20 mph campaigner dismisses driver survey claims

20 mph campaigner dismisses driver survey claims

20 mph campaigner dismisses driver survey claims

First published in News
Last updated

A LEADING campaigner for 20mph limits from York has dismissed claims by a road safety charity that many motorists oppose them.

The Institute of Advanced Motorists said its research had shown that half of drivers from the UK were against a 'blanket' 20mph speed limit, with under a third willing to embrace the idea and a fifth undecided.

It said male drivers were more likely to be against the idea than female, in particular young male drivers.

However, the IAM said drivers were very supportive of lower speed limits outside schools, with 94 per cent of respondents agreeing this was a good idea, and more than three quarters of drivers believed that 20mph speed limits helped increase safety for pedestrians.

IAM chief executive Simon Best said drivers were not as negative about 20mph speed limits as many commentators would have people believe.

“However, most drivers don’t want 30mph zones to be replaced with 20mph in towns. Many drivers still need to be convinced it would be a benefit."

Anna Semlyen, who is a City of York Councillor but said she was speaking in her capacity as campaign manager of the national 20's Plenty for Us campaign, claimed the IAM had been 'asking the wrong questions of an unrepresentative sample' and was ignoring a public health professional consensus.

"The main beneficiaries of slower speeds - children, pedestrians, cyclists, disabled, elderly and non car owners - were not asked their opinions by the IAM driver survey," she said.

"In British Household and YouGov surveys with a more representative sample, over 70 per cent support 20mph limits for residential streets and this rises post implementation.

"All the leading public health bodies, like Public Health England and the Association of Public Health, see the wider benefits of slower speeds, including encouraging exercise. Only default 20mph limits can offer wide gains to health for all."

She said 20's Plenty for Us was asking for a default 20mph limit, not a blanket limit.

"We are delighted that drivers want to protect children," she said.

"Yet 80 per cent of child casualties happen on non-school trips. Public health research on child protection says default 20mph limits are key."

Comments (130)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:27am Fri 16 May 14

petethefeet says...

This is like asking Turkeys to vote for Christmas. The fact is that roads affect the lives of all of us. Turn this round the other way - If you ask Probation Officers if they think Probation is a good idea then you will only get one answer as their interests and career are wrapped up in it. They are the last people you should ask for an unbiased answer and same goes for motorists.
This is like asking Turkeys to vote for Christmas. The fact is that roads affect the lives of all of us. Turn this round the other way - If you ask Probation Officers if they think Probation is a good idea then you will only get one answer as their interests and career are wrapped up in it. They are the last people you should ask for an unbiased answer and same goes for motorists. petethefeet
  • Score: 3179

8:32am Fri 16 May 14

Woody G Mellor says...

petethefeet wrote:
This is like asking Turkeys to vote for Christmas. The fact is that roads affect the lives of all of us. Turn this round the other way - If you ask Probation Officers if they think Probation is a good idea then you will only get one answer as their interests and career are wrapped up in it. They are the last people you should ask for an unbiased answer and same goes for motorists.
So who do we ask then?
[quote][p][bold]petethefeet[/bold] wrote: This is like asking Turkeys to vote for Christmas. The fact is that roads affect the lives of all of us. Turn this round the other way - If you ask Probation Officers if they think Probation is a good idea then you will only get one answer as their interests and career are wrapped up in it. They are the last people you should ask for an unbiased answer and same goes for motorists.[/p][/quote]So who do we ask then? Woody G Mellor
  • Score: 3971

8:40am Fri 16 May 14

courier46 says...

That`s funny a councillor saying that the "wrong questions where asked" yet this is what this council do all the time to get the answers they want to hear ,in fact all policitions do this all the time.
We don't need a default 20mph we need inforcement of the 30mph and on a regular basis.
That`s funny a councillor saying that the "wrong questions where asked" yet this is what this council do all the time to get the answers they want to hear ,in fact all policitions do this all the time. We don't need a default 20mph we need inforcement of the 30mph and on a regular basis. courier46
  • Score: 3426

8:41am Fri 16 May 14

MorkofYork says...

