The ArgusSecond phase of 20mph speed limits rolled out (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

Second phase of 20mph speed limits rolled out

The Argus: Map of phase two, roads marked in blue will be see speed limits reduced to 20mph. Map of phase two, roads marked in blue will be see speed limits reduced to 20mph.

The second phase of a 20mph speed limit will be rolled out in Brighton and Hove today as part of the council’s campaign for safer streets.

Legally enforceable 20mph speed limits will now be in force across large stretches of the city, in a follow-up to the initial roll- out last April.

New signposts and road markings will be in place. The changes will be enforced in areas such as Preston Park, Portslade, Whitehawk, Moulsecoomb and Coldean.

Lead councillor for transport Ian Davey said: “We’ve seen traffic speeds fall and fewer colli- sions and serious injuries where we’ve introduced lower speed limits in the past.

“With this second phase we are continuing to introduce slower traffic speeds where peo- ple said they wanted them.

“Within a few years slower speeds and other road safety measures will have helped make
Brighton and Hove a safer, more peaceful and pleasant place to live, work and visit.”

Council statistics from the first phase of speed limits intro- duced to the city centre in 2013 has shown a decrease in traffic speeds on 74% of roads – the number and severity of collisions and casualties have also fallen in the zones.

Chris Todd, from Brighton and Hove Friends of the Earth said: “I think the first phase has been a success in raising awareness, while not everyone is obeying the speed limits I think speeds have definitely decreased.

“It is not about slowing people down for the sake of it, if you drive at speed it can be quite threatening to other road users.”

He added the decrease in speed on the road will help create a more “social” as well as a
safer environment for both road users and pedestrians in particular children and the elderly.

Steve Percy, of the People’s Parking Protest, said he believed the scheme is unnecessary.

He said: “Most roads are so narrow and the traffic moves so slowly anyway you cannot get past 20mph.

“The speed limits in the city were already self regulating, so why are we spending money putting up signs and on a scheme.

"It is mostly the motorists money in the transport fund so money should be spent a scheme to benefit the motorists rather than wasted on making it more difficult.”

Tony Green, from Bricycles, the Brighton and Hove Cycling Campaign, said: “I think it is a very good idea and we fully sup- port and are looking forward to it.

“Phase one has reduced speeds but it is not something that will be accepted immediately, it is a learning process.”

Comments (132)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:57am Mon 16 Jun 14

RottingdeanRant says...

Quote 'Chris Todd, from Brighton and Hove Friends of the Earth said: “I think the first phase has been a success in raising awareness, while not everyone is obeying the speed limits I think speeds have definitely decreased.’

When I drive around EVERYBODY seems to be ignoring the 20 mph limits so I can’t believe that there is any measurable effect that can be attributed to these limits.
Quote 'Chris Todd, from Brighton and Hove Friends of the Earth said: “I think the first phase has been a success in raising awareness, while not everyone is obeying the speed limits I think speeds have definitely decreased.’ When I drive around EVERYBODY seems to be ignoring the 20 mph limits so I can’t believe that there is any measurable effect that can be attributed to these limits. RottingdeanRant
  • Score: 133

8:57am Mon 16 Jun 14

cleggalike says...

Really good news. The evidence from phase one is positive and this will make Brighton a safer and more pleasant place for us all.
Really good news. The evidence from phase one is positive and this will make Brighton a safer and more pleasant place for us all. cleggalike
  • Score: -182

8:57am Mon 16 Jun 14

cleggalike says...

RottingdeanRant wrote:
Quote 'Chris Todd, from Brighton and Hove Friends of the Earth said: “I think the first phase has been a success in raising awareness, while not everyone is obeying the speed limits I think speeds have definitely decreased.’

When I drive around EVERYBODY seems to be ignoring the 20 mph limits so I can’t believe that there is any measurable effect that can be attributed to these limits.
Everybody isn't. I'm not.
[quote][p][bold]RottingdeanRant[/bold] wrote: Quote 'Chris Todd, from Brighton and Hove Friends of the Earth said: “I think the first phase has been a success in raising awareness, while not everyone is obeying the speed limits I think speeds have definitely decreased.’ When I drive around EVERYBODY seems to be ignoring the 20 mph limits so I can’t believe that there is any measurable effect that can be attributed to these limits.[/p][/quote]Everybody isn't. I'm not. cleggalike
  • Score: -105

9:06am Mon 16 Jun 14

rolivan says...

Meanwhile down in the valleys of the London and Lewes Rds People will be breathing in the beautiful air that will descend there.
Meanwhile down in the valleys of the London and Lewes Rds People will be breathing in the beautiful air that will descend there. rolivan
  • Score: 67

9:12am Mon 16 Jun 14

Andy R says...

In anticipation of the fact that sooner or later someone will claim that 20mph limits have been "scientitically proved" to increase pollution, here's the truth -

Research in Germany has shown that the greater the speed of vehicles in built-up areas, the higher is the incidence of acceleration, deceleration, and braking, all of which increase air pollution. German research indicates that traffic calming reduces idle times by 15%, gear changing by 12%, brake use by 14%, and gasoline use by 12% (Newman and Kenworthy 1992, 39–40). This slower and calmer style of driving reduces emissions, as demonstrated by an evaluation in Buxtehude, Germany.
In anticipation of the fact that sooner or later someone will claim that 20mph limits have been "scientitically proved" to increase pollution, here's the truth - Research in Germany has shown that the greater the speed of vehicles in built-up areas, the higher is the incidence of acceleration, deceleration, and braking, all of which increase air pollution. German research indicates that traffic calming reduces idle times by 15%, gear changing by 12%, brake use by 14%, and gasoline use by 12% (Newman and Kenworthy 1992, 39–40). This slower and calmer style of driving reduces emissions, as demonstrated by an evaluation in Buxtehude, Germany. Andy R
  • Score: -72

9:23am Mon 16 Jun 14

J_Brightonandhove says...

Regardless of anything the Green party says: -

1. It is ignored by 95% of the people in Brighton, including bus drivers, police cars.

2. Jason Kitcat said he can't allow free parking on a Sunday because of the cost of changing signs a significant reason yet it's perfectly acceptable to plaster the city with '20' signs on posts and roads of every street in Brighton & Hove costing a fortune

3. Proven evidence undertaken by the AA proved it increased pollution by just over 10%

4. Fact - Driving in a lower gear INCREASES emissions. No matter what the Green party say, they can't deny this.
Regardless of anything the Green party says: - 1. It is ignored by 95% of the people in Brighton, including bus drivers, police cars. 2. Jason Kitcat said he can't allow free parking on a Sunday because of the cost of changing signs a significant reason yet it's perfectly acceptable to plaster the city with '20' signs on posts and roads of every street in Brighton & Hove costing a fortune 3. Proven evidence undertaken by the AA proved it increased pollution by just over 10% 4. Fact - Driving in a lower gear INCREASES emissions. No matter what the Green party say, they can't deny this. J_Brightonandhove
  • Score: 159

9:37am Mon 16 Jun 14

Phani Tikkala says...

Davey says he's seen traffic speeds fall since the 20mph. Any fule kno that this is more a result of cutting dual carriageways to single carriageways, bus build outs, etc.

Of course as well as lower traffic speeds, we're seeing fewer visitors, less people going into town, businesses suffering, congestion increasing and pollution increasing.

Oh if only they'd waited for a proper assessment of whether a) phase 1 worked and b) whether there was a better use for the money (there was) then the greens wouldn't look quite so much like ideological marxists.

Roll on May 2015 and the greens will be history for ever.
Davey says he's seen traffic speeds fall since the 20mph. Any fule kno that this is more a result of cutting dual carriageways to single carriageways, bus build outs, etc. Of course as well as lower traffic speeds, we're seeing fewer visitors, less people going into town, businesses suffering, congestion increasing and pollution increasing. Oh if only they'd waited for a proper assessment of whether a) phase 1 worked and b) whether there was a better use for the money (there was) then the greens wouldn't look quite so much like ideological marxists. Roll on May 2015 and the greens will be history for ever. Phani Tikkala
  • Score: 116

9:38am Mon 16 Jun 14

Andy R says...

J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Regardless of anything the Green party says: -

1. It is ignored by 95% of the people in Brighton, including bus drivers, police cars.

2. Jason Kitcat said he can't allow free parking on a Sunday because of the cost of changing signs a significant reason yet it's perfectly acceptable to plaster the city with '20' signs on posts and roads of every street in Brighton & Hove costing a fortune

3. Proven evidence undertaken by the AA proved it increased pollution by just over 10%

4. Fact - Driving in a lower gear INCREASES emissions. No matter what the Green party say, they can't deny this.
No it doesn't. You need to look at the overall impact on emissions of slower driving in built-up areas.
[quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: Regardless of anything the Green party says: - 1. It is ignored by 95% of the people in Brighton, including bus drivers, police cars. 2. Jason Kitcat said he can't allow free parking on a Sunday because of the cost of changing signs a significant reason yet it's perfectly acceptable to plaster the city with '20' signs on posts and roads of every street in Brighton & Hove costing a fortune 3. Proven evidence undertaken by the AA proved it increased pollution by just over 10% 4. Fact - Driving in a lower gear INCREASES emissions. No matter what the Green party say, they can't deny this.[/p][/quote]No it doesn't. You need to look at the overall impact on emissions of slower driving in built-up areas. Andy R
  • Score: -104

9:43am Mon 16 Jun 14

BURIRAM says...

More pollution as everyone drives slower, less time to spend with your family, longer journeys to work on the bus, cars on the road for longer as journey times increase, if it makes it safer to drive than more people will take up driving so more cars on the road. Harder to cross the roads as it will take more time for the cars to pass by. Just some of the advantages.
More pollution as everyone drives slower, less time to spend with your family, longer journeys to work on the bus, cars on the road for longer as journey times increase, if it makes it safer to drive than more people will take up driving so more cars on the road. Harder to cross the roads as it will take more time for the cars to pass by. Just some of the advantages. BURIRAM
  • Score: 66

9:50am Mon 16 Jun 14

J_Brightonandhove says...

Andy R wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote: Regardless of anything the Green party says: - 1. It is ignored by 95% of the people in Brighton, including bus drivers, police cars. 2. Jason Kitcat said he can't allow free parking on a Sunday because of the cost of changing signs a significant reason yet it's perfectly acceptable to plaster the city with '20' signs on posts and roads of every street in Brighton & Hove costing a fortune 3. Proven evidence undertaken by the AA proved it increased pollution by just over 10% 4. Fact - Driving in a lower gear INCREASES emissions. No matter what the Green party say, they can't deny this.
No it doesn't. You need to look at the overall impact on emissions of slower driving in built-up areas.
Please don't insult the intelligence of everyone on here and claim that driving in a lower gear reduces emissions because it doesn't. We're not stupid and the fact you're even trying to argue this point shows the immature, pathetic attitude of the Green party in that no matter what science, public opinion or evidence say's, you're right and we're all wrong.

Driving in a lower gear INCREASES emissions - FACT (just incase you mis-read my first point)
[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: Regardless of anything the Green party says: - 1. It is ignored by 95% of the people in Brighton, including bus drivers, police cars. 2. Jason Kitcat said he can't allow free parking on a Sunday because of the cost of changing signs a significant reason yet it's perfectly acceptable to plaster the city with '20' signs on posts and roads of every street in Brighton & Hove costing a fortune 3. Proven evidence undertaken by the AA proved it increased pollution by just over 10% 4. Fact - Driving in a lower gear INCREASES emissions. No matter what the Green party say, they can't deny this.[/p][/quote]No it doesn't. You need to look at the overall impact on emissions of slower driving in built-up areas.[/p][/quote]Please don't insult the intelligence of everyone on here and claim that driving in a lower gear reduces emissions because it doesn't. We're not stupid and the fact you're even trying to argue this point shows the immature, pathetic attitude of the Green party in that no matter what science, public opinion or evidence say's, you're right and we're all wrong. Driving in a lower gear INCREASES emissions - FACT (just incase you mis-read my first point) J_Brightonandhove
  • Score: 101

10:07am Mon 16 Jun 14

Fight_Back says...

cleggalike wrote:
RottingdeanRant wrote:
Quote 'Chris Todd, from Brighton and Hove Friends of the Earth said: “I think the first phase has been a success in raising awareness, while not everyone is obeying the speed limits I think speeds have definitely decreased.’

When I drive around EVERYBODY seems to be ignoring the 20 mph limits so I can’t believe that there is any measurable effect that can be attributed to these limits.
Everybody isn't. I'm not.
You're in a minority then. I drive through various parts of of the phase one zones every day and virtually everyone ignores it including buses, taxis, police and ...... me.
[quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RottingdeanRant[/bold] wrote: Quote 'Chris Todd, from Brighton and Hove Friends of the Earth said: “I think the first phase has been a success in raising awareness, while not everyone is obeying the speed limits I think speeds have definitely decreased.’ When I drive around EVERYBODY seems to be ignoring the 20 mph limits so I can’t believe that there is any measurable effect that can be attributed to these limits.[/p][/quote]Everybody isn't. I'm not.[/p][/quote]You're in a minority then. I drive through various parts of of the phase one zones every day and virtually everyone ignores it including buses, taxis, police and ...... me. Fight_Back
  • Score: 98

10:29am Mon 16 Jun 14

PracticeNotTheories says...

Unfortunately, Andy R, your wonderful account of Buxtehyde, Germany is completely bogus. This is a city that has introduced a 'LEZ' or Low Emission Zone, which has outlawed polluting vehicles, and required replacement of public sector vehicles such as buses, refuse vehicles, and taxis. While they have slower speeds, this is not the cause of the reduction in emission.
Also, referencing 20 year-old 'research' against current new vehicle technologies where vehicles are setup to run significantly more efficiently (as opposed to AA research conducted last year) is a bit bogus.
In Brighton, there has been no discernible effect really on speed, except in areas that have severe bottlenecks, due to bus lanes, or changes in road layout. This cannot be taken into account as being due to the 20mph limit, as these bottlenecks would cause this slowdown anyway.
WIth respect to 'acceleration' causing more pollution, more than valid, however, bottlenecks are the biggest cause, which a general slowdown does not help with (why do you think London is introducing better flow on junctions?).
The vehicles that pollute the most are buses, and taxis, and they are driven with max acceleration most of the time moving in and out of these bottlenecks.
It would be interesting to put some telemetry systems into the cabs, and see how much they are taking note of the speed limits. From what I've seen (and has been mentioned), a number of cabs appear to use 40mph as their speed limit in the larger roads (and bus lanes allow them the space to overtake on the inside too... which is also illegal...)
So... a comprehensive own-goal for the Green Party...
Unfortunately, Andy R, your wonderful account of Buxtehyde, Germany is completely bogus. This is a city that has introduced a 'LEZ' or Low Emission Zone, which has outlawed polluting vehicles, and required replacement of public sector vehicles such as buses, refuse vehicles, and taxis. While they have slower speeds, this is not the cause of the reduction in emission. Also, referencing 20 year-old 'research' against current new vehicle technologies where vehicles are setup to run significantly more efficiently (as opposed to AA research conducted last year) is a bit bogus. In Brighton, there has been no discernible effect really on speed, except in areas that have severe bottlenecks, due to bus lanes, or changes in road layout. This cannot be taken into account as being due to the 20mph limit, as these bottlenecks would cause this slowdown anyway. WIth respect to 'acceleration' causing more pollution, more than valid, however, bottlenecks are the biggest cause, which a general slowdown does not help with (why do you think London is introducing better flow on junctions?). The vehicles that pollute the most are buses, and taxis, and they are driven with max acceleration most of the time moving in and out of these bottlenecks. It would be interesting to put some telemetry systems into the cabs, and see how much they are taking note of the speed limits. From what I've seen (and has been mentioned), a number of cabs appear to use 40mph as their speed limit in the larger roads (and bus lanes allow them the space to overtake on the inside too... which is also illegal...) So... a comprehensive own-goal for the Green Party... PracticeNotTheories
  • Score: 82

10:43am Mon 16 Jun 14

Eugenius says...

It's about road safety, not air pollution anyway. And the scheme which is being rolled-out today has cross-party backing. 20mph should not see an increase in pollution due to traffic flowing better instead of stop/start and if more people feel encouraged to cycle due to safer roads then there could be a small drop in car journeys that will benefit all road users.
It's about road safety, not air pollution anyway. And the scheme which is being rolled-out today has cross-party backing. 20mph should not see an increase in pollution due to traffic flowing better instead of stop/start and if more people feel encouraged to cycle due to safer roads then there could be a small drop in car journeys that will benefit all road users. Eugenius
  • Score: -82

11:19am Mon 16 Jun 14

rolivan says...

Eugenius wrote:
It's about road safety, not air pollution anyway. And the scheme which is being rolled-out today has cross-party backing. 20mph should not see an increase in pollution due to traffic flowing better instead of stop/start and if more people feel encouraged to cycle due to safer roads then there could be a small drop in car journeys that will benefit all road users.
So it is ok for people to have respiratory problems as long as they don't get run over . Have you walked down North St lately and inhaled those beautiful bus fumes or cycled alongside a bus or Taxi?
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: It's about road safety, not air pollution anyway. And the scheme which is being rolled-out today has cross-party backing. 20mph should not see an increase in pollution due to traffic flowing better instead of stop/start and if more people feel encouraged to cycle due to safer roads then there could be a small drop in car journeys that will benefit all road users.[/p][/quote]So it is ok for people to have respiratory problems as long as they don't get run over . Have you walked down North St lately and inhaled those beautiful bus fumes or cycled alongside a bus or Taxi? rolivan
  • Score: 65

11:20am Mon 16 Jun 14

PracticeNotTheories says...

Eugenius ... the Green Team put this in on the back of a reduction in pollution. There is proof that there is an increase in pollution. It's scientific, and done by a reputable organisation, rather than a political party with an agenda.
http://www.theaa.com
/public_affairs/news
/20mph-roads-emissio
ns.html

Unfortunately, there's too many naysayers who are always the ones who yell loudest, and too many people who just go along with what the law is, hence most problems in modern society.

Cycling is all well and good if you are capable, or roads allow it. Roadworks at the moment are making Eastern Road pretty scary if you're a cyclist, no matter what speed cars are going, but the frequency with which red-lights are ridden through, I'm not sure a speed limit has as much of an effect, as getting cyclists to obey the law.
Eugenius ... the Green Team put this in on the back of a reduction in pollution. There is proof that there is an increase in pollution. It's scientific, and done by a reputable organisation, rather than a political party with an agenda. http://www.theaa.com /public_affairs/news /20mph-roads-emissio ns.html Unfortunately, there's too many naysayers who are always the ones who yell loudest, and too many people who just go along with what the law is, hence most problems in modern society. Cycling is all well and good if you are capable, or roads allow it. Roadworks at the moment are making Eastern Road pretty scary if you're a cyclist, no matter what speed cars are going, but the frequency with which red-lights are ridden through, I'm not sure a speed limit has as much of an effect, as getting cyclists to obey the law. PracticeNotTheories
  • Score: 45

11:25am Mon 16 Jun 14

Gary1965 says...

I usually ignore 30mph speed limits anyway, so this stupid idea won't affect me in any way.
I usually ignore 30mph speed limits anyway, so this stupid idea won't affect me in any way. Gary1965
  • Score: 29

11:27am Mon 16 Jun 14

Uncle Ruckus (No Relation) says...

Counting down the days until the incompetent, incapable, spiteful and malicious 'snot' Green Party are kicked-out of Brighton
Counting down the days until the incompetent, incapable, spiteful and malicious 'snot' Green Party are kicked-out of Brighton Uncle Ruckus (No Relation)
  • Score: 79

11:28am Mon 16 Jun 14

stir up says...

you would expect the cyclists to think this is oK Perhaps there should also be 20mph limits fro cycle lanes the other day a group of cyclists went past me on the sea front at a hell of a rate shouting at people to get out of the way and several were outside the lane. We I called out to them all I got was two fingers and told to **** off
you would expect the cyclists to think this is oK Perhaps there should also be 20mph limits fro cycle lanes the other day a group of cyclists went past me on the sea front at a hell of a rate shouting at people to get out of the way and several were outside the lane. We I called out to them all I got was two fingers and told to **** off stir up
  • Score: 61

11:31am Mon 16 Jun 14

J_Brightonandhove says...

Eugenius wrote:
It's about road safety, not air pollution anyway. And the scheme which is being rolled-out today has cross-party backing. 20mph should not see an increase in pollution due to traffic flowing better instead of stop/start and if more people feel encouraged to cycle due to safer roads then there could be a small drop in car journeys that will benefit all road users.
Haha what an absolute joke. So it's now not about air pollution but when you were promoting it you lot KEPT quoting on numerous threads how good it was for the environment. You've changed your tune!

When will you get it in your head that cycle lanes DO NOT encourage cycling, hence why all the cycle lanes built are empty 90% of the time! And don't come back with 'evidence shows cycling increasing etc as the only evidence the city needs are the empty lanes every single day of the week.

We have an ageing population, mums with children, parents shopping, a pretty poor climate especially in Winter and hilly terrain, ALL of which are reasons why people don't cycle. You're never going to get families jump on their bike to do the local shop so why don't you just accept the factors above you can't change and stop making life on the roads a nightmare for drivers.

The constant branding of driving as 'petrolheads' and the concept that we all speed etc is ridiculous. The majority are careful, considerate drivers that don't need the likes of your absolutely loony party to tell us how we should travel.

Cross party support it may have, but the party brave enough to stand up for drivers and realise we're in the 21 Century is going to gain ALOT of votes.

Time you stopped spouting your rhetoric drivel and stop spinning what can't be spun. You've embarrassed yourself by saying it's not about air pollution - quite badly!
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: It's about road safety, not air pollution anyway. And the scheme which is being rolled-out today has cross-party backing. 20mph should not see an increase in pollution due to traffic flowing better instead of stop/start and if more people feel encouraged to cycle due to safer roads then there could be a small drop in car journeys that will benefit all road users.[/p][/quote]Haha what an absolute joke. So it's now not about air pollution but when you were promoting it you lot KEPT quoting on numerous threads how good it was for the environment. You've changed your tune! When will you get it in your head that cycle lanes DO NOT encourage cycling, hence why all the cycle lanes built are empty 90% of the time! And don't come back with 'evidence shows cycling increasing etc as the only evidence the city needs are the empty lanes every single day of the week. We have an ageing population, mums with children, parents shopping, a pretty poor climate especially in Winter and hilly terrain, ALL of which are reasons why people don't cycle. You're never going to get families jump on their bike to do the local shop so why don't you just accept the factors above you can't change and stop making life on the roads a nightmare for drivers. The constant branding of driving as 'petrolheads' and the concept that we all speed etc is ridiculous. The majority are careful, considerate drivers that don't need the likes of your absolutely loony party to tell us how we should travel. Cross party support it may have, but the party brave enough to stand up for drivers and realise we're in the 21 Century is going to gain ALOT of votes. Time you stopped spouting your rhetoric drivel and stop spinning what can't be spun. You've embarrassed yourself by saying it's not about air pollution - quite badly! J_Brightonandhove
  • Score: 65

11:31am Mon 16 Jun 14

tinxxx says...

