p][/quote]and what about the slugs, the snails, and countless billions of insects who die needlessly at the hands of these so called "drivers"?? Fairfax Aches
  • Score: 3

3:40pm Sun 16 Mar 14

Nosfaratu says...

Sir Prised wrote:
This is just yet another example of penalising the majority, rather than tackling the real problem, the dangerous driver. Morality in this country has been turned on it's head where you get rewarded for giving up drugs, paid to give up smoking, paid to have a flu jab, allowed to camp on public parks if you cause enough grief, get housed if you have kids but don't feel like getting a job, get free school meals if you can't be a***d to cook, block up A&E if you can't be bothered to buy a pack of plasters, etc. etc. Keep your nose clean and pay your way and you're just seen as a cash-cow, to be treated like an idiot. Roll on the day when we have a politcal party who represents the grown ups.
Your not wrong. Our lives are being stifled by petty local government who are not looking at the big picture. Think ahead, build a motorway into brighton, knock several hectares of the city down and build a city that people can live in, a modern city, not the accumulated slums that represent most of the City centre.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Prised[/bold] wrote: This is just yet another example of penalising the majority, rather than tackling the real problem, the dangerous driver. Morality in this country has been turned on it's head where you get rewarded for giving up drugs, paid to give up smoking, paid to have a flu jab, allowed to camp on public parks if you cause enough grief, get housed if you have kids but don't feel like getting a job, get free school meals if you can't be a***d to cook, block up A&E if you can't be bothered to buy a pack of plasters, etc. etc. Keep your nose clean and pay your way and you're just seen as a cash-cow, to be treated like an idiot. Roll on the day when we have a politcal party who represents the grown ups.[/p][/quote]Your not wrong. Our lives are being stifled by petty local government who are not looking at the big picture. Think ahead, build a motorway into brighton, knock several hectares of the city down and build a city that people can live in, a modern city, not the accumulated slums that represent most of the City centre. Nosfaratu
  • Score: 2

3:43pm Sun 16 Mar 14

Nosfaratu says...

Thank God I live in a Lewes District Council area, we get our bins collected,as well as not having to put up with fringe politics.
Thank God I live in a Lewes District Council area, we get our bins collected,as well as not having to put up with fringe politics. Nosfaratu
  • Score: 5

7:18pm Sun 16 Mar 14

whatevernext2013 says...

Sir Prised wrote:
This is just yet another example of penalising the majority, rather than tackling the real problem, the dangerous driver. Morality in this country has been turned on it's head where you get rewarded for giving up drugs, paid to give up smoking, paid to have a flu jab, allowed to camp on public parks if you cause enough grief, get housed if you have kids but don't feel like getting a job, get free school meals if you can't be a***d to cook, block up A&E if you can't be bothered to buy a pack of plasters, etc. etc. Keep your nose clean and pay your way and you're just seen as a cash-cow, to be treated like an idiot. Roll on the day when we have a politcal party who represents the grown ups.
pmsl is there such a party and if so what s it called ,just remember that the seats held by labour/tories out number the greens and if they were that concerned they could have blocked all this ,but instead of doing so they just sit back and score points ,there s not a decent one among them
[quote][p][bold]Sir Prised[/bold] wrote: This is just yet another example of penalising the majority, rather than tackling the real problem, the dangerous driver. Morality in this country has been turned on it's head where you get rewarded for giving up drugs, paid to give up smoking, paid to have a flu jab, allowed to camp on public parks if you cause enough grief, get housed if you have kids but don't feel like getting a job, get free school meals if you can't be a***d to cook, block up A&E if you can't be bothered to buy a pack of plasters, etc. etc. Keep your nose clean and pay your way and you're just seen as a cash-cow, to be treated like an idiot. Roll on the day when we have a politcal party who represents the grown ups.[/p][/quote]pmsl is there such a party and if so what s it called ,just remember that the seats held by labour/tories out number the greens and if they were that concerned they could have blocked all this ,but instead of doing so they just sit back and score points ,there s not a decent one among them whatevernext2013
  • Score: 3

9:37am Mon 17 Mar 14

spa301 says...

Longridge Avenue in Saltdean is the border between B&H council and Lewes.
If this speed limit comes in courtesy of the Greens, does that mean going north on the road will be 20mph and south 30 mph?
Longridge Avenue in Saltdean is the border between B&H council and Lewes. If this speed limit comes in courtesy of the Greens, does that mean going north on the road will be 20mph and south 30 mph? spa301
  • Score: 0

12:17pm Mon 17 Mar 14

Skidrow says...

Nosfaratu says...

Thank God I live in a Lewes District Council area, we get our bins collected,as well as not having to put up with fringe politics.

Remind me about your UKIP councillor?
Nosfaratu says... Thank God I live in a Lewes District Council area, we get our bins collected,as well as not having to put up with fringe politics. Remind me about your UKIP councillor? Skidrow
  • Score: 2

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