Motorists are fully qualified and know there's no need for 20mph limits everywhere. This is what it boils down to. This is why people don't follow them.
It's a case of freedom or what Anna semylen wants, what do you think were going to go for ?
Motorists are fully qualified and know there's no need for 20mph limits everywhere. This is what it boils down to. This is why people don't follow them. It's a case of freedom or what Anna semylen wants, what do you think were going to go for ? MorkofYork
  • Score: 3056

8:42am Fri 16 May 14

MrsHoney says...

petethefeet wrote:
This is like asking Turkeys to vote for Christmas. The fact is that roads affect the lives of all of us. Turn this round the other way - If you ask Probation Officers if they think Probation is a good idea then you will only get one answer as their interests and career are wrapped up in it. They are the last people you should ask for an unbiased answer and same goes for motorists.
Why shouldn't motorists get a say? They're the ones having to drive slowly, usually when there is no need. They say - "The main beneficiaries of slower speeds are - children, pedestrians, cyclists, disabled, elderly and non car owners"
To me the only people in that list that should have a say are cyclists. All the others should be on the pavement anyway and crossing the roads when it's safe to do so. I'm all for 20mph zones when it's sensible but the route I drive I rarely see any pedestrians nevermind people wandering about in the road so why go at 20?
[quote][p][bold]petethefeet[/bold] wrote: This is like asking Turkeys to vote for Christmas. The fact is that roads affect the lives of all of us. Turn this round the other way - If you ask Probation Officers if they think Probation is a good idea then you will only get one answer as their interests and career are wrapped up in it. They are the last people you should ask for an unbiased answer and same goes for motorists.[/p][/quote]Why shouldn't motorists get a say? They're the ones having to drive slowly, usually when there is no need. They say - "The main beneficiaries of slower speeds are - children, pedestrians, cyclists, disabled, elderly and non car owners" To me the only people in that list that should have a say are cyclists. All the others should be on the pavement anyway and crossing the roads when it's safe to do so. I'm all for 20mph zones when it's sensible but the route I drive I rarely see any pedestrians nevermind people wandering about in the road so why go at 20? MrsHoney
  • Score: 3178

8:48am Fri 16 May 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

Anna Semlyen:
Claimed the IAM had been 'asking the wrong questions of an unrepresentative sample'.

And Anna would be the right person to ask the right questions from a (Her) representative sample.

If you want something to be pointless, implement it on the basis of false facts.
Anna Semlyen: Claimed the IAM had been 'asking the wrong questions of an unrepresentative sample'. And Anna would be the right person to ask the right questions from a (Her) representative sample. If you want something to be pointless, implement it on the basis of false facts. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: 3133

8:52am Fri 16 May 14

pedalling paul says...

The default situation should be that car drivers journeying through residential streets should be "guests" with residents as the "owners". The Dutch have got it spot on with their "Woonerf" streetscape design.Here's an extract from a recent Daily Telegraph journalist, who visited a town near Amsterdam.

As we turn off the main road and enter Almere we feel mildly uneasy. Clever use of planting, play areas, chicanes, even the position of the houses, means there isn't a straight road in sight. Every 50 yards, the roadway – which, thanks to the absence of kerbs, blends with the pavement – snakes left or right. Who has right of way? It's hard to tell, especially at junctions where there's no clue as to who has priority. Proceeding with extreme caution is the only way and there's little need for speed signs; our pace automatically falls to a crawl, underlining the designers' dream that children should roam the streets in safety.

The full article is at http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/motoring/road
-safety/9086705/Why-
woonerfs-will-change
-how-we-drive.html

Before making a knee jerk response to my post, the usual suspects may wish to read the full article and then reply.
The default situation should be that car drivers journeying through residential streets should be "guests" with residents as the "owners". The Dutch have got it spot on with their "Woonerf" streetscape design.Here's an extract from a recent Daily Telegraph journalist, who visited a town near Amsterdam. As we turn off the main road and enter Almere we feel mildly uneasy. Clever use of planting, play areas, chicanes, even the position of the houses, means there isn't a straight road in sight. Every 50 yards, the roadway – which, thanks to the absence of kerbs, blends with the pavement – snakes left or right. Who has right of way? It's hard to tell, especially at junctions where there's no clue as to who has priority. Proceeding with extreme caution is the only way and there's little need for speed signs; our pace automatically falls to a crawl, underlining the designers' dream that children should roam the streets in safety. The full article is at http://www.telegraph .co.uk/motoring/road -safety/9086705/Why- woonerfs-will-change -how-we-drive.html Before making a knee jerk response to my post, the usual suspects may wish to read the full article and then reply. pedalling paul
  • Score: 3078

9:05am Fri 16 May 14

Madasanibbotson says...

pedalling paul wrote:
The default situation should be that car drivers journeying through residential streets should be "guests" with residents as the "owners". The Dutch have got it spot on with their "Woonerf" streetscape design.Here's an extract from a recent Daily Telegraph journalist, who visited a town near Amsterdam.