I live in Manor Hill, Whitehawk and the amount of reckless drivers speeding round the bend/up the hill etc is ridiculous. Someone is going to get killed soon due to inconsiderate drivers blatantly ignoring the 20mph speed limit.
I live in Manor Hill, Whitehawk and the amount of reckless drivers speeding round the bend/up the hill etc is ridiculous. Someone is going to get killed soon due to inconsiderate drivers blatantly ignoring the 20mph speed limit. tinxxx
  • Score: -38

11:39am Mon 16 Jun 14

Tippy Toes says...

stir up wrote:
you would expect the cyclists to think this is oK Perhaps there should also be 20mph limits fro cycle lanes the other day a group of cyclists went past me on the sea front at a hell of a rate shouting at people to get out of the way and several were outside the lane. We I called out to them all I got was two fingers and told to **** off
I am first and foremost a driver, but I am regular cyclist and pedestrian around the city too. When I'm cycling it's actually the pedestrians that are more dangerous than drivers. They step out all over the place, don't check roads, and pay little attention to anything going on around them!
[quote][p][bold]stir up[/bold] wrote: you would expect the cyclists to think this is oK Perhaps there should also be 20mph limits fro cycle lanes the other day a group of cyclists went past me on the sea front at a hell of a rate shouting at people to get out of the way and several were outside the lane. We I called out to them all I got was two fingers and told to **** off[/p][/quote]I am first and foremost a driver, but I am regular cyclist and pedestrian around the city too. When I'm cycling it's actually the pedestrians that are more dangerous than drivers. They step out all over the place, don't check roads, and pay little attention to anything going on around them! Tippy Toes
  • Score: 25

11:40am Mon 16 Jun 14

gheese77 says...

This is good news for road safety
This is good news for road safety gheese77
  • Score: -59

11:42am Mon 16 Jun 14

Eugenius says...

rolivan wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
It's about road safety, not air pollution anyway. And the scheme which is being rolled-out today has cross-party backing. 20mph should not see an increase in pollution due to traffic flowing better instead of stop/start and if more people feel encouraged to cycle due to safer roads then there could be a small drop in car journeys that will benefit all road users.
So it is ok for people to have respiratory problems as long as they don't get run over . Have you walked down North St lately and inhaled those beautiful bus fumes or cycled alongside a bus or Taxi?
A low-emission zone will be introduced in the city centre next year, stretching from the bottom of North Street, along Western Road, to Palmeira Square in Hove.

Buses regularly entering the zone will be required to meet ‘Euro 5’ international engine standards. Buses that have been retrofitted, that enter the zone fewer than 25 times a week, temporary replacement buses, and those that are due to be replaced within the next year will be exempt.

Brighton & Hove Buses already has 13 hybrid buses, and thanks to a joint bid with the council, is the recipient of government funding to retrofit more buses with cleaner technology.
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: It's about road safety, not air pollution anyway. And the scheme which is being rolled-out today has cross-party backing. 20mph should not see an increase in pollution due to traffic flowing better instead of stop/start and if more people feel encouraged to cycle due to safer roads then there could be a small drop in car journeys that will benefit all road users.[/p][/quote]So it is ok for people to have respiratory problems as long as they don't get run over . Have you walked down North St lately and inhaled those beautiful bus fumes or cycled alongside a bus or Taxi?[/p][/quote]A low-emission zone will be introduced in the city centre next year, stretching from the bottom of North Street, along Western Road, to Palmeira Square in Hove. Buses regularly entering the zone will be required to meet ‘Euro 5’ international engine standards. Buses that have been retrofitted, that enter the zone fewer than 25 times a week, temporary replacement buses, and those that are due to be replaced within the next year will be exempt. Brighton & Hove Buses already has 13 hybrid buses, and thanks to a joint bid with the council, is the recipient of government funding to retrofit more buses with cleaner technology. Eugenius
  • Score: -41

11:43am Mon 16 Jun 14

J_Brightonandhove says...

gheese77 wrote:
This is good news for road safety
Please explain how when 95% of people ignore it (including police), the police said they can't/won't enforce it and it clogging up the roads because in theory, everyone will be going slower

Now that's great news for road safety!!!
[quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: This is good news for road safety[/p][/quote]Please explain how when 95% of people ignore it (including police), the police said they can't/won't enforce it and it clogging up the roads because in theory, everyone will be going slower Now that's great news for road safety!!! J_Brightonandhove
  • Score: 52

11:51am Mon 16 Jun 14

Gary1965 says...

J_Brightonandhove wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
This is good news for road safety
Please explain how when 95% of people ignore it (including police), the police said they can't/won't enforce it and it clogging up the roads because in theory, everyone will be going slower

Now that's great news for road safety!!!
Plus, pedestrians give the impression that they can step out in front of cars 'safe' in the knowledge that it cannot possible injure them.

The very fact that accidents are being reduced in 20mph zones proves that pedestrians are still being injured in them.
[quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: This is good news for road safety[/p][/quote]Please explain how when 95% of people ignore it (including police), the police said they can't/won't enforce it and it clogging up the roads because in theory, everyone will be going slower Now that's great news for road safety!!![/p][/quote]Plus, pedestrians give the impression that they can step out in front of cars 'safe' in the knowledge that it cannot possible injure them. The very fact that accidents are being reduced in 20mph zones proves that pedestrians are still being injured in them. Gary1965
  • Score: 19

11:52am Mon 16 Jun 14

MartinDE says...

@PracticeNotTheories


The AA report you mention states quite clearly that 20mph would increase fuel consumption "on longer and relatively free-flowing" urban streets. Is that how you would describe the streets of central Brighton? If you pick a journey at random between two points in central Brighton, how much of it is along long, relatively free-flowing streets that have 20mph limits?

In short stretches and stop-start traffic (which is inevitable in an area with traffic, many junctions and pedestrian crossings), it's the insistent acceleration back to 30mph after each slow-down that causes the most consumption. Accelerating only to 20mph reduces that.
@PracticeNotTheories The AA report you mention states quite clearly that 20mph would increase fuel consumption "on longer and relatively free-flowing" urban streets. Is that how you would describe the streets of central Brighton? If you pick a journey at random between two points in central Brighton, how much of it is along long, relatively free-flowing streets that have 20mph limits? In short stretches and stop-start traffic (which is inevitable in an area with traffic, many junctions and pedestrian crossings), it's the insistent acceleration back to 30mph after each slow-down that causes the most consumption. Accelerating only to 20mph reduces that. MartinDE
  • Score: -23

11:53am Mon 16 Jun 14

gheese77 says...

J_Brightonandhove wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
This is good news for road safety
Please explain how when 95% of people ignore it (including police), the police said they can't/won't enforce it and it clogging up the roads because in theory, everyone will be going slower

Now that's great news for road safety!!!
You are correct - everyone going slower is great news for road safety!!!
I agree it needs better enforcement, groups such as community speed watch (http://www.sussex.p
olice.uk/whats-happe
ning/latest/news-sto
ries/2014/05/01/comm
unity-speed-watch-to
-come-to-hove) are being set up in collaboration with the police should help with this.
The police will enforce the law - don't believe it ? Just wait and see what happens when a speeding motorist knocks someone over
[quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: This is good news for road safety[/p][/quote]Please explain how when 95% of people ignore it (including police), the police said they can't/won't enforce it and it clogging up the roads because in theory, everyone will be going slower Now that's great news for road safety!!![/p][/quote]You are correct - everyone going slower is great news for road safety!!! I agree it needs better enforcement, groups such as community speed watch (http://www.sussex.p olice.uk/whats-happe ning/latest/news-sto ries/2014/05/01/comm unity-speed-watch-to -come-to-hove) are being set up in collaboration with the police should help with this. The police will enforce the law - don't believe it ? Just wait and see what happens when a speeding motorist knocks someone over gheese77
  • Score: -33

11:56am Mon 16 Jun 14

gheese77 says...

Gary1965 wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
This is good news for road safety
Please explain how when 95% of people ignore it (including police), the police said they can't/won't enforce it and it clogging up the roads because in theory, everyone will be going slower

Now that's great news for road safety!!!
Plus, pedestrians give the impression that they can step out in front of cars 'safe' in the knowledge that it cannot possible injure them.

The very fact that accidents are being reduced in 20mph zones proves that pedestrians are still being injured in them.
So are you saying that 20 mph is too fast ?
[quote][p][bold]Gary1965[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: This is good news for road safety[/p][/quote]Please explain how when 95% of people ignore it (including police), the police said they can't/won't enforce it and it clogging up the roads because in theory, everyone will be going slower Now that's great news for road safety!!![/p][/quote]Plus, pedestrians give the impression that they can step out in front of cars 'safe' in the knowledge that it cannot possible injure them. The very fact that accidents are being reduced in 20mph zones proves that pedestrians are still being injured in them.[/p][/quote]So are you saying that 20 mph is too fast ? gheese77
  • Score: 15

12:10pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Gary1965 says...

gheese77 wrote:
Gary1965 wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
This is good news for road safety
Please explain how when 95% of people ignore it (including police), the police said they can't/won't enforce it and it clogging up the roads because in theory, everyone will be going slower

Now that's great news for road safety!!!
Plus, pedestrians give the impression that they can step out in front of cars 'safe' in the knowledge that it cannot possible injure them.

The very fact that accidents are being reduced in 20mph zones proves that pedestrians are still being injured in them.
So are you saying that 20 mph is too fast ?
The only 100% effective way to prevent accidents involving vehicles is to remove all motion from the equation. I'm simply pointing out that ANY speed will cause accidents.

It's a real shame I had to point that out.
[quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gary1965[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: This is good news for road safety[/p][/quote]Please explain how when 95% of people ignore it (including police), the police said they can't/won't enforce it and it clogging up the roads because in theory, everyone will be going slower Now that's great news for road safety!!![/p][/quote]Plus, pedestrians give the impression that they can step out in front of cars 'safe' in the knowledge that it cannot possible injure them. The very fact that accidents are being reduced in 20mph zones proves that pedestrians are still being injured in them.[/p][/quote]So are you saying that 20 mph is too fast ?[/p][/quote]The only 100% effective way to prevent accidents involving vehicles is to remove all motion from the equation. I'm simply pointing out that ANY speed will cause accidents. It's a real shame I had to point that out. Gary1965
  • Score: 21

12:20pm Mon 16 Jun 14

PracticeNotTheories says...

MartinDE wrote:
@PracticeNotTheories



The AA report you mention states quite clearly that 20mph would increase fuel consumption "on longer and relatively free-flowing" urban streets. Is that how you would describe the streets of central Brighton? If you pick a journey at random between two points in central Brighton, how much of it is along long, relatively free-flowing streets that have 20mph limits?

In short stretches and stop-start traffic (which is inevitable in an area with traffic, many junctions and pedestrian crossings), it's the insistent acceleration back to 30mph after each slow-down that causes the most consumption. Accelerating only to 20mph reduces that.
I'm not sure what report you read? It does not at any point say the 20mph would increase fuel consumption? In fact it says:

"On average, petrol car fuel consumption on longer and relatively free-flowing 20mph urban streets can worsen by 5.8 miles per gallon "

As I stated - the joy of bus lanes, and other bottlenecks makes this even worse.

I don't think anyone would deny that small residential roads are fine for lower speeds, when, in fact, you can't realistically do 30mph normally anyway. Old Steine, Eastern Road, and others don't have any requirement other than enforcing a 30mph limit (rather than having an un-enforced 20mph limit).
[quote][p][bold]MartinDE[/bold] wrote: @PracticeNotTheories The AA report you mention states quite clearly that 20mph would increase fuel consumption "on longer and relatively free-flowing" urban streets. Is that how you would describe the streets of central Brighton? If you pick a journey at random between two points in central Brighton, how much of it is along long, relatively free-flowing streets that have 20mph limits? In short stretches and stop-start traffic (which is inevitable in an area with traffic, many junctions and pedestrian crossings), it's the insistent acceleration back to 30mph after each slow-down that causes the most consumption. Accelerating only to 20mph reduces that.[/p][/quote]I'm not sure what report you read? It does not at any point say the 20mph would increase fuel consumption? In fact it says: "On average, petrol car fuel consumption on longer and relatively free-flowing 20mph urban streets can worsen by 5.8 miles per gallon " As I stated - the joy of bus lanes, and other bottlenecks makes this even worse. I don't think anyone would deny that small residential roads are fine for lower speeds, when, in fact, you can't realistically do 30mph normally anyway. Old Steine, Eastern Road, and others don't have any requirement other than enforcing a 30mph limit (rather than having an un-enforced 20mph limit). PracticeNotTheories
  • Score: 24

12:20pm Mon 16 Jun 14

SonnyJim55 says...

Brighton and Hove will be a safer, more peaceful and pleasant place to live, work and visit...............
.when the Greens are kicked out next year!
Brighton and Hove will be a safer, more peaceful and pleasant place to live, work and visit............... .when the Greens are kicked out next year! SonnyJim55
  • Score: 69

12:25pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Ohnotagain ! says...

tinxxx wrote:
I live in Manor Hill, Whitehawk and the amount of reckless drivers speeding round the bend/up the hill etc is ridiculous. Someone is going to get killed soon due to inconsiderate drivers blatantly ignoring the 20mph speed limit.
That's because the vast majority of drivers in Whitehawk are either illiterate, banned from driving and don't know what a speed limit is for.
[quote][p][bold]tinxxx[/bold] wrote: I live in Manor Hill, Whitehawk and the amount of reckless drivers speeding round the bend/up the hill etc is ridiculous. Someone is going to get killed soon due to inconsiderate drivers blatantly ignoring the 20mph speed limit.[/p][/quote]That's because the vast majority of drivers in Whitehawk are either illiterate, banned from driving and don't know what a speed limit is for. Ohnotagain !
  • Score: 27

12:29pm Mon 16 Jun 14

J_Brightonandhove says...

gheese77 wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
gheese77 wrote: This is good news for road safety
Please explain how when 95% of people ignore it (including police), the police said they can't/won't enforce it and it clogging up the roads because in theory, everyone will be going slower Now that's great news for road safety!!!
You are correct - everyone going slower is great news for road safety!!! I agree it needs better enforcement, groups such as community speed watch (http://www.sussex.p olice.uk/whats-happe ning/latest/news-sto ries/2014/05/01/comm unity-speed-watch-to -come-to-hove) are being set up in collaboration with the police should help with this. The police will enforce the law - don't believe it ? Just wait and see what happens when a speeding motorist knocks someone over
Gheese: -

Police won't enforce 20mph as they've previously said and if someone knocks someone over, they'll likely be charged with driving without due care and attention or dangerous driving, not breaching a 20mph zone!

You've completely avoided answering my question so you therefore must be an avid green party supporter/member.

Everyone ignores it. It can't/won't be enforced. People aren't jumping onto bikes. We're now one of the most congested cities in the country and it isn't going to get any better until we see some policies to get traffic moving which by all accounts, is certainly not happening by putting 20 signs everywhere
[quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: This is good news for road safety[/p][/quote]Please explain how when 95% of people ignore it (including police), the police said they can't/won't enforce it and it clogging up the roads because in theory, everyone will be going slower Now that's great news for road safety!!![/p][/quote]You are correct - everyone going slower is great news for road safety!!! I agree it needs better enforcement, groups such as community speed watch (http://www.sussex.p olice.uk/whats-happe ning/latest/news-sto ries/2014/05/01/comm unity-speed-watch-to -come-to-hove) are being set up in collaboration with the police should help with this. The police will enforce the law - don't believe it ? Just wait and see what happens when a speeding motorist knocks someone over[/p][/quote]Gheese: - Police won't enforce 20mph as they've previously said and if someone knocks someone over, they'll likely be charged with driving without due care and attention or dangerous driving, not breaching a 20mph zone! You've completely avoided answering my question so you therefore must be an avid green party supporter/member. Everyone ignores it. It can't/won't be enforced. People aren't jumping onto bikes. We're now one of the most congested cities in the country and it isn't going to get any better until we see some policies to get traffic moving which by all accounts, is certainly not happening by putting 20 signs everywhere J_Brightonandhove
  • Score: 31

12:43pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Gary1965 says...

If the council is so proud of the reduction of accidents, why hasn't it produced the actual figures for the five years prior to the reductions to date?

Is it because the 'fewer' numbers aren't that much fewer, and on some 20mph roads the figures actually rose?
If the council is so proud of the reduction of accidents, why hasn't it produced the actual figures for the five years prior to the reductions to date? Is it because the 'fewer' numbers aren't that much fewer, and on some 20mph roads the figures actually rose? Gary1965
  • Score: 39

12:46pm Mon 16 Jun 14

cynic_the says...

J_Brightonandhove wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
gheese77 wrote: This is good news for road safety
Please explain how when 95% of people ignore it (including police), the police said they can't/won't enforce it and it clogging up the roads because in theory, everyone will be going slower Now that's great news for road safety!!!
You are correct - everyone going slower is great news for road safety!!! I agree it needs better enforcement, groups such as community speed watch (http://www.sussex.p olice.uk/whats-happe ning/latest/news-sto ries/2014/05/01/comm unity-speed-watch-to -come-to-hove) are being set up in collaboration with the police should help with this. The police will enforce the law - don't believe it ? Just wait and see what happens when a speeding motorist knocks someone over
Gheese: -

Police won't enforce 20mph as they've previously said and if someone knocks someone over, they'll likely be charged with driving without due care and attention or dangerous driving, not breaching a 20mph zone!

You've completely avoided answering my question so you therefore must be an avid green party supporter/member.

Everyone ignores it. It can't/won't be enforced. People aren't jumping onto bikes. We're now one of the most congested cities in the country and it isn't going to get any better until we see some policies to get traffic moving which by all accounts, is certainly not happening by putting 20 signs everywhere
I think Gheese77 is correct in that in the event of a collision, the police will try to apportion blame - probably by plugging a laptop in the car's ECU and telling you exactly how fast you were driving. they will also check your mobile phone details and perform a breath test.

I think that they can't afford to prevent accidents, so the best they can do is try to get a prosecution when one does happen. I guess that should act as a deterrent at least.
[quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: This is good news for road safety[/p][/quote]Please explain how when 95% of people ignore it (including police), the police said they can't/won't enforce it and it clogging up the roads because in theory, everyone will be going slower Now that's great news for road safety!!![/p][/quote]You are correct - everyone going slower is great news for road safety!!! I agree it needs better enforcement, groups such as community speed watch (http://www.sussex.p olice.uk/whats-happe ning/latest/news-sto ries/2014/05/01/comm unity-speed-watch-to -come-to-hove) are being set up in collaboration with the police should help with this. The police will enforce the law - don't believe it ? Just wait and see what happens when a speeding motorist knocks someone over[/p][/quote]Gheese: - Police won't enforce 20mph as they've previously said and if someone knocks someone over, they'll likely be charged with driving without due care and attention or dangerous driving, not breaching a 20mph zone! You've completely avoided answering my question so you therefore must be an avid green party supporter/member. Everyone ignores it. It can't/won't be enforced. People aren't jumping onto bikes. We're now one of the most congested cities in the country and it isn't going to get any better until we see some policies to get traffic moving which by all accounts, is certainly not happening by putting 20 signs everywhere[/p][/quote]I think Gheese77 is correct in that in the event of a collision, the police will try to apportion blame - probably by plugging a laptop in the car's ECU and telling you exactly how fast you were driving. they will also check your mobile phone details and perform a breath test. I think that they can't afford to prevent accidents, so the best they can do is try to get a prosecution when one does happen. I guess that should act as a deterrent at least. cynic_the
  • Score: -12

1:00pm Mon 16 Jun 14

P.Dant says...

A good bicycle can travel faster than 20 mph,so everybody get a bike.You won`t be stopped.Win and Win.
A good bicycle can travel faster than 20 mph,so everybody get a bike.You won`t be stopped.Win and Win. P.Dant
  • Score: -2

1:06pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Quiterie says...

Eugenius wrote:
It's about road safety, not air pollution anyway. And the scheme which is being rolled-out today has cross-party backing. 20mph should not see an increase in pollution due to traffic flowing better instead of stop/start and if more people feel encouraged to cycle due to safer roads then there could be a small drop in car journeys that will benefit all road users.
It doesn't have "cross-party backing" at all. Unless you're telling me the Greens are in favour of retaining the 30mph limit in large residential areas in some parts of the city?

The whole thing has become a complete fudge.

Warren Morgan (leader of the Labour group) doesn't even understand the scheme - he said on this website a couple of weeks ago that he thought it was a Citywide scheme - which you can see from the map published along with this story, it clearly isn't.

The introduction of this scheme has degenerated into a complete and utter shambles, where the Councillors who voted for it, don't understand what they've implemented (which wouldn't be the first time of course).
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: It's about road safety, not air pollution anyway. And the scheme which is being rolled-out today has cross-party backing. 20mph should not see an increase in pollution due to traffic flowing better instead of stop/start and if more people feel encouraged to cycle due to safer roads then there could be a small drop in car journeys that will benefit all road users.[/p][/quote]It doesn't have "cross-party backing" at all. Unless you're telling me the Greens are in favour of retaining the 30mph limit in large residential areas in some parts of the city? The whole thing has become a complete fudge. Warren Morgan (leader of the Labour group) doesn't even understand the scheme - he said on this website a couple of weeks ago that he thought it was a Citywide scheme - which you can see from the map published along with this story, it clearly isn't. The introduction of this scheme has degenerated into a complete and utter shambles, where the Councillors who voted for it, don't understand what they've implemented (which wouldn't be the first time of course). Quiterie
  • Score: 22

1:08pm Mon 16 Jun 14

MartinDE says...

PracticeNotTheories wrote:
MartinDE wrote:
@PracticeNotTheories




The AA report you mention states quite clearly that 20mph would increase fuel consumption "on longer and relatively free-flowing" urban streets. Is that how you would describe the streets of central Brighton? If you pick a journey at random between two points in central Brighton, how much of it is along long, relatively free-flowing streets that have 20mph limits?

In short stretches and stop-start traffic (which is inevitable in an area with traffic, many junctions and pedestrian crossings), it's the insistent acceleration back to 30mph after each slow-down that causes the most consumption. Accelerating only to 20mph reduces that.
I'm not sure what report you read? It does not at any point say the 20mph would increase fuel consumption? In fact it says:

"On average, petrol car fuel consumption on longer and relatively free-flowing 20mph urban streets can worsen by 5.8 miles per gallon "

As I stated - the joy of bus lanes, and other bottlenecks makes this even worse.

I don't think anyone would deny that small residential roads are fine for lower speeds, when, in fact, you can't realistically do 30mph normally anyway. Old Steine, Eastern Road, and others don't have any requirement other than enforcing a 30mph limit (rather than having an un-enforced 20mph limit).
To clarify:

That AA report only applies to "longer and relatively free-flowing urban streets": it predicts that fuel consumption would increase in such streets by lowering the speed limit from 30mph to 20mph.

The report's conclusions do not apply to the vast majority of central Brighton's 20mph streets, which I don't think anyone would describe as long and free-flowing.
[quote][p][bold]PracticeNotTheories[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MartinDE[/bold] wrote: @PracticeNotTheories The AA report you mention states quite clearly that 20mph would increase fuel consumption "on longer and relatively free-flowing" urban streets. Is that how you would describe the streets of central Brighton? If you pick a journey at random between two points in central Brighton, how much of it is along long, relatively free-flowing streets that have 20mph limits? In short stretches and stop-start traffic (which is inevitable in an area with traffic, many junctions and pedestrian crossings), it's the insistent acceleration back to 30mph after each slow-down that causes the most consumption. Accelerating only to 20mph reduces that.[/p][/quote]I'm not sure what report you read? It does not at any point say the 20mph would increase fuel consumption? In fact it says: "On average, petrol car fuel consumption on longer and relatively free-flowing 20mph urban streets can worsen by 5.8 miles per gallon " As I stated - the joy of bus lanes, and other bottlenecks makes this even worse. I don't think anyone would deny that small residential roads are fine for lower speeds, when, in fact, you can't realistically do 30mph normally anyway. Old Steine, Eastern Road, and others don't have any requirement other than enforcing a 30mph limit (rather than having an un-enforced 20mph limit).[/p][/quote]To clarify: That AA report only applies to "longer and relatively free-flowing urban streets": it predicts that fuel consumption would increase in such streets by lowering the speed limit from 30mph to 20mph. The report's conclusions do not apply to the vast majority of central Brighton's 20mph streets, which I don't think anyone would describe as long and free-flowing. MartinDE
  • Score: 12

1:17pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Gribbet says...

Gary1965 wrote:
If the council is so proud of the reduction of accidents, why hasn't it produced the actual figures for the five years prior to the reductions to date?

Is it because the 'fewer' numbers aren't that much fewer, and on some 20mph roads the figures actually rose?
What made you change your screen name?
[quote][p][bold]Gary1965[/bold] wrote: If the council is so proud of the reduction of accidents, why hasn't it produced the actual figures for the five years prior to the reductions to date? Is it because the 'fewer' numbers aren't that much fewer, and on some 20mph roads the figures actually rose?[/p][/quote]What made you change your screen name? Gribbet
  • Score: 5

1:33pm Mon 16 Jun 14

woodie49 says...

cleggalike wrote:
Really good news. The evidence from phase one is positive and this will make Brighton a safer and more pleasant place for us all.
You missed out and more congestion.
[quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: Really good news. The evidence from phase one is positive and this will make Brighton a safer and more pleasant place for us all.[/p][/quote]You missed out and more congestion. woodie49
  • Score: 8

1:36pm Mon 16 Jun 14

FatherTed11 says...

There's a 20mph limit in Brighton? But everyone is still driving at 30mph
There's a 20mph limit in Brighton? But everyone is still driving at 30mph FatherTed11
  • Score: 19

1:41pm Mon 16 Jun 14

gheese77 says...

J_Brightonandhove wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
gheese77 wrote: This is good news for road safety
Please explain how when 95% of people ignore it (including police), the police said they can't/won't enforce it and it clogging up the roads because in theory, everyone will be going slower Now that's great news for road safety!!!
You are correct - everyone going slower is great news for road safety!!! I agree it needs better enforcement, groups such as community speed watch (http://www.sussex.p olice.uk/whats-happe ning/latest/news-sto ries/2014/05/01/comm unity-speed-watch-to -come-to-hove) are being set up in collaboration with the police should help with this. The police will enforce the law - don't believe it ? Just wait and see what happens when a speeding motorist knocks someone over
Gheese: -

Police won't enforce 20mph as they've previously said and if someone knocks someone over, they'll likely be charged with driving without due care and attention or dangerous driving, not breaching a 20mph zone!

You've completely avoided answering my question so you therefore must be an avid green party supporter/member.

Everyone ignores it. It can't/won't be enforced. People aren't jumping onto bikes. We're now one of the most congested cities in the country and it isn't going to get any better until we see some policies to get traffic moving which by all accounts, is certainly not happening by putting 20 signs everywhere
Your question was "Please explain how when 95% of people ignore it (including police), the police said they can't/won't enforce it and it clogging up the roads because in theory, everyone will be going slower " - Your question was not really a question but a statement that does not make sense. Were you asking - How can people be ignoring the speed limit and it causing congestion at the same time? Also you don't have to be a green party member (I am not ) to want traffic to slow down. To suggest that would be as silly as me saying, you must be a UKIP member because you are against 20 mph limits.
[quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: This is good news for road safety[/p][/quote]Please explain how when 95% of people ignore it (including police), the police said they can't/won't enforce it and it clogging up the roads because in theory, everyone will be going slower Now that's great news for road safety!!![/p][/quote]You are correct - everyone going slower is great news for road safety!!! I agree it needs better enforcement, groups such as community speed watch (http://www.sussex.p olice.uk/whats-happe ning/latest/news-sto ries/2014/05/01/comm unity-speed-watch-to -come-to-hove) are being set up in collaboration with the police should help with this. The police will enforce the law - don't believe it ? Just wait and see what happens when a speeding motorist knocks someone over[/p][/quote]Gheese: - Police won't enforce 20mph as they've previously said and if someone knocks someone over, they'll likely be charged with driving without due care and attention or dangerous driving, not breaching a 20mph zone! You've completely avoided answering my question so you therefore must be an avid green party supporter/member. Everyone ignores it. It can't/won't be enforced. People aren't jumping onto bikes. We're now one of the most congested cities in the country and it isn't going to get any better until we see some policies to get traffic moving which by all accounts, is certainly not happening by putting 20 signs everywhere[/p][/quote]Your question was "Please explain how when 95% of people ignore it (including police), the police said they can't/won't enforce it and it clogging up the roads because in theory, everyone will be going slower " - Your question was not really a question but a statement that does not make sense. Were you asking - How can people be ignoring the speed limit and it causing congestion at the same time? Also you don't have to be a green party member (I am not ) to want traffic to slow down. To suggest that would be as silly as me saying, you must be a UKIP member because you are against 20 mph limits. gheese77
  • Score: -9

1:42pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Automaton says...

Something needs to be done about traffic in the city but 20mph zones are not the answer. As noted by others it he 20mph limit is self enforcing on many roads. To reach 20mph on North Road for example would be a miracle.
If the green council were seriously wanting to improve traffic they might want to consider some of the following
1. Introduction of a Boris bike type scheme as many residents do not have storage facilities for bikes, can't be bothered to traipse up and down stairs carrying them if they live in flats and do not want the bother of trying to safety secure the bike at the journey's end.
2. Use of other forms of transport such a Tuk tuks
3. Promotion of car sharing schemes such as BlaBlaCar
4. Promotion of services such a Uber Taxi
5. Subsidise bus fares
6. Educate cyclists in traffic rules and prosecute those who fail to obey.
Something needs to be done about traffic in the city but 20mph zones are not the answer. As noted by others it he 20mph limit is self enforcing on many roads. To reach 20mph on North Road for example would be a miracle. If the green council were seriously wanting to improve traffic they might want to consider some of the following 1. Introduction of a Boris bike type scheme as many residents do not have storage facilities for bikes, can't be bothered to traipse up and down stairs carrying them if they live in flats and do not want the bother of trying to safety secure the bike at the journey's end. 2. Use of other forms of transport such a Tuk tuks 3. Promotion of car sharing schemes such as BlaBlaCar 4. Promotion of services such a Uber Taxi 5. Subsidise bus fares 6. Educate cyclists in traffic rules and prosecute those who fail to obey. Automaton
  • Score: 19

1:44pm Mon 16 Jun 14

PaulJo says...

Schools, play-parks, hospitals yes, reduce the speed to 20, but everywhere else, it's absolutely pointless as no-one will follow it anyway! If the 20 was restricted to sensitive areas with big signs saying "SLOW - Children Crossing" I think the vast majority would slow down because it's a valid and reasonable justifcation for a limit reduction. The problem is no-one sees a valid reason to stick to 20 on a dual carriageway such as the Steine, so no one does!

Another thing, why are taxi's allowed to use bus lanes????? I take 3 people to work everyday in my car and can't use them, yet Mrs Miggins can shoot to her bingo a little bit quicker in her taxi. One of the most environmentally unfriendly modes of transport, especially for a single person, Come on your green muppets, justify this?!?
Schools, play-parks, hospitals yes, reduce the speed to 20, but everywhere else, it's absolutely pointless as no-one will follow it anyway! If the 20 was restricted to sensitive areas with big signs saying "SLOW - Children Crossing" I think the vast majority would slow down because it's a valid and reasonable justifcation for a limit reduction. The problem is no-one sees a valid reason to stick to 20 on a dual carriageway such as the Steine, so no one does! Another thing, why are taxi's allowed to use bus lanes????? I take 3 people to work everyday in my car and can't use them, yet Mrs Miggins can shoot to her bingo a little bit quicker in her taxi. One of the most environmentally unfriendly modes of transport, especially for a single person, Come on your green muppets, justify this?!? PaulJo
  • Score: 23

1:47pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Mark63 says...

Don't want it , don't need it. Davey reckons they are putting it where people wanted them - read your own statistics Davey - my road voted NO, yet the road graffitti and endless new signage say yes - CRIMINAL.
How come this council can find money for everything anti-car, yet we still have crumbling roads, a crumbling seafront and signs that point to the Town Centre (14 years after we supposedly became a city!). Get your priorties right Council!
Don't want it , don't need it. Davey reckons they are putting it where people wanted them - read your own statistics Davey - my road voted NO, yet the road graffitti and endless new signage say yes - CRIMINAL. How come this council can find money for everything anti-car, yet we still have crumbling roads, a crumbling seafront and signs that point to the Town Centre (14 years after we supposedly became a city!). Get your priorties right Council! Mark63
  • Score: 25

1:59pm Mon 16 Jun 14

We love Red Billy says...

For those of us sitting, or in our case squatting ( bent knees not building theft ) in the 'A' political seats, the laugh factor in Brighton and Hove just goes up and up. When it comes to the next election the Green administration will be able to proudly state that they have built a skate park, built a roundabout and increased the pollution in the city. No wonder that there is company in town making chamberpots with the faces of local politicians at the bottom. My own one has all three leaders faces on so I can be literally and metaphorically be above politics. #politicalchamberpot
s
For those of us sitting, or in our case squatting ( bent knees not building theft ) in the 'A' political seats, the laugh factor in Brighton and Hove just goes up and up. When it comes to the next election the Green administration will be able to proudly state that they have built a skate park, built a roundabout and increased the pollution in the city. No wonder that there is company in town making chamberpots with the faces of local politicians at the bottom. My own one has all three leaders faces on so I can be literally and metaphorically be above politics. #politicalchamberpot s We love Red Billy
  • Score: 17

2:04pm Mon 16 Jun 14

DC Brighton says...

cleggalike wrote:
Really good news. The evidence from phase one is positive and this will make Brighton a safer and more pleasant place for us all.
What "evidence"?

Sadly, that is what is lacking here.
[quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: Really good news. The evidence from phase one is positive and this will make Brighton a safer and more pleasant place for us all.[/p][/quote]What "evidence"? Sadly, that is what is lacking here. DC Brighton
  • Score: 27

2:10pm Mon 16 Jun 14

J_Brightonandhove says...

gheese77 wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
gheese77 wrote: This is good news for road safety
Please explain how when 95% of people ignore it (including police), the police said they can't/won't enforce it and it clogging up the roads because in theory, everyone will be going slower Now that's great news for road safety!!!
You are correct - everyone going slower is great news for road safety!!! I agree it needs better enforcement, groups such as community speed watch (http://www.sussex.p olice.uk/whats-happe ning/latest/news-sto ries/2014/05/01/comm unity-speed-watch-to -come-to-hove) are being set up in collaboration with the police should help with this. The police will enforce the law - don't believe it ? Just wait and see what happens when a speeding motorist knocks someone over
Gheese: - Police won't enforce 20mph as they've previously said and if someone knocks someone over, they'll likely be charged with driving without due care and attention or dangerous driving, not breaching a 20mph zone! You've completely avoided answering my question so you therefore must be an avid green party supporter/member. Everyone ignores it. It can't/won't be enforced. People aren't jumping onto bikes. We're now one of the most congested cities in the country and it isn't going to get any better until we see some policies to get traffic moving which by all accounts, is certainly not happening by putting 20 signs everywhere
Your question was "Please explain how when 95% of people ignore it (including police), the police said they can't/won't enforce it and it clogging up the roads because in theory, everyone will be going slower " - Your question was not really a question but a statement that does not make sense. Were you asking - How can people be ignoring the speed limit and it causing congestion at the same time? Also you don't have to be a green party member (I am not ) to want traffic to slow down. To suggest that would be as silly as me saying, you must be a UKIP member because you are against 20 mph limits.
My question was relatively simple - How can it be good news when quite clearly road safety is not improving as a result of unenforceable, ignored 20mph zones.

People are ignoring the speed limit and there is an increase in congestion because of bottle necking roads, cycle lanes and traffic light phasing that doesn't like driving. It really isn't rocket science, all you have to do is walk around Brighton to see the problem.

If road safety is improving, as above, why have the Green Party not producted any cold, hard figures showing a decrease in accidents?
[quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: This is good news for road safety[/p][/quote]Please explain how when 95% of people ignore it (including police), the police said they can't/won't enforce it and it clogging up the roads because in theory, everyone will be going slower Now that's great news for road safety!!![/p][/quote]You are correct - everyone going slower is great news for road safety!!! I agree it needs better enforcement, groups such as community speed watch (http://www.sussex.p olice.uk/whats-happe ning/latest/news-sto ries/2014/05/01/comm unity-speed-watch-to -come-to-hove) are being set up in collaboration with the police should help with this. The police will enforce the law - don't believe it ? Just wait and see what happens when a speeding motorist knocks someone over[/p][/quote]Gheese: - Police won't enforce 20mph as they've previously said and if someone knocks someone over, they'll likely be charged with driving without due care and attention or dangerous driving, not breaching a 20mph zone! You've completely avoided answering my question so you therefore must be an avid green party supporter/member. Everyone ignores it. It can't/won't be enforced. People aren't jumping onto bikes. We're now one of the most congested cities in the country and it isn't going to get any better until we see some policies to get traffic moving which by all accounts, is certainly not happening by putting 20 signs everywhere[/p][/quote]Your question was "Please explain how when 95% of people ignore it (including police), the police said they can't/won't enforce it and it clogging up the roads because in theory, everyone will be going slower " - Your question was not really a question but a statement that does not make sense. Were you asking - How can people be ignoring the speed limit and it causing congestion at the same time? Also you don't have to be a green party member (I am not ) to want traffic to slow down. To suggest that would be as silly as me saying, you must be a UKIP member because you are against 20 mph limits.[/p][/quote]My question was relatively simple - How can it be good news when quite clearly road safety is not improving as a result of unenforceable, ignored 20mph zones. People are ignoring the speed limit and there is an increase in congestion because of bottle necking roads, cycle lanes and traffic light phasing that doesn't like driving. It really isn't rocket science, all you have to do is walk around Brighton to see the problem. If road safety is improving, as above, why have the Green Party not producted any cold, hard figures showing a decrease in accidents? J_Brightonandhove
  • Score: 17

2:15pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Phani Tikkala says...

As for all these so-called green "improvements", its inevitable imho that there will be an increase in accidents at the Dials since they "improved" it. Now there are people crossing at all sorts of unexpected places, no traffic lights on the crossings, and people stepping out willy nilly wearing headphones and not looking where they're going. Not to mention buses straying onto the roundabout (or sausageabout as it is now) which will one day take out someone who doesn't see them coming.

All of the approaches to the Dials are now horribly congested too, spewing pollution from queuing cars, and it must be an incredibly horrible place to run a business or cafe now.

But as far as the green loonies are concerned, fewer cars at whatever cost = "trebles all round".

ROLL ON MAY 2015!!!
As for all these so-called green "improvements", its inevitable imho that there will be an increase in accidents at the Dials since they "improved" it. Now there are people crossing at all sorts of unexpected places, no traffic lights on the crossings, and people stepping out willy nilly wearing headphones and not looking where they're going. Not to mention buses straying onto the roundabout (or sausageabout as it is now) which will one day take out someone who doesn't see them coming. All of the approaches to the Dials are now horribly congested too, spewing pollution from queuing cars, and it must be an incredibly horrible place to run a business or cafe now. But as far as the green loonies are concerned, fewer cars at whatever cost = "trebles all round". ROLL ON MAY 2015!!! Phani Tikkala
  • Score: 23

2:18pm Mon 16 Jun 14

gary101 says...

Andy R wrote:
In anticipation of the fact that sooner or later someone will claim that 20mph limits have been "scientitically proved" to increase pollution, here's the truth - Research in Germany has shown that the greater the speed of vehicles in built-up areas, the higher is the incidence of acceleration, deceleration, and braking, all of which increase air pollution. German research indicates that traffic calming reduces idle times by 15%, gear changing by 12%, brake use by 14%, and gasoline use by 12% (Newman and Kenworthy 1992, 39–40). This slower and calmer style of driving reduces emissions, as demonstrated by an evaluation in Buxtehude, Germany.
Which is fine, but we don't have suitable traffic calming methods in the City to promote smooth flow.

The roads are clogged with traffic lights that don't phase efficiently and don't make a positive contribution to flow (increasing the stop/start issue you've highlighted)

Flow has been decreased by adding more bus lanes and shrinking the usable space for all road users. (Why do we have a bus lane going in on Edward Street?)

It's the simple things this Council (and Councils before and after) can do to improve flow that need to be looked at. Not fancial ideas that support ideoly. We ideas that support practicality and efficientcy.
[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: In anticipation of the fact that sooner or later someone will claim that 20mph limits have been "scientitically proved" to increase pollution, here's the truth - Research in Germany has shown that the greater the speed of vehicles in built-up areas, the higher is the incidence of acceleration, deceleration, and braking, all of which increase air pollution. German research indicates that traffic calming reduces idle times by 15%, gear changing by 12%, brake use by 14%, and gasoline use by 12% (Newman and Kenworthy 1992, 39–40). This slower and calmer style of driving reduces emissions, as demonstrated by an evaluation in Buxtehude, Germany.[/p][/quote]Which is fine, but we don't have suitable traffic calming methods in the City to promote smooth flow. The roads are clogged with traffic lights that don't phase efficiently and don't make a positive contribution to flow (increasing the stop/start issue you've highlighted) Flow has been decreased by adding more bus lanes and shrinking the usable space for all road users. (Why do we have a bus lane going in on Edward Street?) It's the simple things this Council (and Councils before and after) can do to improve flow that need to be looked at. Not fancial ideas that support ideoly. We ideas that support practicality and efficientcy. gary101
  • Score: 19

2:29pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Automaton says...

Automaton wrote:
Something needs to be done about traffic in the city but 20mph zones are not the answer. As noted by others it he 20mph limit is self enforcing on many roads. To reach 20mph on North Road for example would be a miracle.
If the green council were seriously wanting to improve traffic they might want to consider some of the following
1. Introduction of a Boris bike type scheme as many residents do not have storage facilities for bikes, can't be bothered to traipse up and down stairs carrying them if they live in flats and do not want the bother of trying to safety secure the bike at the journey's end.
2. Use of other forms of transport such a Tuk tuks
3. Promotion of car sharing schemes such as BlaBlaCar
4. Promotion of services such a Uber Taxi
5. Subsidise bus fares
6. Educate cyclists in traffic rules and prosecute those who fail to obey.
Point 7. Investment in smart technology for traffic lights and pedestrian crossing
[quote][p][bold]Automaton[/bold] wrote: Something needs to be done about traffic in the city but 20mph zones are not the answer. As noted by others it he 20mph limit is self enforcing on many roads. To reach 20mph on North Road for example would be a miracle. If the green council were seriously wanting to improve traffic they might want to consider some of the following 1. Introduction of a Boris bike type scheme as many residents do not have storage facilities for bikes, can't be bothered to traipse up and down stairs carrying them if they live in flats and do not want the bother of trying to safety secure the bike at the journey's end. 2. Use of other forms of transport such a Tuk tuks 3. Promotion of car sharing schemes such as BlaBlaCar 4. Promotion of services such a Uber Taxi 5. Subsidise bus fares 6. Educate cyclists in traffic rules and prosecute those who fail to obey.[/p][/quote]Point 7. Investment in smart technology for traffic lights and pedestrian crossing Automaton
  • Score: 14

2:32pm Mon 16 Jun 14

brightonline says...

I can't believe the increase in unnecessary street signage! even for cul de sacs and other minor roads where you have never been able to get above 20mph!
I can't believe the increase in unnecessary street signage! even for cul de sacs and other minor roads where you have never been able to get above 20mph! brightonline
  • Score: 24

2:52pm Mon 16 Jun 14

esh lad says...

Can we please have the figures to confirm that phase one has worked...and not some numbers plucked out of some magicians hat.
I agree with 20 mph around schools,hospitals etc..this vendetta against cars by the cabbages may prove hard to change by whoever wins the Council elections next year..but for sure, we will still be paying for it.
Can we please have the figures to confirm that phase one has worked...and not some numbers plucked out of some magicians hat. I agree with 20 mph around schools,hospitals etc..this vendetta against cars by the cabbages may prove hard to change by whoever wins the Council elections next year..but for sure, we will still be paying for it. esh lad
  • Score: 19

3:15pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Old Ladys Gin says...