As we turn off the main road and enter Almere we feel mildly uneasy. Clever use of planting, play areas, chicanes, even the position of the houses, means there isn't a straight road in sight. Every 50 yards, the roadway – which, thanks to the absence of kerbs, blends with the pavement – snakes left or right. Who has right of way? It's hard to tell, especially at junctions where there's no clue as to who has priority. Proceeding with extreme caution is the only way and there's little need for speed signs; our pace automatically falls to a crawl, underlining the designers' dream that children should roam the streets in safety.

The full article is at http://www.telegraph

.co.uk/motoring/road

-safety/9086705/Why-

woonerfs-will-change

-how-we-drive.html

Before making a knee jerk response to my post, the usual suspects may wish to read the full article and then reply.
PP

Nobody cares what you think.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: The default situation should be that car drivers journeying through residential streets should be "guests" with residents as the "owners". The Dutch have got it spot on with their "Woonerf" streetscape design.Here's an extract from a recent Daily Telegraph journalist, who visited a town near Amsterdam. As we turn off the main road and enter Almere we feel mildly uneasy. Clever use of planting, play areas, chicanes, even the position of the houses, means there isn't a straight road in sight. Every 50 yards, the roadway – which, thanks to the absence of kerbs, blends with the pavement – snakes left or right. Who has right of way? It's hard to tell, especially at junctions where there's no clue as to who has priority. Proceeding with extreme caution is the only way and there's little need for speed signs; our pace automatically falls to a crawl, underlining the designers' dream that children should roam the streets in safety. The full article is at http://www.telegraph .co.uk/motoring/road -safety/9086705/Why- woonerfs-will-change -how-we-drive.html Before making a knee jerk response to my post, the usual suspects may wish to read the full article and then reply.[/p][/quote]PP Nobody cares what you think. Madasanibbotson
  • Score: 3082

9:08am Fri 16 May 14

petethefeet says...

MrsHoney wrote:
petethefeet wrote:
This is like asking Turkeys to vote for Christmas. The fact is that roads affect the lives of all of us. Turn this round the other way - If you ask Probation Officers if they think Probation is a good idea then you will only get one answer as their interests and career are wrapped up in it. They are the last people you should ask for an unbiased answer and same goes for motorists.
Why shouldn't motorists get a say? They're the ones having to drive slowly, usually when there is no need. They say - "The main beneficiaries of slower speeds are - children, pedestrians, cyclists, disabled, elderly and non car owners"
To me the only people in that list that should have a say are cyclists. All the others should be on the pavement anyway and crossing the roads when it's safe to do so. I'm all for 20mph zones when it's sensible but the route I drive I rarely see any pedestrians nevermind people wandering about in the road so why go at 20?
Why do you believe that the onus should be on 'others' to keep out of the way (other than for their own survival of course)? The status quo that we have now has been built up over the centuries on the defacto principle that "might is right". The actual legal situation is quite the opposite and, trust me, if you ever knock over and injure a cyclist then in all probability it will be your fault. People love the advantages of cars but just don't seem to understand the other side of the awful impact that they have had on people and community life. We've had to evolve a defensive capability to survive this change that simply wasn't in us during the 19th century (read the case of the first fatality in Croydon in the 1870's). I'm a car driver, motor-bike rider, cyclist, pedestrian & runner. It's amazing how my feelings change depending upon the mode that I chose. I believe that we should listen more to the non-motorists!
[quote][p][bold]MrsHoney[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]petethefeet[/bold] wrote: This is like asking Turkeys to vote for Christmas. The fact is that roads affect the lives of all of us. Turn this round the other way - If you ask Probation Officers if they think Probation is a good idea then you will only get one answer as their interests and career are wrapped up in it. They are the last people you should ask for an unbiased answer and same goes for motorists.[/p][/quote]Why shouldn't motorists get a say? They're the ones having to drive slowly, usually when there is no need. They say - "The main beneficiaries of slower speeds are - children, pedestrians, cyclists, disabled, elderly and non car owners" To me the only people in that list that should have a say are cyclists. All the others should be on the pavement anyway and crossing the roads when it's safe to do so. I'm all for 20mph zones when it's sensible but the route I drive I rarely see any pedestrians nevermind people wandering about in the road so why go at 20?[/p][/quote]Why do you believe that the onus should be on 'others' to keep out of the way (other than for their own survival of course)? The status quo that we have now has been built up over the centuries on the defacto principle that "might is right". The actual legal situation is quite the opposite and, trust me, if you ever knock over and injure a cyclist then in all probability it will be your fault. People love the advantages of cars but just don't seem to understand the other side of the awful impact that they have had on people and community life. We've had to evolve a defensive capability to survive this change that simply wasn't in us during the 19th century (read the case of the first fatality in Croydon in the 1870's). I'm a car driver, motor-bike rider, cyclist, pedestrian & runner. It's amazing how my feelings change depending upon the mode that I chose. I believe that we should listen more to the non-motorists! petethefeet
  • Score: 3028