Andy R wrote:
In anticipation of the fact that sooner or later someone will claim that 20mph limits have been "scientitically proved" to increase pollution, here's the truth -

Research in Germany has shown that the greater the speed of vehicles in built-up areas, the higher is the incidence of acceleration, deceleration, and braking, all of which increase air pollution. German research indicates that traffic calming reduces idle times by 15%, gear changing by 12%, brake use by 14%, and gasoline use by 12% (Newman and Kenworthy 1992, 39–40). This slower and calmer style of driving reduces emissions, as demonstrated by an evaluation in Buxtehude, Germany.
Many German town and cities have strict priority from the right rules (and even more strict rules concerning giving way to pedestrians and cycles when turning). These reduce the need for unsightly road markings and signs but you find yourself stopping or pausing a lot.
It is more this than any other measure which makes the traffic more 'calm'. You have to be more aware and prepared for what may happen.
The truth as you call it may be more complex than it at first appears.

A recent experiment in Barcelona reduced the speed limit on all the city's many multi laned motorways and by-passes to 80kph maximum. The stated reason was to reduce pollution and casualties.
The scheme was dropped after a year or so because pollution was hardly affected and serious injuries and deaths increased by more than 40 percent.
The truth once again comes in different packages and you'll fine more than one way of achieving it.
[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: In anticipation of the fact that sooner or later someone will claim that 20mph limits have been "scientitically proved" to increase pollution, here's the truth - Research in Germany has shown that the greater the speed of vehicles in built-up areas, the higher is the incidence of acceleration, deceleration, and braking, all of which increase air pollution. German research indicates that traffic calming reduces idle times by 15%, gear changing by 12%, brake use by 14%, and gasoline use by 12% (Newman and Kenworthy 1992, 39–40). This slower and calmer style of driving reduces emissions, as demonstrated by an evaluation in Buxtehude, Germany.[/p][/quote]Many German town and cities have strict priority from the right rules (and even more strict rules concerning giving way to pedestrians and cycles when turning). These reduce the need for unsightly road markings and signs but you find yourself stopping or pausing a lot. It is more this than any other measure which makes the traffic more 'calm'. You have to be more aware and prepared for what may happen. The truth as you call it may be more complex than it at first appears. A recent experiment in Barcelona reduced the speed limit on all the city's many multi laned motorways and by-passes to 80kph maximum. The stated reason was to reduce pollution and casualties. The scheme was dropped after a year or so because pollution was hardly affected and serious injuries and deaths increased by more than 40 percent. The truth once again comes in different packages and you'll fine more than one way of achieving it. Old Ladys Gin
  • Score: 13

3:19pm Mon 16 Jun 14

lochislair says...

News flash: The Green Party have announced that from now onwards only inflatable cars will be allowed in Brighton and Hove, in an effort to improve road safety. This will be followed by the installation of rubber roads so that anyone who falls off their bicycle will be bounced back into the saddle. Mayor Kitcat states, "These will be far more effective safety measures than 20 MPH speed limits. " Or not...
News flash: The Green Party have announced that from now onwards only inflatable cars will be allowed in Brighton and Hove, in an effort to improve road safety. This will be followed by the installation of rubber roads so that anyone who falls off their bicycle will be bounced back into the saddle. Mayor Kitcat states, "These will be far more effective safety measures than 20 MPH speed limits. " Or not... lochislair
  • Score: 11

4:12pm Mon 16 Jun 14

PaddingtownBear says...

OK - WHO wanted or agreed with this ridiculous policy?! In rush hour, when roads are busiest, it is virtually impossible to do more than 20mph anyway!
I would love to see The Green Party's "statistics" showing less injuries and crashes etc, i am sure they have been manipulated. Since when were B&H'S streets significantly more unsafe than everywhere else?! Therefore why was this warranted!
Ridiculous. Cant wait til they're out.
OK - WHO wanted or agreed with this ridiculous policy?! In rush hour, when roads are busiest, it is virtually impossible to do more than 20mph anyway! I would love to see The Green Party's "statistics" showing less injuries and crashes etc, i am sure they have been manipulated. Since when were B&H'S streets significantly more unsafe than everywhere else?! Therefore why was this warranted! Ridiculous. Cant wait til they're out. PaddingtownBear
  • Score: 14

4:38pm Mon 16 Jun 14

keswick says...

Shame the Green Party do not show the same commitment or effort when dealing with the invasion of our local parks and green spaces by those who we are not allowed to mention as they do to schemes such as this. Roll on next May when Mr Mars bar will be consigned to the political dustbin.
Shame the Green Party do not show the same commitment or effort when dealing with the invasion of our local parks and green spaces by those who we are not allowed to mention as they do to schemes such as this. Roll on next May when Mr Mars bar will be consigned to the political dustbin. keswick
  • Score: 24

4:41pm Mon 16 Jun 14

tooned_in says...

Madness, only people who do not drive will think this is a wonderful idea, sadly to me its just a cash generator for more speeding fines.
I went through Hove the other day and thought I was joining a jam...nope just a convoy of slow moving cars.
Sorry law abiding cars
Madness, only people who do not drive will think this is a wonderful idea, sadly to me its just a cash generator for more speeding fines. I went through Hove the other day and thought I was joining a jam...nope just a convoy of slow moving cars. Sorry law abiding cars tooned_in
  • Score: 11

4:44pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Preyrun says...

If the 20mph limit had been introduced first and rigidly enforced,would we have needed traffic calming measures and bicycle lanes.
If the 20mph limit had been introduced first and rigidly enforced,would we have needed traffic calming measures and bicycle lanes. Preyrun
  • Score: -7

4:56pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Plantpot says...

http://cars.aol.co.u
k/2014/02/24/danish-
road-experiment-sees
-accident-rate-fall-
on-faster-roads/

Danish experiment sees faster roads as improving safety.

The Portsmouth 20mph experiment saw casualties rise.

The Greens have provided no statistics, independent or otherwise to back up the success or otherwise of the first phase of 20 mph zones.

IME, most motorists drive to the conditions in urban streets, but there are some who drive like idiots regardless of the speed limit.
http://cars.aol.co.u k/2014/02/24/danish- road-experiment-sees -accident-rate-fall- on-faster-roads/ Danish experiment sees faster roads as improving safety. The Portsmouth 20mph experiment saw casualties rise. The Greens have provided no statistics, independent or otherwise to back up the success or otherwise of the first phase of 20 mph zones. IME, most motorists drive to the conditions in urban streets, but there are some who drive like idiots regardless of the speed limit. Plantpot
  • Score: 14

5:00pm Mon 16 Jun 14

HJarrs says...

So we are all agreed then, 20mph zones should be enforced rigorously to make the street environment more pleasant and useable for all and just as a racetrack for a few inconsiderate people.
So we are all agreed then, 20mph zones should be enforced rigorously to make the street environment more pleasant and useable for all and just as a racetrack for a few inconsiderate people. HJarrs
  • Score: -26

5:15pm Mon 16 Jun 14

J_Brightonandhove says...

HJarrs wrote:
So we are all agreed then, 20mph zones should be enforced rigorously to make the street environment more pleasant and useable for all and just as a racetrack for a few inconsiderate people.
No.- We all agree that the green party are utter lunatics with no common sense or ability to successfully run a local council. We also agree that this policy doesn't work, can't work and won't work for the many reasons listed above.

Now do us all a favour Jason and save yourself the aggro of typing your pathetic, undemocratic comments in that you're right and we're all wrong
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: So we are all agreed then, 20mph zones should be enforced rigorously to make the street environment more pleasant and useable for all and just as a racetrack for a few inconsiderate people.[/p][/quote]No.- We all agree that the green party are utter lunatics with no common sense or ability to successfully run a local council. We also agree that this policy doesn't work, can't work and won't work for the many reasons listed above. Now do us all a favour Jason and save yourself the aggro of typing your pathetic, undemocratic comments in that you're right and we're all wrong J_Brightonandhove
  • Score: 19

5:17pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Plantpot says...

HJarrs wrote:
So we are all agreed then, 20mph zones should be enforced rigorously to make the street environment more pleasant and useable for all and just as a racetrack for a few inconsiderate people.
Er no. 20mph zones are appropriate in some places and not others. The zones should also be part of an overall traffic package that encourages faster travel through the city, affordable bus fares, ensuring that all road users, including cyclists and pedestrians learn to use the road properly according to the Highway Code. Etc. etc. Unfortunately the car hating council have just decided to stick it to the vast majority of road users such that 20mph in itself means nothing. Policing is done by consent in the UK - I don't see consent at all on the roads of B&H.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: So we are all agreed then, 20mph zones should be enforced rigorously to make the street environment more pleasant and useable for all and just as a racetrack for a few inconsiderate people.[/p][/quote]Er no. 20mph zones are appropriate in some places and not others. The zones should also be part of an overall traffic package that encourages faster travel through the city, affordable bus fares, ensuring that all road users, including cyclists and pedestrians learn to use the road properly according to the Highway Code. Etc. etc. Unfortunately the car hating council have just decided to stick it to the vast majority of road users such that 20mph in itself means nothing. Policing is done by consent in the UK - I don't see consent at all on the roads of B&H. Plantpot
  • Score: 13

5:40pm Mon 16 Jun 14

To baldly go says...

HJarrs wrote:
So we are all agreed then, 20mph zones should be enforced rigorously to make the street environment more pleasant and useable for all and just as a racetrack for a few inconsiderate people.
20mph zones will never be enforced, much the same as it was at 30 or 40 etc, educate cyclists and pedestrians to be more observant and obey the law would reduce accidents by a far greater margin than reducing speed limits. Yes, someone hit by a car at 20mph rather than 30mph will not be so severely hurt, but if they had looked before they crossed the road or had not cycled through a red light they wouldn't have been hurt full stop!
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: So we are all agreed then, 20mph zones should be enforced rigorously to make the street environment more pleasant and useable for all and just as a racetrack for a few inconsiderate people.[/p][/quote]20mph zones will never be enforced, much the same as it was at 30 or 40 etc, educate cyclists and pedestrians to be more observant and obey the law would reduce accidents by a far greater margin than reducing speed limits. Yes, someone hit by a car at 20mph rather than 30mph will not be so severely hurt, but if they had looked before they crossed the road or had not cycled through a red light they wouldn't have been hurt full stop! To baldly go
  • Score: 17

5:43pm Mon 16 Jun 14

hoveguyactually says...

Tony Green, from Bricycles, the Brighton and Hove Cycling Campaign, said: “I think it is a very good idea and we fully sup- port and are looking forward to it.

Pity they won't do anything about the cyclists speeding along pavements. And apparently few of them know how to read, judging by the masses of them ignoring the "No cycling" signs on Hove promenade.
Tony Green, from Bricycles, the Brighton and Hove Cycling Campaign, said: “I think it is a very good idea and we fully sup- port and are looking forward to it. Pity they won't do anything about the cyclists speeding along pavements. And apparently few of them know how to read, judging by the masses of them ignoring the "No cycling" signs on Hove promenade. hoveguyactually
  • Score: 21

5:51pm Mon 16 Jun 14

hoveguyactually says...

Uncle Ruckus (No Relation) wrote:
Counting down the days until the incompetent, incapable, spiteful and malicious 'snot' Green Party are kicked-out of Brighton
If only!

Unfortunately we have a rather brainless community, including lots of students, who are easily led astray like sheep by the moronic crew they voted for, even when so many of their policies are so illogical. I have lived in Brighton all my long life and this is definitely the most arrogant, destructive and wasteful council I have ever come across. The Stasi would have been so proud of them.
[quote][p][bold]Uncle Ruckus (No Relation)[/bold] wrote: Counting down the days until the incompetent, incapable, spiteful and malicious 'snot' Green Party are kicked-out of Brighton[/p][/quote]If only! Unfortunately we have a rather brainless community, including lots of students, who are easily led astray like sheep by the moronic crew they voted for, even when so many of their policies are so illogical. I have lived in Brighton all my long life and this is definitely the most arrogant, destructive and wasteful council I have ever come across. The Stasi would have been so proud of them. hoveguyactually
  • Score: 15

5:59pm Mon 16 Jun 14

HJarrs says...

J_Brightonandhove wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
So we are all agreed then, 20mph zones should be enforced rigorously to make the street environment more pleasant and useable for all and just as a racetrack for a few inconsiderate people.
No.- We all agree that the green party are utter lunatics with no common sense or ability to successfully run a local council. We also agree that this policy doesn't work, can't work and won't work for the many reasons listed above.

Now do us all a favour Jason and save yourself the aggro of typing your pathetic, undemocratic comments in that you're right and we're all wrong
What a shame for our Argus moanerati that so many people in the city want to see 20mph zones in their streets. So unpopular is the idea that some streets left out, raised petitions demanded successfully to be put back in the scheme!

It is about time some of you had more consideration of others rather than driving as fast as you can.
[quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: So we are all agreed then, 20mph zones should be enforced rigorously to make the street environment more pleasant and useable for all and just as a racetrack for a few inconsiderate people.[/p][/quote]No.- We all agree that the green party are utter lunatics with no common sense or ability to successfully run a local council. We also agree that this policy doesn't work, can't work and won't work for the many reasons listed above. Now do us all a favour Jason and save yourself the aggro of typing your pathetic, undemocratic comments in that you're right and we're all wrong[/p][/quote]What a shame for our Argus moanerati that so many people in the city want to see 20mph zones in their streets. So unpopular is the idea that some streets left out, raised petitions demanded successfully to be put back in the scheme! It is about time some of you had more consideration of others rather than driving as fast as you can. HJarrs
  • Score: -27

5:59pm Mon 16 Jun 14

HJarrs says...

J_Brightonandhove wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
So we are all agreed then, 20mph zones should be enforced rigorously to make the street environment more pleasant and useable for all and just as a racetrack for a few inconsiderate people.
No.- We all agree that the green party are utter lunatics with no common sense or ability to successfully run a local council. We also agree that this policy doesn't work, can't work and won't work for the many reasons listed above.

Now do us all a favour Jason and save yourself the aggro of typing your pathetic, undemocratic comments in that you're right and we're all wrong
What a shame for our Argus moanerati that so many people in the city want to see 20mph zones in their streets. So unpopular is the idea that some streets left out, raised petitions demanded successfully to be put back in the scheme!

It is about time some of you had more consideration of others rather than driving as fast as you can.
[quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: So we are all agreed then, 20mph zones should be enforced rigorously to make the street environment more pleasant and useable for all and just as a racetrack for a few inconsiderate people.[/p][/quote]No.- We all agree that the green party are utter lunatics with no common sense or ability to successfully run a local council. We also agree that this policy doesn't work, can't work and won't work for the many reasons listed above. Now do us all a favour Jason and save yourself the aggro of typing your pathetic, undemocratic comments in that you're right and we're all wrong[/p][/quote]What a shame for our Argus moanerati that so many people in the city want to see 20mph zones in their streets. So unpopular is the idea that some streets left out, raised petitions demanded successfully to be put back in the scheme! It is about time some of you had more consideration of others rather than driving as fast as you can. HJarrs
  • Score: -24

6:01pm Mon 16 Jun 14

ARMANA says...

Greens out, dont forget to register to vote,
Greens out, dont forget to register to vote, ARMANA
  • Score: 17

6:09pm Mon 16 Jun 14

gheese77 says...

Plantpot wrote:
http://cars.aol.co.u

k/2014/02/24/danish-

road-experiment-sees

-accident-rate-fall-

on-faster-roads/

Danish experiment sees faster roads as improving safety.

The Portsmouth 20mph experiment saw casualties rise.

The Greens have provided no statistics, independent or otherwise to back up the success or otherwise of the first phase of 20 mph zones.

IME, most motorists drive to the conditions in urban streets, but there are some who drive like idiots regardless of the speed limit.
The 20 mph limit is primarily to protect pedestrians. Is the Danish study relevant ? its a 80 kph to 90 kph limit increase on rural roads, where there are very few pedestrians, and if a car hits a pedestrian at 80 or 90 kph it makes little difference, they will almost certainly be dead. We are talking about a 30 mph to 20 mph limit decrease in built up areas where there are many more pedestrians. It a fact that a car at 20 mph is much less likely to kill a
pedestrian than one at 30 mph
http://www.rospa.com
/roadsafety/advice/h
ighway/info/20-mph-z
one-factsheet.pdf
I don't think anyone could sensibly argue otherwise.
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: http://cars.aol.co.u k/2014/02/24/danish- road-experiment-sees -accident-rate-fall- on-faster-roads/ Danish experiment sees faster roads as improving safety. The Portsmouth 20mph experiment saw casualties rise. The Greens have provided no statistics, independent or otherwise to back up the success or otherwise of the first phase of 20 mph zones. IME, most motorists drive to the conditions in urban streets, but there are some who drive like idiots regardless of the speed limit.[/p][/quote]The 20 mph limit is primarily to protect pedestrians. Is the Danish study relevant ? its a 80 kph to 90 kph limit increase on rural roads, where there are very few pedestrians, and if a car hits a pedestrian at 80 or 90 kph it makes little difference, they will almost certainly be dead. We are talking about a 30 mph to 20 mph limit decrease in built up areas where there are many more pedestrians. It a fact that a car at 20 mph is much less likely to kill a pedestrian than one at 30 mph http://www.rospa.com /roadsafety/advice/h ighway/info/20-mph-z one-factsheet.pdf I don't think anyone could sensibly argue otherwise. gheese77
  • Score: -4

6:51pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

I've lived in a 20mph zone for more than a decade and the limit has never, ever been enforced so the council installed chicanes. That didn't work either so the council installed light up signs telling people they are speeding.
That doesn't work. The only thing which has stopped traffic speeding is the dreadful congestion caused by the Lewes Road scheme which means traffic moves at less than 5mph.
It will be interesting to see if the police will enforce the limit for buses and taxis which can be seen breaking limits all the time, particularly on the Lewes road.
I've lived in a 20mph zone for more than a decade and the limit has never, ever been enforced so the council installed chicanes. That didn't work either so the council installed light up signs telling people they are speeding. That doesn't work. The only thing which has stopped traffic speeding is the dreadful congestion caused by the Lewes Road scheme which means traffic moves at less than 5mph. It will be interesting to see if the police will enforce the limit for buses and taxis which can be seen breaking limits all the time, particularly on the Lewes road. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 22

6:55pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Withdean-er says...

To baldly go wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
So we are all agreed then, 20mph zones should be enforced rigorously to make the street environment more pleasant and useable for all and just as a racetrack for a few inconsiderate people.
20mph zones will never be enforced, much the same as it was at 30 or 40 etc, educate cyclists and pedestrians to be more observant and obey the law would reduce accidents by a far greater margin than reducing speed limits. Yes, someone hit by a car at 20mph rather than 30mph will not be so severely hurt, but if they had looked before they crossed the road or had not cycled through a red light they wouldn't have been hurt full stop!
Some dumb lumping together of anyone that's not a car driver there.

What about kids, visually impaired, old folk, pets, wildlife? Your bizarre assumption is that drivers motoring at 30mph + through residential streets no matter how narrow, is fine, that nothing needs to change there. The only change required is for all other parties no matter how old or young or infirm, to change, to accommodate your driving. If not, it's simply their fault and hard luck.

You just given a perfect reason why 20mph limits are required for some areas.
[quote][p][bold]To baldly go[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: So we are all agreed then, 20mph zones should be enforced rigorously to make the street environment more pleasant and useable for all and just as a racetrack for a few inconsiderate people.[/p][/quote]20mph zones will never be enforced, much the same as it was at 30 or 40 etc, educate cyclists and pedestrians to be more observant and obey the law would reduce accidents by a far greater margin than reducing speed limits. Yes, someone hit by a car at 20mph rather than 30mph will not be so severely hurt, but if they had looked before they crossed the road or had not cycled through a red light they wouldn't have been hurt full stop![/p][/quote]Some dumb lumping together of anyone that's not a car driver there. What about kids, visually impaired, old folk, pets, wildlife? Your bizarre assumption is that drivers motoring at 30mph + through residential streets no matter how narrow, is fine, that nothing needs to change there. The only change required is for all other parties no matter how old or young or infirm, to change, to accommodate your driving. If not, it's simply their fault and hard luck. You just given a perfect reason why 20mph limits are required for some areas. Withdean-er
  • Score: -9

7:07pm Mon 16 Jun 14

rolivan says...

gheese77 wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
http://cars.aol.co.u


k/2014/02/24/danish-


road-experiment-sees


-accident-rate-fall-


on-faster-roads/

Danish experiment sees faster roads as improving safety.

The Portsmouth 20mph experiment saw casualties rise.

The Greens have provided no statistics, independent or otherwise to back up the success or otherwise of the first phase of 20 mph zones.

IME, most motorists drive to the conditions in urban streets, but there are some who drive like idiots regardless of the speed limit.
The 20 mph limit is primarily to protect pedestrians. Is the Danish study relevant ? its a 80 kph to 90 kph limit increase on rural roads, where there are very few pedestrians, and if a car hits a pedestrian at 80 or 90 kph it makes little difference, they will almost certainly be dead. We are talking about a 30 mph to 20 mph limit decrease in built up areas where there are many more pedestrians. It a fact that a car at 20 mph is much less likely to kill a
pedestrian than one at 30 mph
http://www.rospa.com

/roadsafety/advice/h

ighway/info/20-mph-z

one-factsheet.pdf
I don't think anyone could sensibly argue otherwise.
If that is the case why not spend money on educating pedestrians and fine them for jay walking and crossing when the lights are against them at traffic lights surely this would be far cheaper and cause less disruption.
[quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: http://cars.aol.co.u k/2014/02/24/danish- road-experiment-sees -accident-rate-fall- on-faster-roads/ Danish experiment sees faster roads as improving safety. The Portsmouth 20mph experiment saw casualties rise. The Greens have provided no statistics, independent or otherwise to back up the success or otherwise of the first phase of 20 mph zones. IME, most motorists drive to the conditions in urban streets, but there are some who drive like idiots regardless of the speed limit.[/p][/quote]The 20 mph limit is primarily to protect pedestrians. Is the Danish study relevant ? its a 80 kph to 90 kph limit increase on rural roads, where there are very few pedestrians, and if a car hits a pedestrian at 80 or 90 kph it makes little difference, they will almost certainly be dead. We are talking about a 30 mph to 20 mph limit decrease in built up areas where there are many more pedestrians. It a fact that a car at 20 mph is much less likely to kill a pedestrian than one at 30 mph http://www.rospa.com /roadsafety/advice/h ighway/info/20-mph-z one-factsheet.pdf I don't think anyone could sensibly argue otherwise.[/p][/quote]If that is the case why not spend money on educating pedestrians and fine them for jay walking and crossing when the lights are against them at traffic lights surely this would be far cheaper and cause less disruption. rolivan
  • Score: 10

7:50pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Gribbet says...

ARMANA wrote:
Greens out, dont forget to register to vote,
Rest of World - 1
Car Addicts - 0

Another victory for the common sense majority.
[quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: Greens out, dont forget to register to vote,[/p][/quote]Rest of World - 1 Car Addicts - 0 Another victory for the common sense majority. Gribbet
  • Score: -1

7:52pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Sheeples says...

Allow me to set the record straight NOx and Diesel particulates shorten life expectancy.... Fact

Council own Air Quality officer opposed a blanket 20mph.

All empirical evidence states an arbitrary blanket reduction to 20mph will increase pollution. (like for like vehicle numbers)

Both Labour and the conservatives could of voted no to this nonsense, however they chose not to.

Stop pinning your hopes in self serving political classes. (of all colours)
Allow me to set the record straight NOx and Diesel particulates shorten life expectancy.... Fact Council own Air Quality officer opposed a blanket 20mph. All empirical evidence states an arbitrary blanket reduction to 20mph will increase pollution. (like for like vehicle numbers) Both Labour and the conservatives could of voted no to this nonsense, however they chose not to. Stop pinning your hopes in self serving political classes. (of all colours) Sheeples
  • Score: 8

8:00pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Sheeples says...

Gribbet wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
Greens out, dont forget to register to vote,
Rest of World - 1
Car Addicts - 0

Another victory for the common sense majority.
Intellectual informed debate 0

Patronized I'll informed stupidity 1
[quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: Greens out, dont forget to register to vote,[/p][/quote]Rest of World - 1 Car Addicts - 0 Another victory for the common sense majority.[/p][/quote]Intellectual informed debate 0 Patronized I'll informed stupidity 1 Sheeples
  • Score: 7

8:02pm Mon 16 Jun 14

HJarrs says...

Sheeples wrote:
Allow me to set the record straight NOx and Diesel particulates shorten life expectancy.... Fact

Council own Air Quality officer opposed a blanket 20mph.

All empirical evidence states an arbitrary blanket reduction to 20mph will increase pollution. (like for like vehicle numbers)

Both Labour and the conservatives could of voted no to this nonsense, however they chose not to.

Stop pinning your hopes in self serving political classes. (of all colours)
A blanket ban was never proposed.
[quote][p][bold]Sheeples[/bold] wrote: Allow me to set the record straight NOx and Diesel particulates shorten life expectancy.... Fact Council own Air Quality officer opposed a blanket 20mph. All empirical evidence states an arbitrary blanket reduction to 20mph will increase pollution. (like for like vehicle numbers) Both Labour and the conservatives could of voted no to this nonsense, however they chose not to. Stop pinning your hopes in self serving political classes. (of all colours)[/p][/quote]A blanket ban was never proposed. HJarrs
  • Score: -9

8:05pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Gribbet says...

rolivan wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
http://cars.aol.co.u



k/2014/02/24/danish-



road-experiment-sees



-accident-rate-fall-



on-faster-roads/

Danish experiment sees faster roads as improving safety.

The Portsmouth 20mph experiment saw casualties rise.

The Greens have provided no statistics, independent or otherwise to back up the success or otherwise of the first phase of 20 mph zones.

IME, most motorists drive to the conditions in urban streets, but there are some who drive like idiots regardless of the speed limit.
The 20 mph limit is primarily to protect pedestrians. Is the Danish study relevant ? its a 80 kph to 90 kph limit increase on rural roads, where there are very few pedestrians, and if a car hits a pedestrian at 80 or 90 kph it makes little difference, they will almost certainly be dead. We are talking about a 30 mph to 20 mph limit decrease in built up areas where there are many more pedestrians. It a fact that a car at 20 mph is much less likely to kill a
pedestrian than one at 30 mph
http://www.rospa.com


/roadsafety/advice/h


ighway/info/20-mph-z


one-factsheet.pdf
I don't think anyone could sensibly argue otherwise.
If that is the case why not spend money on educating pedestrians and fine them for jay walking and crossing when the lights are against them at traffic lights surely this would be far cheaper and cause less disruption.
Because there's no such thing as 'jaywalking' in the UK
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: http://cars.aol.co.u k/2014/02/24/danish- road-experiment-sees -accident-rate-fall- on-faster-roads/ Danish experiment sees faster roads as improving safety. The Portsmouth 20mph experiment saw casualties rise. The Greens have provided no statistics, independent or otherwise to back up the success or otherwise of the first phase of 20 mph zones. IME, most motorists drive to the conditions in urban streets, but there are some who drive like idiots regardless of the speed limit.[/p][/quote]The 20 mph limit is primarily to protect pedestrians. Is the Danish study relevant ? its a 80 kph to 90 kph limit increase on rural roads, where there are very few pedestrians, and if a car hits a pedestrian at 80 or 90 kph it makes little difference, they will almost certainly be dead. We are talking about a 30 mph to 20 mph limit decrease in built up areas where there are many more pedestrians. It a fact that a car at 20 mph is much less likely to kill a pedestrian than one at 30 mph http://www.rospa.com /roadsafety/advice/h ighway/info/20-mph-z one-factsheet.pdf I don't think anyone could sensibly argue otherwise.[/p][/quote]If that is the case why not spend money on educating pedestrians and fine them for jay walking and crossing when the lights are against them at traffic lights surely this would be far cheaper and cause less disruption.[/p][/quote]Because there's no such thing as 'jaywalking' in the UK Gribbet
  • Score: 6

8:10pm Mon 16 Jun 14

MasonStorm says...

More cars to overtake and honk my horn at! Marvellous :D
More cars to overtake and honk my horn at! Marvellous :D MasonStorm
  • Score: 4

8:13pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Gribbet says...

Sheeples wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
Greens out, dont forget to register to vote,
Rest of World - 1
Car Addicts - 0

Another victory for the common sense majority.
Intellectual informed debate 0

Patronized I'll informed stupidity 1
Punctuation and Grammar - 0
[quote][p][bold]Sheeples[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: Greens out, dont forget to register to vote,[/p][/quote]Rest of World - 1 Car Addicts - 0 Another victory for the common sense majority.[/p][/quote]Intellectual informed debate 0 Patronized I'll informed stupidity 1[/p][/quote]Punctuation and Grammar - 0 Gribbet
  • Score: 4

8:14pm Mon 16 Jun 14

keswick says...

HJarrs wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
So we are all agreed then, 20mph zones should be enforced rigorously to make the street environment more pleasant and useable for all and just as a racetrack for a few inconsiderate people.
No.- We all agree that the green party are utter lunatics with no common sense or ability to successfully run a local council. We also agree that this policy doesn't work, can't work and won't work for the many reasons listed above.

Now do us all a favour Jason and save yourself the aggro of typing your pathetic, undemocratic comments in that you're right and we're all wrong
What a shame for our Argus moanerati that so many people in the city want to see 20mph zones in their streets. So unpopular is the idea that some streets left out, raised petitions demanded successfully to be put back in the scheme!

It is about time some of you had more consideration of others rather than driving as fast as you can.
Jason - you put the same post on twice but it is still the same garbage.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: So we are all agreed then, 20mph zones should be enforced rigorously to make the street environment more pleasant and useable for all and just as a racetrack for a few inconsiderate people.[/p][/quote]No.- We all agree that the green party are utter lunatics with no common sense or ability to successfully run a local council. We also agree that this policy doesn't work, can't work and won't work for the many reasons listed above. Now do us all a favour Jason and save yourself the aggro of typing your pathetic, undemocratic comments in that you're right and we're all wrong[/p][/quote]What a shame for our Argus moanerati that so many people in the city want to see 20mph zones in their streets. So unpopular is the idea that some streets left out, raised petitions demanded successfully to be put back in the scheme! It is about time some of you had more consideration of others rather than driving as fast as you can.[/p][/quote]Jason - you put the same post on twice but it is still the same garbage. keswick
  • Score: 13

8:37pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Martha Gunn says...

Does a 20mph limit work?
Is it enforceable?
Does it reduce pollution?

The evidence suggests that the jury is out on every one of these questions.

What is certain is that the Greenspeak that surrounds these issues is what really rots the brain.
The Green Davey is incapable of speaking in intelligible sentences.
Roll on 2015!
Let's all join together to bring an end to Greenspeak!
Does a 20mph limit work? Is it enforceable? Does it reduce pollution? The evidence suggests that the jury is out on every one of these questions. What is certain is that the Greenspeak that surrounds these issues is what really rots the brain. The Green Davey is incapable of speaking in intelligible sentences. Roll on 2015! Let's all join together to bring an end to Greenspeak! Martha Gunn
  • Score: 10

9:03pm Mon 16 Jun 14

DCCCCCC says...

Fight_Back wrote:
cleggalike wrote:
RottingdeanRant wrote:
Quote 'Chris Todd, from Brighton and Hove Friends of the Earth said: “I think the first phase has been a success in raising awareness, while not everyone is obeying the speed limits I think speeds have definitely decreased.’

When I drive around EVERYBODY seems to be ignoring the 20 mph limits so I can’t believe that there is any measurable effect that can be attributed to these limits.
Everybody isn't. I'm not.
You're in a minority then. I drive through various parts of of the phase one zones every day and virtually everyone ignores it including buses, taxis, police and ...... me.
And me
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RottingdeanRant[/bold] wrote: Quote 'Chris Todd, from Brighton and Hove Friends of the Earth said: “I think the first phase has been a success in raising awareness, while not everyone is obeying the speed limits I think speeds have definitely decreased.’ When I drive around EVERYBODY seems to be ignoring the 20 mph limits so I can’t believe that there is any measurable effect that can be attributed to these limits.[/p][/quote]Everybody isn't. I'm not.[/p][/quote]You're in a minority then. I drive through various parts of of the phase one zones every day and virtually everyone ignores it including buses, taxis, police and ...... me.[/p][/quote]And me DCCCCCC
  • Score: 8

9:23pm Mon 16 Jun 14

gheese77 says...

rolivan wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
http://cars.aol.co.u



k/2014/02/24/danish-



road-experiment-sees



-accident-rate-fall-



on-faster-roads/

Danish experiment sees faster roads as improving safety.

The Portsmouth 20mph experiment saw casualties rise.

The Greens have provided no statistics, independent or otherwise to back up the success or otherwise of the first phase of 20 mph zones.

IME, most motorists drive to the conditions in urban streets, but there are some who drive like idiots regardless of the speed limit.
The 20 mph limit is primarily to protect pedestrians. Is the Danish study relevant ? its a 80 kph to 90 kph limit increase on rural roads, where there are very few pedestrians, and if a car hits a pedestrian at 80 or 90 kph it makes little difference, they will almost certainly be dead. We are talking about a 30 mph to 20 mph limit decrease in built up areas where there are many more pedestrians. It a fact that a car at 20 mph is much less likely to kill a
pedestrian than one at 30 mph
http://www.rospa.com


/roadsafety/advice/h


ighway/info/20-mph-z


one-factsheet.pdf
I don't think anyone could sensibly argue otherwise.
If that is the case why not spend money on educating pedestrians and fine them for jay walking and crossing when the lights are against them at traffic lights surely this would be far cheaper and cause less disruption.
Less disruption for whom ? The pedestrian who is knocked down and killed or the driver who refuses reduce there speed ?
As for cheaper apart from the tragic loss of life a single fatality on the roads is estimated to cost £1,790,200
http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-15975564
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: http://cars.aol.co.u k/2014/02/24/danish- road-experiment-sees -accident-rate-fall- on-faster-roads/ Danish experiment sees faster roads as improving safety. The Portsmouth 20mph experiment saw casualties rise. The Greens have provided no statistics, independent or otherwise to back up the success or otherwise of the first phase of 20 mph zones. IME, most motorists drive to the conditions in urban streets, but there are some who drive like idiots regardless of the speed limit.[/p][/quote]The 20 mph limit is primarily to protect pedestrians. Is the Danish study relevant ? its a 80 kph to 90 kph limit increase on rural roads, where there are very few pedestrians, and if a car hits a pedestrian at 80 or 90 kph it makes little difference, they will almost certainly be dead. We are talking about a 30 mph to 20 mph limit decrease in built up areas where there are many more pedestrians. It a fact that a car at 20 mph is much less likely to kill a pedestrian than one at 30 mph http://www.rospa.com /roadsafety/advice/h ighway/info/20-mph-z one-factsheet.pdf I don't think anyone could sensibly argue otherwise.[/p][/quote]If that is the case why not spend money on educating pedestrians and fine them for jay walking and crossing when the lights are against them at traffic lights surely this would be far cheaper and cause less disruption.[/p][/quote]Less disruption for whom ? The pedestrian who is knocked down and killed or the driver who refuses reduce there speed ? As for cheaper apart from the tragic loss of life a single fatality on the roads is estimated to cost £1,790,200 http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-15975564 gheese77
  • Score: -7

9:25pm Mon 16 Jun 14

DCCCCCC says...

FatherTed11 wrote:
There's a 20mph limit in Brighton? But everyone is still driving at 30mph
Because it is such a stupid ridiculous mad pollution causing idea.
[quote][p][bold]FatherTed11[/bold] wrote: There's a 20mph limit in Brighton? But everyone is still driving at 30mph[/p][/quote]Because it is such a stupid ridiculous mad pollution causing idea. DCCCCCC
  • Score: 6

9:37pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Gribbet says...

DCCCCCC wrote:
FatherTed11 wrote:
There's a 20mph limit in Brighton? But everyone is still driving at 30mph
Because it is such a stupid ridiculous mad pollution causing idea.
Come on, they're not driving at 30mph in a 20mph zone because they care about pollution. It's really just because these drivers want to go as fast as possible and believe that a traffic accident is something that only happens to other people.
[quote][p][bold]DCCCCCC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FatherTed11[/bold] wrote: There's a 20mph limit in Brighton? But everyone is still driving at 30mph[/p][/quote]Because it is such a stupid ridiculous mad pollution causing idea.[/p][/quote]Come on, they're not driving at 30mph in a 20mph zone because they care about pollution. It's really just because these drivers want to go as fast as possible and believe that a traffic accident is something that only happens to other people. Gribbet
  • Score: -9

9:39pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Automaton says...

Withdean-er wrote:
To baldly go wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
So we are all agreed then, 20mph zones should be enforced rigorously to make the street environment more pleasant and useable for all and just as a racetrack for a few inconsiderate people.
20mph zones will never be enforced, much the same as it was at 30 or 40 etc, educate cyclists and pedestrians to be more observant and obey the law would reduce accidents by a far greater margin than reducing speed limits. Yes, someone hit by a car at 20mph rather than 30mph will not be so severely hurt, but if they had looked before they crossed the road or had not cycled through a red light they wouldn't have been hurt full stop!
Some dumb lumping together of anyone that's not a car driver there.

What about kids, visually impaired, old folk, pets, wildlife? Your bizarre assumption is that drivers motoring at 30mph + through residential streets no matter how narrow, is fine, that nothing needs to change there. The only change required is for all other parties no matter how old or young or infirm, to change, to accommodate your driving. If not, it's simply their fault and hard luck.

You just given a perfect reason why 20mph limits are required for some areas.
If the road is too narrow most people will drive slowly anyway. Except the idiots who won't drive sensibly whatever the speed limit.
[quote][p][bold]Withdean-er[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]To baldly go[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: So we are all agreed then, 20mph zones should be enforced rigorously to make the street environment more pleasant and useable for all and just as a racetrack for a few inconsiderate people.[/p][/quote]20mph zones will never be enforced, much the same as it was at 30 or 40 etc, educate cyclists and pedestrians to be more observant and obey the law would reduce accidents by a far greater margin than reducing speed limits. Yes, someone hit by a car at 20mph rather than 30mph will not be so severely hurt, but if they had looked before they crossed the road or had not cycled through a red light they wouldn't have been hurt full stop![/p][/quote]Some dumb lumping together of anyone that's not a car driver there. What about kids, visually impaired, old folk, pets, wildlife? Your bizarre assumption is that drivers motoring at 30mph + through residential streets no matter how narrow, is fine, that nothing needs to change there. The only change required is for all other parties no matter how old or young or infirm, to change, to accommodate your driving. If not, it's simply their fault and hard luck. You just given a perfect reason why 20mph limits are required for some areas.[/p][/quote]If the road is too narrow most people will drive slowly anyway. Except the idiots who won't drive sensibly whatever the speed limit. Automaton
  • Score: 7

9:44pm Mon 16 Jun 14

ghost bus driver says...

cynic_the wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
gheese77 wrote: This is good news for road safety
Please explain how when 95% of people ignore it (including police), the police said they can't/won't enforce it and it clogging up the roads because in theory, everyone will be going slower Now that's great news for road safety!!!
You are correct - everyone going slower is great news for road safety!!! I agree it needs better enforcement, groups such as community speed watch (http://www.sussex.p olice.uk/whats-happe ning/latest/news-sto ries/2014/05/01/comm unity-speed-watch-to -come-to-hove) are being set up in collaboration with the police should help with this. The police will enforce the law - don't believe it ? Just wait and see what happens when a speeding motorist knocks someone over
Gheese: -

Police won't enforce 20mph as they've previously said and if someone knocks someone over, they'll likely be charged with driving without due care and attention or dangerous driving, not breaching a 20mph zone!

You've completely avoided answering my question so you therefore must be an avid green party supporter/member.

Everyone ignores it. It can't/won't be enforced. People aren't jumping onto bikes. We're now one of the most congested cities in the country and it isn't going to get any better until we see some policies to get traffic moving which by all accounts, is certainly not happening by putting 20 signs everywhere
I think Gheese77 is correct in that in the event of a collision, the police will try to apportion blame - probably by plugging a laptop in the car's ECU and telling you exactly how fast you were driving. they will also check your mobile phone details and perform a breath test.

I think that they can't afford to prevent accidents, so the best they can do is try to get a prosecution when one does happen. I guess that should act as a deterrent at least.
Good job my car does not have an ECU then.
[quote][p][bold]cynic_the[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: This is good news for road safety[/p][/quote]Please explain how when 95% of people ignore it (including police), the police said they can't/won't enforce it and it clogging up the roads because in theory, everyone will be going slower Now that's great news for road safety!!![/p][/quote]You are correct - everyone going slower is great news for road safety!!! I agree it needs better enforcement, groups such as community speed watch (http://www.sussex.p olice.uk/whats-happe ning/latest/news-sto ries/2014/05/01/comm unity-speed-watch-to -come-to-hove) are being set up in collaboration with the police should help with this. The police will enforce the law - don't believe it ? Just wait and see what happens when a speeding motorist knocks someone over[/p][/quote]Gheese: - Police won't enforce 20mph as they've previously said and if someone knocks someone over, they'll likely be charged with driving without due care and attention or dangerous driving, not breaching a 20mph zone! You've completely avoided answering my question so you therefore must be an avid green party supporter/member. Everyone ignores it. It can't/won't be enforced. People aren't jumping onto bikes. We're now one of the most congested cities in the country and it isn't going to get any better until we see some policies to get traffic moving which by all accounts, is certainly not happening by putting 20 signs everywhere[/p][/quote]I think Gheese77 is correct in that in the event of a collision, the police will try to apportion blame - probably by plugging a laptop in the car's ECU and telling you exactly how fast you were driving. they will also check your mobile phone details and perform a breath test. I think that they can't afford to prevent accidents, so the best they can do is try to get a prosecution when one does happen. I guess that should act as a deterrent at least.[/p][/quote]Good job my car does not have an ECU then. ghost bus driver
  • Score: 4

9:52pm Mon 16 Jun 14

reddogs says...

what with bus lanes,cycle lanes and even more 20mph limits Brighton will soon be a no go area in the south.Bloody Greens for gods sake get rid of them before this town dies.
what with bus lanes,cycle lanes and even more 20mph limits Brighton will soon be a no go area in the south.Bloody Greens for gods sake get rid of them before this town dies. reddogs
  • Score: 12

9:58pm Mon 16 Jun 14

fredflintstone1 says...

If the 20mph limit really is to protect pedestrians, then cyclists must be registered, insured and prosecuted for traffic offences - including breaking the 20mph limit.

Why? Because unlike car drivers, some cyclists insist on travelling down pavements behind pedestrians at speeds in excess of cars driving on roads, and shoot red lights. The risk of a collision with a bike for a pedestrian walking on a pavement is undoubtedly higher than being hit by a car here.

If you doubt it, go and try walking on the pavement along London Road by the Viaduct, heading into the city, and see if you avoid injury.

And if you cross the road by looking carefully first, rather than walking out wearing headphones and not concentrating, there's really no risk of being hit. But then why would the Greens want to use commonsense to complicate their warped view of the world?
If the 20mph limit really is to protect pedestrians, then cyclists must be registered, insured and prosecuted for traffic offences - including breaking the 20mph limit. Why? Because unlike car drivers, some cyclists insist on travelling down pavements behind pedestrians at speeds in excess of cars driving on roads, and shoot red lights. The risk of a collision with a bike for a pedestrian walking on a pavement is undoubtedly higher than being hit by a car here. If you doubt it, go and try walking on the pavement along London Road by the Viaduct, heading into the city, and see if you avoid injury. And if you cross the road by looking carefully first, rather than walking out wearing headphones and not concentrating, there's really no risk of being hit. But then why would the Greens want to use commonsense to complicate their warped view of the world? fredflintstone1
  • Score: 11

9:58pm Mon 16 Jun 14

cynic_the says...

The big players in this must be laughing away to themselves.

Whilst the public busy themselves arguing over the impacts - pollution, congestion, casualties, enforcement, whether it was wanted, whether it has worked - no one will question the fact that regardless of any of the above, a huge amount of public money has become private money as a result.

Whether it comes from EU grants, sustainability funds, council tax or whatever, no one really knows how much each 20 sign costs and what the profit margin is, how much the consultation process cost and whether any of the decision makers received any... donations.

No one upstairs really cares whether it's a good idea or not. Just as long as everyone gets paid.
The big players in this must be laughing away to themselves. Whilst the public busy themselves arguing over the impacts - pollution, congestion, casualties, enforcement, whether it was wanted, whether it has worked - no one will question the fact that regardless of any of the above, a huge amount of public money has become private money as a result. Whether it comes from EU grants, sustainability funds, council tax or whatever, no one really knows how much each 20 sign costs and what the profit margin is, how much the consultation process cost and whether any of the decision makers received any... donations. No one upstairs really cares whether it's a good idea or not. Just as long as everyone gets paid. cynic_the
  • Score: 11

10:00pm Mon 16 Jun 14

gjg1208 says...

What about the cyclists who continue to speed along pavements at well over 20 mph and give you the verbals if you're in their way - grrr!