9:21am Fri 16 May 14

LibDem says...

A door to door survey in west York (Westfield/Dringhous
es) found that 82% of respondents were opposed to a wide area 20 mph speed limit.

The number of serious accidents actually increased when such a limit was imposed in Portsmouth.

In Bristol, before the change to the speed limit, 78% thought that speeding was a problem.
12 months after the introduction of a 20 mph limit, 79% thought speeding was a problem..
Only 27% thought that the 20 mph limit had made roads safer.

Cllr Semleyn clearly has a conflict of interest. She was reported in the Press 21st February 2014 "that residents should not be consulted over wide area 20 mph speed limits" (http://www.yorkpres
s.co.uk/news/1102766
7.Campaigner_s_fears
_over_York_residents
_20mph_consultations
/?ref=var_0)

On 15th April it was revealed that she had conspired with Cllr Merrett to change an draft officer report which she did not feel was sufficiently pro "20's plenty".

That is now a matter which needs to be investigated by an independent standards board.
A door to door survey in west York (Westfield/Dringhous es) found that 82% of respondents were opposed to a wide area 20 mph speed limit. The number of serious accidents actually increased when such a limit was imposed in Portsmouth. In Bristol, before the change to the speed limit, 78% thought that speeding was a problem. 12 months after the introduction of a 20 mph limit, 79% thought speeding was a problem.. Only 27% thought that the 20 mph limit had made roads safer. Cllr Semleyn clearly has a conflict of interest. She was reported in the Press 21st February 2014 "that residents should not be consulted over wide area 20 mph speed limits" (http://www.yorkpres s.co.uk/news/1102766 7.Campaigner_s_fears _over_York_residents _20mph_consultations /?ref=var_0) On 15th April it was revealed that she had conspired with Cllr Merrett to change an draft officer report which she did not feel was sufficiently pro "20's plenty". That is now a matter which needs to be investigated by an independent standards board. LibDem
  • Score: 3067

9:27am Fri 16 May 14

samthedog says...

Even at 20 your still going to cause some damage if a child runs out in front of you, isn't it better to educate the child not to do that!
Even at 20 your still going to cause some damage if a child runs out in front of you, isn't it better to educate the child not to do that! samthedog
  • Score: 3081

9:31am Fri 16 May 14

Fabius the Delayer says...