Just to add - I presume all the weeds growing alongside the streets of Brighton and Hove are considered to be beneficial to wildlife by the ******* Greens - grrr!
What about the cyclists who continue to speed along pavements at well over 20 mph and give you the verbals if you're in their way - grrr! Just to add - I presume all the weeds growing alongside the streets of Brighton and Hove are considered to be beneficial to wildlife by the ******* Greens - grrr! gjg1208
  • Score: 7

10:07pm Mon 16 Jun 14

ramble says...

P.Dant wrote:
A good bicycle can travel faster than 20 mph,so everybody get a bike.You won`t be stopped.Win and Win.
Doesn't the 20 mph rule apply to ALL road users, cyclists as well?
[quote][p][bold]P.Dant[/bold] wrote: A good bicycle can travel faster than 20 mph,so everybody get a bike.You won`t be stopped.Win and Win.[/p][/quote]Doesn't the 20 mph rule apply to ALL road users, cyclists as well? ramble
  • Score: 8

10:09pm Mon 16 Jun 14

HJarrs says...

reddogs wrote:
what with bus lanes,cycle lanes and even more 20mph limits Brighton will soon be a no go area in the south.Bloody Greens for gods sake get rid of them before this town dies.
Brilliant! This is the sort of comment I love the best!

Year after year we read in the hardly pro-Green Argus that not only is bus, cycle and train use increasing while car use is stable or falling, but the city is doing well as a hot spot for startups, rapidly declining unemployment ahead of the national trend and hundreds of millions of development. Oh, yes and visitor numbers, both day trippers and overnight stays continue to climb.

Despite all this you think the city is going to die!!! It cracks me up.

Some of you don't get it. Cars are magnificent products of the consumer age and incredibly versatile, but there are way too many on the roads of the city and it is they that are putting people off from coming here.
[quote][p][bold]reddogs[/bold] wrote: what with bus lanes,cycle lanes and even more 20mph limits Brighton will soon be a no go area in the south.Bloody Greens for gods sake get rid of them before this town dies.[/p][/quote]Brilliant! This is the sort of comment I love the best! Year after year we read in the hardly pro-Green Argus that not only is bus, cycle and train use increasing while car use is stable or falling, but the city is doing well as a hot spot for startups, rapidly declining unemployment ahead of the national trend and hundreds of millions of development. Oh, yes and visitor numbers, both day trippers and overnight stays continue to climb. Despite all this you think the city is going to die!!! It cracks me up. Some of you don't get it. Cars are magnificent products of the consumer age and incredibly versatile, but there are way too many on the roads of the city and it is they that are putting people off from coming here. HJarrs
  • Score: -14

10:12pm Mon 16 Jun 14

To baldly go says...

Withdean-er wrote:
To baldly go wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
So we are all agreed then, 20mph zones should be enforced rigorously to make the street environment more pleasant and useable for all and just as a racetrack for a few inconsiderate people.
20mph zones will never be enforced, much the same as it was at 30 or 40 etc, educate cyclists and pedestrians to be more observant and obey the law would reduce accidents by a far greater margin than reducing speed limits. Yes, someone hit by a car at 20mph rather than 30mph will not be so severely hurt, but if they had looked before they crossed the road or had not cycled through a red light they wouldn't have been hurt full stop!
Some dumb lumping together of anyone that's not a car driver there.

What about kids, visually impaired, old folk, pets, wildlife? Your bizarre assumption is that drivers motoring at 30mph + through residential streets no matter how narrow, is fine, that nothing needs to change there. The only change required is for all other parties no matter how old or young or infirm, to change, to accommodate your driving. If not, it's simply their fault and hard luck.

You just given a perfect reason why 20mph limits are required for some areas.
Glad you finished with the words, required for SOME AREAS! Not all areas then?
Yes I drive a car, but I am sometimes a pedestrian, and when I am, I stop, look and listen before crossing the road, and as I have posted on other topics, I also cycle, and guess what, I wear a helmet, use lights in the winter and STOP at red lights etc, thus so far ensuring my safety, all of this was taught to me at a young age, today's attitude is all car drivers are guilty, regardless, even if the cyclist jumps a red light or a teenager steps out in front of a car because his/her head is in a phone and is listening to music through head phones!
We all know this topic will have arguments from all sides, and all equally right in some way, but none of us want anyone, old, young, disabled or our pets injured or worse.
It is the way the Greens have gone about this that is causing the problem, and no I am not jumping on the outside of schools, hospitals etc bandwagon, the common sense approach would be 20mph around areas that are a higher than average risk and yes that includes schools, hospitals etc, but by doing so you have a good reason behind its implementation, one that the majority would take notice of, instead of that we have this almost blanket approach that no one takes notice of.
How many people that voted for 20mph in their streets adhere to the speed limits in other streets away from where they live, none would be my bet.
I see mums on the school run going down Trafalgar Road in Portslade at 30-35mph turn int St. Andrews road to drop their kids off at school, and i bet they don't even know they are doing it, but god forbid anyone who does it along the road where they live!
This was never going to work, police don't have the resources to police it, no one takes any notice of it, it just costs a lot of money to implement, money that could have been better spent on better road crossings etc, but that wouldn't be the GREEN way would it!
[quote][p][bold]Withdean-er[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]To baldly go[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: So we are all agreed then, 20mph zones should be enforced rigorously to make the street environment more pleasant and useable for all and just as a racetrack for a few inconsiderate people.[/p][/quote]20mph zones will never be enforced, much the same as it was at 30 or 40 etc, educate cyclists and pedestrians to be more observant and obey the law would reduce accidents by a far greater margin than reducing speed limits. Yes, someone hit by a car at 20mph rather than 30mph will not be so severely hurt, but if they had looked before they crossed the road or had not cycled through a red light they wouldn't have been hurt full stop![/p][/quote]Some dumb lumping together of anyone that's not a car driver there. What about kids, visually impaired, old folk, pets, wildlife? Your bizarre assumption is that drivers motoring at 30mph + through residential streets no matter how narrow, is fine, that nothing needs to change there. The only change required is for all other parties no matter how old or young or infirm, to change, to accommodate your driving. If not, it's simply their fault and hard luck. You just given a perfect reason why 20mph limits are required for some areas.[/p][/quote]Glad you finished with the words, required for SOME AREAS! Not all areas then? Yes I drive a car, but I am sometimes a pedestrian, and when I am, I stop, look and listen before crossing the road, and as I have posted on other topics, I also cycle, and guess what, I wear a helmet, use lights in the winter and STOP at red lights etc, thus so far ensuring my safety, all of this was taught to me at a young age, today's attitude is all car drivers are guilty, regardless, even if the cyclist jumps a red light or a teenager steps out in front of a car because his/her head is in a phone and is listening to music through head phones! We all know this topic will have arguments from all sides, and all equally right in some way, but none of us want anyone, old, young, disabled or our pets injured or worse. It is the way the Greens have gone about this that is causing the problem, and no I am not jumping on the outside of schools, hospitals etc bandwagon, the common sense approach would be 20mph around areas that are a higher than average risk and yes that includes schools, hospitals etc, but by doing so you have a good reason behind its implementation, one that the majority would take notice of, instead of that we have this almost blanket approach that no one takes notice of. How many people that voted for 20mph in their streets adhere to the speed limits in other streets away from where they live, none would be my bet. I see mums on the school run going down Trafalgar Road in Portslade at 30-35mph turn int St. Andrews road to drop their kids off at school, and i bet they don't even know they are doing it, but god forbid anyone who does it along the road where they live! This was never going to work, police don't have the resources to police it, no one takes any notice of it, it just costs a lot of money to implement, money that could have been better spent on better road crossings etc, but that wouldn't be the GREEN way would it! To baldly go
  • Score: 15

10:20pm Mon 16 Jun 14

cynic_the says...

ramble wrote:
P.Dant wrote:
A good bicycle can travel faster than 20 mph,so everybody get a bike.You won`t be stopped.Win and Win.
Doesn't the 20 mph rule apply to ALL road users, cyclists as well?
Actually no, speed limits only apply to 'motor vehicles' (although it is possible to be prosecuted for careless or 'furious' cycling).

In the long-term, this will probably lead to a change in the law and cyclists eventually needing licences and having to pass a test, which as a regular pedestrian in London, I think would be a good thing.
[quote][p][bold]ramble[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]P.Dant[/bold] wrote: A good bicycle can travel faster than 20 mph,so everybody get a bike.You won`t be stopped.Win and Win.[/p][/quote]Doesn't the 20 mph rule apply to ALL road users, cyclists as well?[/p][/quote]Actually no, speed limits only apply to 'motor vehicles' (although it is possible to be prosecuted for careless or 'furious' cycling). In the long-term, this will probably lead to a change in the law and cyclists eventually needing licences and having to pass a test, which as a regular pedestrian in London, I think would be a good thing. cynic_the
  • Score: -3

10:53pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Bill in Hanover says...

RottingdeanRant wrote:
Quote 'Chris Todd, from Brighton and Hove Friends of the Earth said: “I think the first phase has been a success in raising awareness, while not everyone is obeying the speed limits I think speeds have definitely decreased.’

When I drive around EVERYBODY seems to be ignoring the 20 mph limits so I can’t believe that there is any measurable effect that can be attributed to these limits.
It's not the 20mph limit that has lowered the accident rates but the bus lanes causing so much congestion which means that traffic rarely gets as high as 20mph. I regularly sit in traffic on the Lewes Road and dream of the good old days when I wasn't changing gear every 3 seconds as the car in front of me grinds to yet another halt.
[quote][p][bold]RottingdeanRant[/bold] wrote: Quote 'Chris Todd, from Brighton and Hove Friends of the Earth said: “I think the first phase has been a success in raising awareness, while not everyone is obeying the speed limits I think speeds have definitely decreased.’ When I drive around EVERYBODY seems to be ignoring the 20 mph limits so I can’t believe that there is any measurable effect that can be attributed to these limits.[/p][/quote]It's not the 20mph limit that has lowered the accident rates but the bus lanes causing so much congestion which means that traffic rarely gets as high as 20mph. I regularly sit in traffic on the Lewes Road and dream of the good old days when I wasn't changing gear every 3 seconds as the car in front of me grinds to yet another halt. Bill in Hanover
  • Score: 9

11:02pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Withdean-er says...

To baldly go wrote:
Withdean-er wrote:
To baldly go wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
So we are all agreed then, 20mph zones should be enforced rigorously to make the street environment more pleasant and useable for all and just as a racetrack for a few inconsiderate people.
20mph zones will never be enforced, much the same as it was at 30 or 40 etc, educate cyclists and pedestrians to be more observant and obey the law would reduce accidents by a far greater margin than reducing speed limits. Yes, someone hit by a car at 20mph rather than 30mph will not be so severely hurt, but if they had looked before they crossed the road or had not cycled through a red light they wouldn't have been hurt full stop!
Some dumb lumping together of anyone that's not a car driver there.

What about kids, visually impaired, old folk, pets, wildlife? Your bizarre assumption is that drivers motoring at 30mph + through residential streets no matter how narrow, is fine, that nothing needs to change there. The only change required is for all other parties no matter how old or young or infirm, to change, to accommodate your driving. If not, it's simply their fault and hard luck.

You just given a perfect reason why 20mph limits are required for some areas.
Glad you finished with the words, required for SOME AREAS! Not all areas then?
Yes I drive a car, but I am sometimes a pedestrian, and when I am, I stop, look and listen before crossing the road, and as I have posted on other topics, I also cycle, and guess what, I wear a helmet, use lights in the winter and STOP at red lights etc, thus so far ensuring my safety, all of this was taught to me at a young age, today's attitude is all car drivers are guilty, regardless, even if the cyclist jumps a red light or a teenager steps out in front of a car because his/her head is in a phone and is listening to music through head phones!
We all know this topic will have arguments from all sides, and all equally right in some way, but none of us want anyone, old, young, disabled or our pets injured or worse.
It is the way the Greens have gone about this that is causing the problem, and no I am not jumping on the outside of schools, hospitals etc bandwagon, the common sense approach would be 20mph around areas that are a higher than average risk and yes that includes schools, hospitals etc, but by doing so you have a good reason behind its implementation, one that the majority would take notice of, instead of that we have this almost blanket approach that no one takes notice of.
How many people that voted for 20mph in their streets adhere to the speed limits in other streets away from where they live, none would be my bet.
I see mums on the school run going down Trafalgar Road in Portslade at 30-35mph turn int St. Andrews road to drop their kids off at school, and i bet they don't even know they are doing it, but god forbid anyone who does it along the road where they live!
This was never going to work, police don't have the resources to police it, no one takes any notice of it, it just costs a lot of money to implement, money that could have been better spent on better road crossings etc, but that wouldn't be the GREEN way would it!
Police didn't have the resources to monitor 30mph is residential streets either, but most drivers complied. Hopefully most will take the 20mph into account. It was summed up recently that where drivers often drove round residential roads at at say 34mph, they may instead drive at 24mph, with the temptation to always creep a bit above. That drop may save serious injuries and possibly lives.
[quote][p][bold]To baldly go[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Withdean-er[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]To baldly go[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: So we are all agreed then, 20mph zones should be enforced rigorously to make the street environment more pleasant and useable for all and just as a racetrack for a few inconsiderate people.[/p][/quote]20mph zones will never be enforced, much the same as it was at 30 or 40 etc, educate cyclists and pedestrians to be more observant and obey the law would reduce accidents by a far greater margin than reducing speed limits. Yes, someone hit by a car at 20mph rather than 30mph will not be so severely hurt, but if they had looked before they crossed the road or had not cycled through a red light they wouldn't have been hurt full stop![/p][/quote]Some dumb lumping together of anyone that's not a car driver there. What about kids, visually impaired, old folk, pets, wildlife? Your bizarre assumption is that drivers motoring at 30mph + through residential streets no matter how narrow, is fine, that nothing needs to change there. The only change required is for all other parties no matter how old or young or infirm, to change, to accommodate your driving. If not, it's simply their fault and hard luck. You just given a perfect reason why 20mph limits are required for some areas.[/p][/quote]Glad you finished with the words, required for SOME AREAS! Not all areas then? Yes I drive a car, but I am sometimes a pedestrian, and when I am, I stop, look and listen before crossing the road, and as I have posted on other topics, I also cycle, and guess what, I wear a helmet, use lights in the winter and STOP at red lights etc, thus so far ensuring my safety, all of this was taught to me at a young age, today's attitude is all car drivers are guilty, regardless, even if the cyclist jumps a red light or a teenager steps out in front of a car because his/her head is in a phone and is listening to music through head phones! We all know this topic will have arguments from all sides, and all equally right in some way, but none of us want anyone, old, young, disabled or our pets injured or worse. It is the way the Greens have gone about this that is causing the problem, and no I am not jumping on the outside of schools, hospitals etc bandwagon, the common sense approach would be 20mph around areas that are a higher than average risk and yes that includes schools, hospitals etc, but by doing so you have a good reason behind its implementation, one that the majority would take notice of, instead of that we have this almost blanket approach that no one takes notice of. How many people that voted for 20mph in their streets adhere to the speed limits in other streets away from where they live, none would be my bet. I see mums on the school run going down Trafalgar Road in Portslade at 30-35mph turn int St. Andrews road to drop their kids off at school, and i bet they don't even know they are doing it, but god forbid anyone who does it along the road where they live! This was never going to work, police don't have the resources to police it, no one takes any notice of it, it just costs a lot of money to implement, money that could have been better spent on better road crossings etc, but that wouldn't be the GREEN way would it![/p][/quote]Police didn't have the resources to monitor 30mph is residential streets either, but most drivers complied. Hopefully most will take the 20mph into account. It was summed up recently that where drivers often drove round residential roads at at say 34mph, they may instead drive at 24mph, with the temptation to always creep a bit above. That drop may save serious injuries and possibly lives. Withdean-er
  • Score: -4

4:37am Tue 17 Jun 14

To baldly go says...

Withdean-er wrote:
To baldly go wrote:
Withdean-er wrote:
To baldly go wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
So we are all agreed then, 20mph zones should be enforced rigorously to make the street environment more pleasant and useable for all and just as a racetrack for a few inconsiderate people.
20mph zones will never be enforced, much the same as it was at 30 or 40 etc, educate cyclists and pedestrians to be more observant and obey the law would reduce accidents by a far greater margin than reducing speed limits. Yes, someone hit by a car at 20mph rather than 30mph will not be so severely hurt, but if they had looked before they crossed the road or had not cycled through a red light they wouldn't have been hurt full stop!
Some dumb lumping together of anyone that's not a car driver there.

What about kids, visually impaired, old folk, pets, wildlife? Your bizarre assumption is that drivers motoring at 30mph + through residential streets no matter how narrow, is fine, that nothing needs to change there. The only change required is for all other parties no matter how old or young or infirm, to change, to accommodate your driving. If not, it's simply their fault and hard luck.

You just given a perfect reason why 20mph limits are required for some areas.
Glad you finished with the words, required for SOME AREAS! Not all areas then?
Yes I drive a car, but I am sometimes a pedestrian, and when I am, I stop, look and listen before crossing the road, and as I have posted on other topics, I also cycle, and guess what, I wear a helmet, use lights in the winter and STOP at red lights etc, thus so far ensuring my safety, all of this was taught to me at a young age, today's attitude is all car drivers are guilty, regardless, even if the cyclist jumps a red light or a teenager steps out in front of a car because his/her head is in a phone and is listening to music through head phones!
We all know this topic will have arguments from all sides, and all equally right in some way, but none of us want anyone, old, young, disabled or our pets injured or worse.
It is the way the Greens have gone about this that is causing the problem, and no I am not jumping on the outside of schools, hospitals etc bandwagon, the common sense approach would be 20mph around areas that are a higher than average risk and yes that includes schools, hospitals etc, but by doing so you have a good reason behind its implementation, one that the majority would take notice of, instead of that we have this almost blanket approach that no one takes notice of.
How many people that voted for 20mph in their streets adhere to the speed limits in other streets away from where they live, none would be my bet.
I see mums on the school run going down Trafalgar Road in Portslade at 30-35mph turn int St. Andrews road to drop their kids off at school, and i bet they don't even know they are doing it, but god forbid anyone who does it along the road where they live!
This was never going to work, police don't have the resources to police it, no one takes any notice of it, it just costs a lot of money to implement, money that could have been better spent on better road crossings etc, but that wouldn't be the GREEN way would it!
Police didn't have the resources to monitor 30mph is residential streets either, but most drivers complied. Hopefully most will take the 20mph into account. It was summed up recently that where drivers often drove round residential roads at at say 34mph, they may instead drive at 24mph, with the temptation to always creep a bit above. That drop may save serious injuries and possibly lives.
Agree with the point there may be a slight drop on certain roads, but a better thought out implementation would have led to a bigger drop in the more important areas imo.
If all groups (motorists, cyclists and pedestrians) ALL paid more attention, wouldn't it be a better place to live all round.
[quote][p][bold]Withdean-er[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]To baldly go[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Withdean-er[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]To baldly go[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: So we are all agreed then, 20mph zones should be enforced rigorously to make the street environment more pleasant and useable for all and just as a racetrack for a few inconsiderate people.[/p][/quote]20mph zones will never be enforced, much the same as it was at 30 or 40 etc, educate cyclists and pedestrians to be more observant and obey the law would reduce accidents by a far greater margin than reducing speed limits. Yes, someone hit by a car at 20mph rather than 30mph will not be so severely hurt, but if they had looked before they crossed the road or had not cycled through a red light they wouldn't have been hurt full stop![/p][/quote]Some dumb lumping together of anyone that's not a car driver there. What about kids, visually impaired, old folk, pets, wildlife? Your bizarre assumption is that drivers motoring at 30mph + through residential streets no matter how narrow, is fine, that nothing needs to change there. The only change required is for all other parties no matter how old or young or infirm, to change, to accommodate your driving. If not, it's simply their fault and hard luck. You just given a perfect reason why 20mph limits are required for some areas.[/p][/quote]Glad you finished with the words, required for SOME AREAS! Not all areas then? Yes I drive a car, but I am sometimes a pedestrian, and when I am, I stop, look and listen before crossing the road, and as I have posted on other topics, I also cycle, and guess what, I wear a helmet, use lights in the winter and STOP at red lights etc, thus so far ensuring my safety, all of this was taught to me at a young age, today's attitude is all car drivers are guilty, regardless, even if the cyclist jumps a red light or a teenager steps out in front of a car because his/her head is in a phone and is listening to music through head phones! We all know this topic will have arguments from all sides, and all equally right in some way, but none of us want anyone, old, young, disabled or our pets injured or worse. It is the way the Greens have gone about this that is causing the problem, and no I am not jumping on the outside of schools, hospitals etc bandwagon, the common sense approach would be 20mph around areas that are a higher than average risk and yes that includes schools, hospitals etc, but by doing so you have a good reason behind its implementation, one that the majority would take notice of, instead of that we have this almost blanket approach that no one takes notice of. How many people that voted for 20mph in their streets adhere to the speed limits in other streets away from where they live, none would be my bet. I see mums on the school run going down Trafalgar Road in Portslade at 30-35mph turn int St. Andrews road to drop their kids off at school, and i bet they don't even know they are doing it, but god forbid anyone who does it along the road where they live! This was never going to work, police don't have the resources to police it, no one takes any notice of it, it just costs a lot of money to implement, money that could have been better spent on better road crossings etc, but that wouldn't be the GREEN way would it![/p][/quote]Police didn't have the resources to monitor 30mph is residential streets either, but most drivers complied. Hopefully most will take the 20mph into account. It was summed up recently that where drivers often drove round residential roads at at say 34mph, they may instead drive at 24mph, with the temptation to always creep a bit above. That drop may save serious injuries and possibly lives.[/p][/quote]Agree with the point there may be a slight drop on certain roads, but a better thought out implementation would have led to a bigger drop in the more important areas imo. If all groups (motorists, cyclists and pedestrians) ALL paid more attention, wouldn't it be a better place to live all round. To baldly go
  • Score: -9

5:24am Tue 17 Jun 14

Quiterie says...

Yes, in an ideal world we would all pay more attention. But we can't influence how much attention other people pay. We can influence the speed people drive at. Personally I don't stick to 20 mph, I'm not sure many do. But it has made me think about my speed a bit more and that can only be a good thing. And yes, I have slowed down - perhaps only a few mph, but those few mph could save lives.

You can argue that not everyone will want to drive slower, but that doesn't really matter, because all you need is a few people to drive slower and everyone behind them have to drive slower anyway.

At the end of the day this debate should be about whether fatalities and serious injuries are prevented. We may need a few years of data to be sure whether that is happening or not. But I suspect the data will show our roads are a safer place.
Yes, in an ideal world we would all pay more attention. But we can't influence how much attention other people pay. We can influence the speed people drive at. Personally I don't stick to 20 mph, I'm not sure many do. But it has made me think about my speed a bit more and that can only be a good thing. And yes, I have slowed down - perhaps only a few mph, but those few mph could save lives. You can argue that not everyone will want to drive slower, but that doesn't really matter, because all you need is a few people to drive slower and everyone behind them have to drive slower anyway. At the end of the day this debate should be about whether fatalities and serious injuries are prevented. We may need a few years of data to be sure whether that is happening or not. But I suspect the data will show our roads are a safer place. Quiterie
  • Score: 6

5:59am Tue 17 Jun 14

spaceman1 says...

What does the social part mean. That we can have a chat with pedestrians while driving also how many people voted in coldean anyone know?
What does the social part mean. That we can have a chat with pedestrians while driving also how many people voted in coldean anyone know? spaceman1
  • Score: 4

9:13am Tue 17 Jun 14

fredflintstone1 says...

cynic_the wrote:
ramble wrote:
P.Dant wrote:
A good bicycle can travel faster than 20 mph,so everybody get a bike.You won`t be stopped.Win and Win.
Doesn't the 20 mph rule apply to ALL road users, cyclists as well?
Actually no, speed limits only apply to 'motor vehicles' (although it is possible to be prosecuted for careless or 'furious' cycling).

In the long-term, this will probably lead to a change in the law and cyclists eventually needing licences and having to pass a test, which as a regular pedestrian in London, I think would be a good thing.
If the Greens were genuinely concerned about road safety, this would be top of their list.
[quote][p][bold]cynic_the[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramble[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]P.Dant[/bold] wrote: A good bicycle can travel faster than 20 mph,so everybody get a bike.You won`t be stopped.Win and Win.[/p][/quote]Doesn't the 20 mph rule apply to ALL road users, cyclists as well?[/p][/quote]Actually no, speed limits only apply to 'motor vehicles' (although it is possible to be prosecuted for careless or 'furious' cycling). In the long-term, this will probably lead to a change in the law and cyclists eventually needing licences and having to pass a test, which as a regular pedestrian in London, I think would be a good thing.[/p][/quote]If the Greens were genuinely concerned about road safety, this would be top of their list. fredflintstone1
  • Score: 5

9:27am Tue 17 Jun 14

Plantpot says...

Unless a law is enforced, it becomes meaningless. Look at dog mess, cyclists and their obligatory ignoring of the Highway Code, littering, spitting in the street etc. The Police have already said that they won't enforce the 20mph zones, therefore any compliance will be by consent. If people don't agree, there will be no consent by default.
Unless a law is enforced, it becomes meaningless. Look at dog mess, cyclists and their obligatory ignoring of the Highway Code, littering, spitting in the street etc. The Police have already said that they won't enforce the 20mph zones, therefore any compliance will be by consent. If people don't agree, there will be no consent by default. Plantpot
  • Score: 4

9:47am Tue 17 Jun 14

her professional says...

PracticeNotTheories wrote:
MartinDE wrote:
@PracticeNotTheories




The AA report you mention states quite clearly that 20mph would increase fuel consumption "on longer and relatively free-flowing" urban streets. Is that how you would describe the streets of central Brighton? If you pick a journey at random between two points in central Brighton, how much of it is along long, relatively free-flowing streets that have 20mph limits?

In short stretches and stop-start traffic (which is inevitable in an area with traffic, many junctions and pedestrian crossings), it's the insistent acceleration back to 30mph after each slow-down that causes the most consumption. Accelerating only to 20mph reduces that.
I'm not sure what report you read? It does not at any point say the 20mph would increase fuel consumption? In fact it says:

"On average, petrol car fuel consumption on longer and relatively free-flowing 20mph urban streets can worsen by 5.8 miles per gallon "

As I stated - the joy of bus lanes, and other bottlenecks makes this even worse.

I don't think anyone would deny that small residential roads are fine for lower speeds, when, in fact, you can't realistically do 30mph normally anyway. Old Steine, Eastern Road, and others don't have any requirement other than enforcing a 30mph limit (rather than having an un-enforced 20mph limit).
Eastern Road is residential, has a hospital, school and various other social meeting places along it in case you hadn't noticed as you sped by.
[quote][p][bold]PracticeNotTheories[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MartinDE[/bold] wrote: @PracticeNotTheories The AA report you mention states quite clearly that 20mph would increase fuel consumption "on longer and relatively free-flowing" urban streets. Is that how you would describe the streets of central Brighton? If you pick a journey at random between two points in central Brighton, how much of it is along long, relatively free-flowing streets that have 20mph limits? In short stretches and stop-start traffic (which is inevitable in an area with traffic, many junctions and pedestrian crossings), it's the insistent acceleration back to 30mph after each slow-down that causes the most consumption. Accelerating only to 20mph reduces that.[/p][/quote]I'm not sure what report you read? It does not at any point say the 20mph would increase fuel consumption? In fact it says: "On average, petrol car fuel consumption on longer and relatively free-flowing 20mph urban streets can worsen by 5.8 miles per gallon " As I stated - the joy of bus lanes, and other bottlenecks makes this even worse. I don't think anyone would deny that small residential roads are fine for lower speeds, when, in fact, you can't realistically do 30mph normally anyway. Old Steine, Eastern Road, and others don't have any requirement other than enforcing a 30mph limit (rather than having an un-enforced 20mph limit).[/p][/quote]Eastern Road is residential, has a hospital, school and various other social meeting places along it in case you hadn't noticed as you sped by. her professional
  • Score: -4

9:55am Tue 17 Jun 14

her professional says...

fredflintstone1 wrote:
If the 20mph limit really is to protect pedestrians, then cyclists must be registered, insured and prosecuted for traffic offences - including breaking the 20mph limit.

Why? Because unlike car drivers, some cyclists insist on travelling down pavements behind pedestrians at speeds in excess of cars driving on roads, and shoot red lights. The risk of a collision with a bike for a pedestrian walking on a pavement is undoubtedly higher than being hit by a car here.

If you doubt it, go and try walking on the pavement along London Road by the Viaduct, heading into the city, and see if you avoid injury.

And if you cross the road by looking carefully first, rather than walking out wearing headphones and not concentrating, there's really no risk of being hit. But then why would the Greens want to use commonsense to complicate their warped view of the world?
So how many people are injured by bikes every week in Brighton & Hove?
[quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: If the 20mph limit really is to protect pedestrians, then cyclists must be registered, insured and prosecuted for traffic offences - including breaking the 20mph limit. Why? Because unlike car drivers, some cyclists insist on travelling down pavements behind pedestrians at speeds in excess of cars driving on roads, and shoot red lights. The risk of a collision with a bike for a pedestrian walking on a pavement is undoubtedly higher than being hit by a car here. If you doubt it, go and try walking on the pavement along London Road by the Viaduct, heading into the city, and see if you avoid injury. And if you cross the road by looking carefully first, rather than walking out wearing headphones and not concentrating, there's really no risk of being hit. But then why would the Greens want to use commonsense to complicate their warped view of the world?[/p][/quote]So how many people are injured by bikes every week in Brighton & Hove? her professional
  • Score: 6

10:48am Tue 17 Jun 14

Automaton says...

her professional wrote:
fredflintstone1 wrote:
If the 20mph limit really is to protect pedestrians, then cyclists must be registered, insured and prosecuted for traffic offences - including breaking the 20mph limit.

Why? Because unlike car drivers, some cyclists insist on travelling down pavements behind pedestrians at speeds in excess of cars driving on roads, and shoot red lights. The risk of a collision with a bike for a pedestrian walking on a pavement is undoubtedly higher than being hit by a car here.

If you doubt it, go and try walking on the pavement along London Road by the Viaduct, heading into the city, and see if you avoid injury.

And if you cross the road by looking carefully first, rather than walking out wearing headphones and not concentrating, there's really no risk of being hit. But then why would the Greens want to use commonsense to complicate their warped view of the world?
So how many people are injured by bikes every week in Brighton & Hove?
If I remember correctly there was a collision in Madeira drive between a pedestrian and a cyclist involving major injuries to the cyclist just last week. I suspect there are many others. If you look at gov stats for 2013 then overall rroad traffic accidents and deaths are all significantly reduced across the uk (5-7%). Ther are approx 64 people killed or seriously per day (less than 1 in 10 of these killed) across the WHOLE uk. Which means about 1 in 1 million people killed or seriously injured per day. Thus in Brighton this would equate to about 6 people per month with a death once every 2 months. With such low numbers and the general downward trend in RTAs across the UK I don't know how the greens can possibly produce any meaningful stats and suggest this has anything to do with 20mph speed limits.
Let's see the data Greens!
[quote][p][bold]her professional[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: If the 20mph limit really is to protect pedestrians, then cyclists must be registered, insured and prosecuted for traffic offences - including breaking the 20mph limit. Why? Because unlike car drivers, some cyclists insist on travelling down pavements behind pedestrians at speeds in excess of cars driving on roads, and shoot red lights. The risk of a collision with a bike for a pedestrian walking on a pavement is undoubtedly higher than being hit by a car here. If you doubt it, go and try walking on the pavement along London Road by the Viaduct, heading into the city, and see if you avoid injury. And if you cross the road by looking carefully first, rather than walking out wearing headphones and not concentrating, there's really no risk of being hit. But then why would the Greens want to use commonsense to complicate their warped view of the world?[/p][/quote]So how many people are injured by bikes every week in Brighton & Hove?[/p][/quote]If I remember correctly there was a collision in Madeira drive between a pedestrian and a cyclist involving major injuries to the cyclist just last week. I suspect there are many others. If you look at gov stats for 2013 then overall rroad traffic accidents and deaths are all significantly reduced across the uk (5-7%). Ther are approx 64 people killed or seriously per day (less than 1 in 10 of these killed) across the WHOLE uk. Which means about 1 in 1 million people killed or seriously injured per day. Thus in Brighton this would equate to about 6 people per month with a death once every 2 months. With such low numbers and the general downward trend in RTAs across the UK I don't know how the greens can possibly produce any meaningful stats and suggest this has anything to do with 20mph speed limits. Let's see the data Greens! Automaton
  • Score: 8

11:08am Tue 17 Jun 14

Fight_Back says...

fredflintstone1 wrote:
cynic_the wrote:
ramble wrote:
P.Dant wrote:
A good bicycle can travel faster than 20 mph,so everybody get a bike.You won`t be stopped.Win and Win.
Doesn't the 20 mph rule apply to ALL road users, cyclists as well?
Actually no, speed limits only apply to 'motor vehicles' (although it is possible to be prosecuted for careless or 'furious' cycling).

In the long-term, this will probably lead to a change in the law and cyclists eventually needing licences and having to pass a test, which as a regular pedestrian in London, I think would be a good thing.
If the Greens were genuinely concerned about road safety, this would be top of their list.
As opposed to wasting time on women willingly getting their boobs out for a newspaper. I suspect Caroline has got her priorities slightly mixed up.
[quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cynic_the[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramble[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]P.Dant[/bold] wrote: A good bicycle can travel faster than 20 mph,so everybody get a bike.You won`t be stopped.Win and Win.[/p][/quote]Doesn't the 20 mph rule apply to ALL road users, cyclists as well?[/p][/quote]Actually no, speed limits only apply to 'motor vehicles' (although it is possible to be prosecuted for careless or 'furious' cycling). In the long-term, this will probably lead to a change in the law and cyclists eventually needing licences and having to pass a test, which as a regular pedestrian in London, I think would be a good thing.[/p][/quote]If the Greens were genuinely concerned about road safety, this would be top of their list.[/p][/quote]As opposed to wasting time on women willingly getting their boobs out for a newspaper. I suspect Caroline has got her priorities slightly mixed up. Fight_Back
  • Score: 3

11:47am Tue 17 Jun 14

TheDrive says...

People moan way too much. It's 20 to save lives and injuries. Just stick to it and stop whingeing about it - you'll still get to your destination.
People moan way too much. It's 20 to save lives and injuries. Just stick to it and stop whingeing about it - you'll still get to your destination. TheDrive
  • Score: -9

12:29pm Tue 17 Jun 14

boo2005 says...

rolivan wrote:
Meanwhile down in the valleys of the London and Lewes Rds People will be breathing in the beautiful air that will descend there.
it's a madness, how are they going to enforce a speed limit in ghettos like 'Whitehawk'?......I am unfortunate enough to have live in the godforsaken dump, and I can't imagine these idiots following any road laws, certainly not speed limits, it would take 24 hour police serveillance!.....it
's a joke!
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: Meanwhile down in the valleys of the London and Lewes Rds People will be breathing in the beautiful air that will descend there.[/p][/quote]it's a madness, how are they going to enforce a speed limit in ghettos like 'Whitehawk'?......I am unfortunate enough to have live in the godforsaken dump, and I can't imagine these idiots following any road laws, certainly not speed limits, it would take 24 hour police serveillance!.....it 's a joke! boo2005
  • Score: 8

1:13pm Tue 17 Jun 14

gfreemantle says...

Crawley and Eastbourne are great paces to visit. Easy cheep parking, quick to get in/out of and the facilities in the towns are clean with more being added to attract you there unlike Brighton which is the opposite.

Yet another policy that's good in the idealist world but fails in practicality.

I have come from working in London back to my Brighton roots recently. Amazing how the town I once loved has declined in ease of access and appearance in the 12 years since I left.

Joining a longstanding based Brighton business tasked with streamlining it's operations. It takes longer to get from king George V Ave, to the office in Hove most mornings than it did from outside the M25 to central London, the only option left is to move the office location as it's become uneconomical to keep a base in Brighton/Hove.

Car is the only option due to the nature of work like with most people so when dealing with B&H based companies it's fast approaching the point where charging a London rate is fast approaching due to the added cost associated with doing business in the area.
Crawley and Eastbourne are great paces to visit. Easy cheep parking, quick to get in/out of and the facilities in the towns are clean with more being added to attract you there unlike Brighton which is the opposite. Yet another policy that's good in the idealist world but fails in practicality. I have come from working in London back to my Brighton roots recently. Amazing how the town I once loved has declined in ease of access and appearance in the 12 years since I left. Joining a longstanding based Brighton business tasked with streamlining it's operations. It takes longer to get from king George V Ave, to the office in Hove most mornings than it did from outside the M25 to central London, the only option left is to move the office location as it's become uneconomical to keep a base in Brighton/Hove. Car is the only option due to the nature of work like with most people so when dealing with B&H based companies it's fast approaching the point where charging a London rate is fast approaching due to the added cost associated with doing business in the area. gfreemantle
  • Score: 7

1:14pm Tue 17 Jun 14

jonnix says...

reddogs wrote:
what with bus lanes,cycle lanes and even more 20mph limits Brighton will soon be a no go area in the south.Bloody Greens for gods sake get rid of them before this town dies.
Except for travellers!
[quote][p][bold]reddogs[/bold] wrote: what with bus lanes,cycle lanes and even more 20mph limits Brighton will soon be a no go area in the south.Bloody Greens for gods sake get rid of them before this town dies.[/p][/quote]Except for travellers! jonnix
  • Score: 4

2:03pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Monterey says...

Fuel consumption figures

30mph/20mph/speed humps petrol car consumption figures

Steady 30mph (4th gear):
60.7 mpg (small petrol car), 55.6 mpg (medium petrol car)
= 58.15 mpg (average)
Steady 20mph (3rd gear):
55.5 mpg (small petrol car), 49.1 mpg (medium petrol car)
= 52.3 mpg (average)
Speed humps (6 over 1/2 mile at 20-30 mph):
33.8 mpg (small petrol car), 27.9 mpg (medium petrol car)
= 30.85 mpg (average)
30mph/20mph/speed humps petrol car consumption differences

Change 30 mph zone to 20 mph:
increases fuel consumption by 5.85 miles per gallon, or 10.1 per cent.
Add speed humps to a 30 mph zone:
increases fuel consumption by 27.3 miles per gallon, or 46.9 per cent.
Fuel consumption figures 30mph/20mph/speed humps petrol car consumption figures Steady 30mph (4th gear): 60.7 mpg (small petrol car), 55.6 mpg (medium petrol car) = 58.15 mpg (average) Steady 20mph (3rd gear): 55.5 mpg (small petrol car), 49.1 mpg (medium petrol car) = 52.3 mpg (average) Speed humps (6 over 1/2 mile at 20-30 mph): 33.8 mpg (small petrol car), 27.9 mpg (medium petrol car) = 30.85 mpg (average) 30mph/20mph/speed humps petrol car consumption differences Change 30 mph zone to 20 mph: increases fuel consumption by 5.85 miles per gallon, or 10.1 per cent. Add speed humps to a 30 mph zone: increases fuel consumption by 27.3 miles per gallon, or 46.9 per cent. Monterey
  • Score: 2

2:26pm Tue 17 Jun 14

DaRMiH says...

As far as I can tell most people are observing the limit most of the time... or if they are speeding they're speeding more slowly.... and everything is a lot more civilised
As far as I can tell most people are observing the limit most of the time... or if they are speeding they're speeding more slowly.... and everything is a lot more civilised DaRMiH
  • Score: -8

2:29pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Bill in Hanover says...

Now that the Green Party has everyone driving around at 20 mph (or so they imagine) I understand that they are next to be found on the beach stopping the tide from coming in. Anyone who thinks that the new limits will lead to a decrease in pollution should just stand half way up either Elm Grove or Bear Road and watch buses and lorries trying to keep below 20 and having to chug up there in low gear. and something that hasn't been made public yet is that Brighton & Hove bus Company have (or are about to) change the timetables as they say the bus times are calculated on 30 mph so we will see fewer buses as well.
Now that the Green Party has everyone driving around at 20 mph (or so they imagine) I understand that they are next to be found on the beach stopping the tide from coming in. Anyone who thinks that the new limits will lead to a decrease in pollution should just stand half way up either Elm Grove or Bear Road and watch buses and lorries trying to keep below 20 and having to chug up there in low gear. and something that hasn't been made public yet is that Brighton & Hove bus Company have (or are about to) change the timetables as they say the bus times are calculated on 30 mph so we will see fewer buses as well. Bill in Hanover
  • Score: 10

2:43pm Tue 17 Jun 14

MartinDE says...

Monterey wrote:
Fuel consumption figures

30mph/20mph/speed humps petrol car consumption figures

Steady 30mph (4th gear):
60.7 mpg (small petrol car), 55.6 mpg (medium petrol car)
= 58.15 mpg (average)
Steady 20mph (3rd gear):
55.5 mpg (small petrol car), 49.1 mpg (medium petrol car)
= 52.3 mpg (average)
Speed humps (6 over 1/2 mile at 20-30 mph):
33.8 mpg (small petrol car), 27.9 mpg (medium petrol car)
= 30.85 mpg (average)
30mph/20mph/speed humps petrol car consumption differences

Change 30 mph zone to 20 mph:
increases fuel consumption by 5.85 miles per gallon, or 10.1 per cent.
Add speed humps to a 30 mph zone:
increases fuel consumption by 27.3 miles per gallon, or 46.9 per cent.
Those figures are from an AA study about "longer and relatively free-flowing urban streets", which is not the situation in central Brighton, so the study is not relevant to this case.

The figures indicate that driving at a *steady* 20mph from e.g. Preston Circus to the Palace Pier would consume more fuel than doing the same at 30mph, but that ignores the fact that it is not possible to do either: any route through central Brighton is full of bends, vehicles, junctions, traffic lights, crossings and other elements that make vehicles slow down and stop: in that environment, accelerating all the way back up to 30mph after each slow-down consumes more fuel than accelerating to 20mph.
[quote][p][bold]Monterey[/bold] wrote: Fuel consumption figures 30mph/20mph/speed humps petrol car consumption figures Steady 30mph (4th gear): 60.7 mpg (small petrol car), 55.6 mpg (medium petrol car) = 58.15 mpg (average) Steady 20mph (3rd gear): 55.5 mpg (small petrol car), 49.1 mpg (medium petrol car) = 52.3 mpg (average) Speed humps (6 over 1/2 mile at 20-30 mph): 33.8 mpg (small petrol car), 27.9 mpg (medium petrol car) = 30.85 mpg (average) 30mph/20mph/speed humps petrol car consumption differences Change 30 mph zone to 20 mph: increases fuel consumption by 5.85 miles per gallon, or 10.1 per cent. Add speed humps to a 30 mph zone: increases fuel consumption by 27.3 miles per gallon, or 46.9 per cent.[/p][/quote]Those figures are from an AA study about "longer and relatively free-flowing urban streets", which is not the situation in central Brighton, so the study is not relevant to this case. The figures indicate that driving at a *steady* 20mph from e.g. Preston Circus to the Palace Pier would consume more fuel than doing the same at 30mph, but that ignores the fact that it is not possible to do either: any route through central Brighton is full of bends, vehicles, junctions, traffic lights, crossings and other elements that make vehicles slow down and stop: in that environment, accelerating all the way back up to 30mph after each slow-down consumes more fuel than accelerating to 20mph. MartinDE
  • Score: 1

5:10pm Tue 17 Jun 14

gheese77 says...

Monterey wrote:
Fuel consumption figures

30mph/20mph/speed humps petrol car consumption figures

Steady 30mph (4th gear):
60.7 mpg (small petrol car), 55.6 mpg (medium petrol car)
= 58.15 mpg (average)
Steady 20mph (3rd gear):
55.5 mpg (small petrol car), 49.1 mpg (medium petrol car)
= 52.3 mpg (average)
Speed humps (6 over 1/2 mile at 20-30 mph):
33.8 mpg (small petrol car), 27.9 mpg (medium petrol car)
= 30.85 mpg (average)
30mph/20mph/speed humps petrol car consumption differences

Change 30 mph zone to 20 mph:
increases fuel consumption by 5.85 miles per gallon, or 10.1 per cent.
Add speed humps to a 30 mph zone:
increases fuel consumption by 27.3 miles per gallon, or 46.9 per cent.
Walking or cycling 0 mpg
[quote][p][bold]Monterey[/bold] wrote: Fuel consumption figures 30mph/20mph/speed humps petrol car consumption figures Steady 30mph (4th gear): 60.7 mpg (small petrol car), 55.6 mpg (medium petrol car) = 58.15 mpg (average) Steady 20mph (3rd gear): 55.5 mpg (small petrol car), 49.1 mpg (medium petrol car) = 52.3 mpg (average) Speed humps (6 over 1/2 mile at 20-30 mph): 33.8 mpg (small petrol car), 27.9 mpg (medium petrol car) = 30.85 mpg (average) 30mph/20mph/speed humps petrol car consumption differences Change 30 mph zone to 20 mph: increases fuel consumption by 5.85 miles per gallon, or 10.1 per cent. Add speed humps to a 30 mph zone: increases fuel consumption by 27.3 miles per gallon, or 46.9 per cent.[/p][/quote]Walking or cycling 0 mpg gheese77
  • Score: -1

6:15pm Tue 17 Jun 14

ramble says...

Fight_Back wrote:
fredflintstone1 wrote:
cynic_the wrote:
ramble wrote:
P.Dant wrote:
A good bicycle can travel faster than 20 mph,so everybody get a bike.You won`t be stopped.Win and Win.
Doesn't the 20 mph rule apply to ALL road users, cyclists as well?
Actually no, speed limits only apply to 'motor vehicles' (although it is possible to be prosecuted for careless or 'furious' cycling).

In the long-term, this will probably lead to a change in the law and cyclists eventually needing licences and having to pass a test, which as a regular pedestrian in London, I think would be a good thing.
If the Greens were genuinely concerned about road safety, this would be top of their list.
As opposed to wasting time on women willingly getting their boobs out for a newspaper. I suspect Caroline has got her priorities slightly mixed up.
Surely, this will make roads more dangerous for cyclist. Take Bear Road for example, if cars are coming down at 20mp, cyclist will be over taking them!
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cynic_the[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramble[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]P.Dant[/bold] wrote: A good bicycle can travel faster than 20 mph,so everybody get a bike.You won`t be stopped.Win and Win.[/p][/quote]Doesn't the 20 mph rule apply to ALL road users, cyclists as well?[/p][/quote]Actually no, speed limits only apply to 'motor vehicles' (although it is possible to be prosecuted for careless or 'furious' cycling). In the long-term, this will probably lead to a change in the law and cyclists eventually needing licences and having to pass a test, which as a regular pedestrian in London, I think would be a good thing.[/p][/quote]If the Greens were genuinely concerned about road safety, this would be top of their list.[/p][/quote]As opposed to wasting time on women willingly getting their boobs out for a newspaper. I suspect Caroline has got her priorities slightly mixed up.[/p][/quote]Surely, this will make roads more dangerous for cyclist. Take Bear Road for example, if cars are coming down at 20mp, cyclist will be over taking them! ramble
  • Score: 3

9:11pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Idontbelieveit1948 says...

A nursery rhyme for our times :-

The Green slime want us all on a bike,
Irrespective of what we would like,
But people in cars,
Think they and H Jarrs,
Really should go take a long hike.
A nursery rhyme for our times :- The Green slime want us all on a bike, Irrespective of what we would like, But people in cars, Think they and H Jarrs, Really should go take a long hike. Idontbelieveit1948
  • Score: 2

9:39pm Tue 17 Jun 14

ARMANA says...

Gribbet wrote:
Sheeples wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
Greens out, dont forget to register to vote,
Rest of World - 1
Car Addicts - 0

Another victory for the common sense majority.
Intellectual informed debate 0

Patronized I'll informed stupidity 1
Punctuation and Grammar - 0
Gribbet, !! Gribbet, !! Gribbet, !! rides a bike, with onions over the handlebars, !! VOTE UKIP, Don't forget to register to vote, !!
[quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sheeples[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: Greens out, dont forget to register to vote,[/p][/quote]Rest of World - 1 Car Addicts - 0 Another victory for the common sense majority.[/p][/quote]Intellectual informed debate 0 Patronized I'll informed stupidity 1[/p][/quote]Punctuation and Grammar - 0[/p][/quote]Gribbet, !! Gribbet, !! Gribbet, !! rides a bike, with onions over the handlebars, !! VOTE UKIP, Don't forget to register to vote, !! ARMANA
  • Score: -1

10:09pm Tue 17 Jun 14

DCCCCCC says...

DaRMiH wrote:
As far as I can tell most people are observing the limit most of the time... or if they are speeding they're speeding more slowly.... and everything is a lot more civilised
You obviously don't go out much.
[quote][p][bold]DaRMiH[/bold] wrote: As far as I can tell most people are observing the limit most of the time... or if they are speeding they're speeding more slowly.... and everything is a lot more civilised[/p][/quote]You obviously don't go out much. DCCCCCC
  • Score: 11

10:12pm Tue 17 Jun 14

DCCCCCC says...

TheDrive wrote:
People moan way too much. It's 20 to save lives and injuries. Just stick to it and stop whingeing about it - you'll still get to your destination.
And it's risk assessment gone mad.
[quote][p][bold]TheDrive[/bold] wrote: People moan way too much. It's 20 to save lives and injuries. Just stick to it and stop whingeing about it - you'll still get to your destination.[/p][/quote]And it's risk assessment gone mad. DCCCCCC
  • Score: 10

12:59am Wed 18 Jun 14

thevoiceoftruth says...

I doubt the decrease in traffic speeds is solely due to the 20mph zone. If there has been a decrease, I would attribute it to the installation of bus/cycle lanes, traffic lights that are badly sequenced and the massive hole in the A259. Outside of rush hour, everybody does 30, including the police.

The bus lanes are a particular bug bear. Why are the bus lanes 24 hour? They should be shared outside of rush hour. Most of the time they are just used as a race track for taxi drivers.

I can see where this is heading. Once the city is completely gridlocked the Green Party will pull out their trump card - congestion charging.
I doubt the decrease in traffic speeds is solely due to the 20mph zone. If there has been a decrease, I would attribute it to the installation of bus/cycle lanes, traffic lights that are badly sequenced and the massive hole in the A259. Outside of rush hour, everybody does 30, including the police. The bus lanes are a particular bug bear. Why are the bus lanes 24 hour? They should be shared outside of rush hour. Most of the time they are just used as a race track for taxi drivers. I can see where this is heading. Once the city is completely gridlocked the Green Party will pull out their trump card - congestion charging. thevoiceoftruth
  • Score: 10

12:47pm Thu 19 Jun 14

CaliforniaGirl says...

I drive in Brighton almost every day as I cannot afford to live here but all of my clients are here, and because I have mobility issues I rely on a car to come to work.

Since the 20-mile per hour speed limit was introduced I have only ever witnessed three cars going that speed voluntarily. (as someone above commented, often you cannot go faster anyway because of the road congestion). only THREE. Considering I must see thousands of other cars every week, it seems safe for me to say that I don't think many people are paying much attention to this waste of money scheme.

As reported in the news earlier this month (by TomTom), traffic congestion has worsened in Brighton since this scheme was introduced. So for the council to claim on their web page that "This will not only bring road safety benefits, but will also help to improve overall health and wellbeing, reduce congestion" they are clearly wrong. And the three cars I did see complying with the speed-limit seemed to be irritating the road users behind them, which definitely was not helping to improve health and wellbeing!

As for enforcement? Who is going to enforce it? Surely we want our already hard-pressed police to spend their time dealing with real crimes such as burglaries etc?

Just saying.
I drive in Brighton almost every day as I cannot afford to live here but all of my clients are here, and because I have mobility issues I rely on a car to come to work. Since the 20-mile per hour speed limit was introduced I have only ever witnessed three cars going that speed voluntarily. (as someone above commented, often you cannot go faster anyway because of the road congestion). only THREE. Considering I must see thousands of other cars every week, it seems safe for me to say that I don't think many people are paying much attention to this waste of money scheme. As reported in the news earlier this month (by TomTom), traffic congestion has worsened in Brighton since this scheme was introduced. So for the council to claim on their web page that "This will not only bring road safety benefits, but will also help to improve overall health and wellbeing, reduce congestion" they are clearly wrong. And the three cars I did see complying with the speed-limit seemed to be irritating the road users behind them, which definitely was not helping to improve health and wellbeing! As for enforcement? Who is going to enforce it? Surely we want our already hard-pressed police to spend their time dealing with real crimes such as burglaries etc? Just saying. CaliforniaGirl
  • Score: 2

1:05pm Thu 19 Jun 14

FatherTed11 says...

DaRMiH wrote:
As far as I can tell most people are observing the limit most of the time... or if they are speeding they're speeding more slowly.... and everything is a lot more civilised
Speeding more slowly?! Haha yes thats right...idiot...
[quote][p][bold]DaRMiH[/bold] wrote: As far as I can tell most people are observing the limit most of the time... or if they are speeding they're speeding more slowly.... and everything is a lot more civilised[/p][/quote]Speeding more slowly?! Haha yes thats right...idiot... FatherTed11
  • Score: 5

4:26pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Uncle Ruckus (No Relation) says...

Idontbelieveit1948 wrote:
A nursery rhyme for our times :-

The Green slime want us all on a bike,
Irrespective of what we would like,
But people in cars,
Think they and H Jarrs,
Really should go take a long hike.
Try this one on for size:

"He'll live in Brighton's 'Hall Of Fame
(He got there blow-by-blow)
Your kids will tell THEIR kids his name;
Jason Kitcat mental-oh!"
[quote][p][bold]Idontbelieveit1948[/bold] wrote: A nursery rhyme for our times :- The Green slime want us all on a bike, Irrespective of what we would like, But people in cars, Think they and H Jarrs, Really should go take a long hike.[/p][/quote]Try this one on for size: "He'll live in Brighton's 'Hall Of Fame (He got there blow-by-blow) Your kids will tell THEIR kids his name; Jason Kitcat mental-oh!" Uncle Ruckus (No Relation)
  • Score: 2

7:06am Fri 20 Jun 14

DCCCCCC says...

CaliforniaGirl wrote:
I drive in Brighton almost every day as I cannot afford to live here but all of my clients are here, and because I have mobility issues I rely on a car to come to work.

Since the 20-mile per hour speed limit was introduced I have only ever witnessed three cars going that speed voluntarily. (as someone above commented, often you cannot go faster anyway because of the road congestion). only THREE. Considering I must see thousands of other cars every week, it seems safe for me to say that I don't think many people are paying much attention to this waste of money scheme.

As reported in the news earlier this month (by TomTom), traffic congestion has worsened in Brighton since this scheme was introduced. So for the council to claim on their web page that "This will not only bring road safety benefits, but will also help to improve overall health and wellbeing, reduce congestion" they are clearly wrong. And the three cars I did see complying with the speed-limit seemed to be irritating the road users behind them, which definitely was not helping to improve health and wellbeing!

As for enforcement? Who is going to enforce it? Surely we want our already hard-pressed police to spend their time dealing with real crimes such as burglaries etc?

Just saying.
Point very well made. What makes me laugh is, driving behind people who strictly stick to the speed limits, both 20 in a 20 and 30 in a 30, until they drive down hill, then suddenly, driving over the speed limit for them becomes acceptable. Off they go then at the bottom of the hill, on go the breaks. I have noticed too that some drivers are beeping their horns at people driving 20mph, perhaps all of us against the 20mph limits should adopt this in protest. You only have to look on these posts and the way people vote to see we are in the majority.
[quote][p][bold]CaliforniaGirl[/bold] wrote: I drive in Brighton almost every day as I cannot afford to live here but all of my clients are here, and because I have mobility issues I rely on a car to come to work. Since the 20-mile per hour speed limit was introduced I have only ever witnessed three cars going that speed voluntarily. (as someone above commented, often you cannot go faster anyway because of the road congestion). only THREE. Considering I must see thousands of other cars every week, it seems safe for me to say that I don't think many people are paying much attention to this waste of money scheme. As reported in the news earlier this month (by TomTom), traffic congestion has worsened in Brighton since this scheme was introduced. So for the council to claim on their web page that "This will not only bring road safety benefits, but will also help to improve overall health and wellbeing, reduce congestion" they are clearly wrong. And the three cars I did see complying with the speed-limit seemed to be irritating the road users behind them, which definitely was not helping to improve health and wellbeing! As for enforcement? Who is going to enforce it? Surely we want our already hard-pressed police to spend their time dealing with real crimes such as burglaries etc? Just saying.[/p][/quote]Point very well made. What makes me laugh is, driving behind people who strictly stick to the speed limits, both 20 in a 20 and 30 in a 30, until they drive down hill, then suddenly, driving over the speed limit for them becomes acceptable. Off they go then at the bottom of the hill, on go the breaks. I have noticed too that some drivers are beeping their horns at people driving 20mph, perhaps all of us against the 20mph limits should adopt this in protest. You only have to look on these posts and the way people vote to see we are in the majority. DCCCCCC
  • Score: 5

1:32pm Fri 20 Jun 14

Dan Sarf says...

cleggalike wrote:
Really good news. The evidence from phase one is positive and this will make Brighton a safer and more pleasant place for us all.
The only people who disagree with the 20mph are those that are ADDICTED to using their cars. You'd have to be pretty stupid not not to realise that driving at 20mph WILL reduce the number of accidents and makes our roads safer.
WAKE UP! Our city would be a much more pleasant place is people either walked, cycled or if you must drive - drive more slowly.
[quote][p][bold]cleggalike[/bold] wrote: Really good news. The evidence from phase one is positive and this will make Brighton a safer and more pleasant place for us all.[/p][/quote]The only people who disagree with the 20mph are those that are ADDICTED to using their cars. You'd have to be pretty stupid not not to realise that driving at 20mph WILL reduce the number of accidents and makes our roads safer. WAKE UP! Our city would be a much more pleasant place is people either walked, cycled or if you must drive - drive more slowly. Dan Sarf
  • Score: -4

9:06am Sat 21 Jun 14

stumpyshimmans says...

gary101 wrote:
Andy R wrote:
In anticipation of the fact that sooner or later someone will claim that 20mph limits have been "scientitically proved" to increase pollution, here's the truth - Research in Germany has shown that the greater the speed of vehicles in built-up areas, the higher is the incidence of acceleration, deceleration, and braking, all of which increase air pollution. German research indicates that traffic calming reduces idle times by 15%, gear changing by 12%, brake use by 14%, and gasoline use by 12% (Newman and Kenworthy 1992, 39–40). This slower and calmer style of driving reduces emissions, as demonstrated by an evaluation in Buxtehude, Germany.
Which is fine, but we don't have suitable traffic calming methods in the City to promote smooth flow.

The roads are clogged with traffic lights that don't phase efficiently and don't make a positive contribution to flow (increasing the stop/start issue you've highlighted)

Flow has been decreased by adding more bus lanes and shrinking the usable space for all road users. (Why do we have a bus lane going in on Edward Street?)

It's the simple things this Council (and Councils before and after) can do to improve flow that need to be looked at. Not fancial ideas that support ideoly. We ideas that support practicality and efficientcy.
How many buses per hour go up Edward St? I don't think any but I may be wrong?
[quote][p][bold]gary101[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: In anticipation of the fact that sooner or later someone will claim that 20mph limits have been "scientitically proved" to increase pollution, here's the truth - Research in Germany has shown that the greater the speed of vehicles in built-up areas, the higher is the incidence of acceleration, deceleration, and braking, all of which increase air pollution. German research indicates that traffic calming reduces idle times by 15%, gear changing by 12%, brake use by 14%, and gasoline use by 12% (Newman and Kenworthy 1992, 39–40). This slower and calmer style of driving reduces emissions, as demonstrated by an evaluation in Buxtehude, Germany.[/p][/quote]Which is fine, but we don't have suitable traffic calming methods in the City to promote smooth flow. The roads are clogged with traffic lights that don't phase efficiently and don't make a positive contribution to flow (increasing the stop/start issue you've highlighted) Flow has been decreased by adding more bus lanes and shrinking the usable space for all road users. (Why do we have a bus lane going in on Edward Street?) It's the simple things this Council (and Councils before and after) can do to improve flow that need to be looked at. Not fancial ideas that support ideoly. We ideas that support practicality and efficientcy.[/p][/quote]How many buses per hour go up Edward St? I don't think any but I may be wrong? stumpyshimmans
  • Score: 2

9:20am Sat 21 Jun 14

stumpyshimmans says...

What great news today! Eric Pickles is finally going to do something about the Unfair use of CCTV, an accountable Green Council having to provide figures on income & it's appropriate use. The new law will also enable a review of local parking charges so that these charges are not a "Cash Cow". Why are some permits free or minimal charge but in the Green Ian Davey /JKitkat land it's £130. Any incoming Council can no longer sit on the fence........ I know now where my vote is going! It will be to the "Unchain the Brighton Motorist Supporter"!
What great news today! Eric Pickles is finally going to do something about the Unfair use of CCTV, an accountable Green Council having to provide figures on income & it's appropriate use. The new law will also enable a review of local parking charges so that these charges are not a "Cash Cow". Why are some permits free or minimal charge but in the Green Ian Davey /JKitkat land it's £130. Any incoming Council can no longer sit on the fence........ I know now where my vote is going! It will be to the "Unchain the Brighton Motorist Supporter"! stumpyshimmans
  • Score: 3

11:37pm Sat 21 Jun 14

ghost bus driver says...

stumpyshimmans wrote:
gary101 wrote:
Andy R wrote:
In anticipation of the fact that sooner or later someone will claim that 20mph limits have been "scientitically proved" to increase pollution, here's the truth - Research in Germany has shown that the greater the speed of vehicles in built-up areas, the higher is the incidence of acceleration, deceleration, and braking, all of which increase air pollution. German research indicates that traffic calming reduces idle times by 15%, gear changing by 12%, brake use by 14%, and gasoline use by 12% (Newman and Kenworthy 1992, 39–40). This slower and calmer style of driving reduces emissions, as demonstrated by an evaluation in Buxtehude, Germany.
Which is fine, but we don't have suitable traffic calming methods in the City to promote smooth flow.

The roads are clogged with traffic lights that don't phase efficiently and don't make a positive contribution to flow (increasing the stop/start issue you've highlighted)

Flow has been decreased by adding more bus lanes and shrinking the usable space for all road users. (Why do we have a bus lane going in on Edward Street?)

It's the simple things this Council (and Councils before and after) can do to improve flow that need to be looked at. Not fancial ideas that support ideoly. We ideas that support practicality and efficientcy.
How many buses per hour go up Edward St? I don't think any but I may be wrong?
2 or 3 27Cs a day. Not many at all.
[quote][p][bold]stumpyshimmans[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gary101[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: In anticipation of the fact that sooner or later someone will claim that 20mph limits have been "scientitically proved" to increase pollution, here's the truth - Research in Germany has shown that the greater the speed of vehicles in built-up areas, the higher is the incidence of acceleration, deceleration, and braking, all of which increase air pollution. German research indicates that traffic calming reduces idle times by 15%, gear changing by 12%, brake use by 14%, and gasoline use by 12% (Newman and Kenworthy 1992, 39–40). This slower and calmer style of driving reduces emissions, as demonstrated by an evaluation in Buxtehude, Germany.[/p][/quote]Which is fine, but we don't have suitable traffic calming methods in the City to promote smooth flow. The roads are clogged with traffic lights that don't phase efficiently and don't make a positive contribution to flow (increasing the stop/start issue you've highlighted) Flow has been decreased by adding more bus lanes and shrinking the usable space for all road users. (Why do we have a bus lane going in on Edward Street?) It's the simple things this Council (and Councils before and after) can do to improve flow that need to be looked at. Not fancial ideas that support ideoly. We ideas that support practicality and efficientcy.[/p][/quote]How many buses per hour go up Edward St? I don't think any but I may be wrong?[/p][/quote]2 or 3 27Cs a day. Not many at all. ghost bus driver
  • Score: 0

2:01pm Sun 22 Jun 14

gheese77 says...

CaliforniaGirl wrote:
I drive in Brighton almost every day as I cannot afford to live here but all of my clients are here, and because I have mobility issues I rely on a car to come to work.

Since the 20-mile per hour speed limit was introduced I have only ever witnessed three cars going that speed voluntarily. (as someone above commented, often you cannot go faster anyway because of the road congestion). only THREE. Considering I must see thousands of other cars every week, it seems safe for me to say that I don't think many people are paying much attention to this waste of money scheme.

As reported in the news earlier this month (by TomTom), traffic congestion has worsened in Brighton since this scheme was introduced. So for the council to claim on their web page that "This will not only bring road safety benefits, but will also help to improve overall health and wellbeing, reduce congestion" they are clearly wrong. And the three cars I did see complying with the speed-limit seemed to be irritating the road users behind them, which definitely was not helping to improve health and wellbeing!

As for enforcement? Who is going to enforce it? Surely we want our already hard-pressed police to spend their time dealing with real crimes such as burglaries etc?

Just saying.
Ridiculous stuff ! If you don't think speeding is a 'real crime' you should ask the families of those people killed on the roads in accidents where speed was a factor.
I think speeding could and should be enforced automatically, we just need more average speed camera setups such as you see on roadworks nowadays. These can be set up to catch those 'criminals' who think it is acceptable to speed without using up valuable policing resources
[quote][p][bold]CaliforniaGirl[/bold] wrote: I drive in Brighton almost every day as I cannot afford to live here but all of my clients are here, and because I have mobility issues I rely on a car to come to work. Since the 20-mile per hour speed limit was introduced I have only ever witnessed three cars going that speed voluntarily. (as someone above commented, often you cannot go faster anyway because of the road congestion). only THREE. Considering I must see thousands of other cars every week, it seems safe for me to say that I don't think many people are paying much attention to this waste of money scheme. As reported in the news earlier this month (by TomTom), traffic congestion has worsened in Brighton since this scheme was introduced. So for the council to claim on their web page that "This will not only bring road safety benefits, but will also help to improve overall health and wellbeing, reduce congestion" they are clearly wrong. And the three cars I did see complying with the speed-limit seemed to be irritating the road users behind them, which definitely was not helping to improve health and wellbeing! As for enforcement? Who is going to enforce it? Surely we want our already hard-pressed police to spend their time dealing with real crimes such as burglaries etc? Just saying.[/p][/quote]Ridiculous stuff ! If you don't think speeding is a 'real crime' you should ask the families of those people killed on the roads in accidents where speed was a factor. I think speeding could and should be enforced automatically, we just need more average speed camera setups such as you see on roadworks nowadays. These can be set up to catch those 'criminals' who think it is acceptable to speed without using up valuable policing resources gheese77
  • Score: -3

2:47pm Sun 22 Jun 14

VegasSeagull says...

Where I currently live we have many 20 MPH zones, we even have 15 MPH zones. I do a lot of driving with my work and these reduced speed areas are always policed, I have never seen an accident in the 15 MPH areas, and maybe just one or two rear end fender benders in the 20 MPH areas.
Reducing the apeed limit means nothing without proper policing, no matter how many signs you put up.
Where I currently live we have many 20 MPH zones, we even have 15 MPH zones. I do a lot of driving with my work and these reduced speed areas are always policed, I have never seen an accident in the 15 MPH areas, and maybe just one or two rear end fender benders in the 20 MPH areas. Reducing the apeed limit means nothing without proper policing, no matter how many signs you put up. VegasSeagull
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

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

I agree