petethefeet wrote:
This is like asking Turkeys to vote for Christmas. The fact is that roads affect the lives of all of us. Turn this round the other way - If you ask Probation Officers if they think Probation is a good idea then you will only get one answer as their interests and career are wrapped up in it. They are the last people you should ask for an unbiased answer and same goes for motorists.
By turkeys i presume you mean the 20 mph campaigner's. I agree ,
These people are just creating jobs for themselves at out expense and inconvenience.
Make the roads safer with more NPR cameras and seize and crush all un insured & un taxed cars, and Leave us law abiding citizens alone. Were not cash cows for you petty bureaucrats. Enforce the laws we have more effectively.
Nobody should be able to SORN a car without being able to prove it IS stored off road. (and not able to be used as a taxi by your brother in the next City). as a victim of a benefit claiming, tax dodging, uninsured, unlicensed, _____ I know how Ineffective the Law is enforced.
[quote][p][bold]petethefeet[/bold] wrote: This is like asking Turkeys to vote for Christmas. The fact is that roads affect the lives of all of us. Turn this round the other way - If you ask Probation Officers if they think Probation is a good idea then you will only get one answer as their interests and career are wrapped up in it. They are the last people you should ask for an unbiased answer and same goes for motorists.[/p][/quote]By turkeys i presume you mean the 20 mph campaigner's. I agree , These people are just creating jobs for themselves at out expense and inconvenience. Make the roads safer with more NPR cameras and seize and crush all un insured & un taxed cars, and Leave us law abiding citizens alone. Were not cash cows for you petty bureaucrats. Enforce the laws we have more effectively. Nobody should be able to SORN a car without being able to prove it IS stored off road. (and not able to be used as a taxi by your brother in the next City). as a victim of a benefit claiming, tax dodging, uninsured, unlicensed, _____ I know how Ineffective the Law is enforced. Fabius the Delayer
  • Score: 3061

9:31am Fri 16 May 14

again says...

"It said male drivers were more likely to be against the idea than female, in particular young male drivers."

Young male drivers want to drive too fast.. Whatever will they tell us next, eh?
"It said male drivers were more likely to be against the idea than female, in particular young male drivers." Young male drivers want to drive too fast.. Whatever will they tell us next, eh? again
  • Score: 3084

10:01am Fri 16 May 14

Ignatius Lumpopo says...

The UK has a stupid fixation of doing speed limits in multiples of ten. What's wrong with 25 mph?

And anyway, the 20 mph limit sign depicted at the top of this article - like many in York and North Yorkshire - is in the wrong typeface. If If those numbers aren't in Transport Heavy, they aren't statutory. North Yorkshire is almost unique in the country in thinking any old typeface will do when, legally, it won't.
The UK has a stupid fixation of doing speed limits in multiples of ten. What's wrong with 25 mph? And anyway, the 20 mph limit sign depicted at the top of this article - like many in York and North Yorkshire - is in the wrong typeface. If If those numbers aren't in Transport Heavy, they aren't statutory. North Yorkshire is almost unique in the country in thinking any old typeface will do when, legally, it won't. Ignatius Lumpopo
  • Score: 3044

10:10am Fri 16 May 14

york_chap says...

Of course most people who drive aren't going to be in favour of it - it implies (quite wrongly) that they're incapable of driving safely at 30mph and must instead drive at a crawl, just in case a pedestrian chooses to blindly step out into the road. This simply patronises and undermines drivers, whilst encouraging pedestrians that it's quite ok for them to wander about in the road. And when all is said and done, there's no actual evidence to show 20mph limits have any positive effect on the number of causalties.

Criminalising jaywalking (as practised in some other countries) would arguably have a greater effect on reducing pedestrian casualties. Of course though, as it's currently fashionable for councils to be seen as 'anti-car', such measures would never even be spoken of, let alone considered.

I've also seen adverts on the back of buses recently, which warn drivers "don't knock them down when they've knocked a few back - watch out for pedestrians 11pm - 3am". All the onus is on blaming drivers for the actions of careless and foolhardy pedestrians. How about some adverts warning pedestrians to "look both ways before you walk into the road"?
Of course most people who drive aren't going to be in favour of it - it implies (quite wrongly) that they're incapable of driving safely at 30mph and must instead drive at a crawl, just in case a pedestrian chooses to blindly step out into the road. This simply patronises and undermines drivers, whilst encouraging pedestrians that it's quite ok for them to wander about in the road. And when all is said and done, there's no actual evidence to show 20mph limits have any positive effect on the number of causalties. Criminalising jaywalking (as practised in some other countries) would arguably have a greater effect on reducing pedestrian casualties. Of course though, as it's currently fashionable for councils to be seen as 'anti-car', such measures would never even be spoken of, let alone considered. I've also seen adverts on the back of buses recently, which warn drivers "don't knock them down when they've knocked a few back - watch out for pedestrians 11pm - 3am". All the onus is on blaming drivers for the actions of careless and foolhardy pedestrians. How about some adverts warning pedestrians to "look both ways before you walk into the road"? york_chap
  • Score: 3165

10:22am Fri 16 May 14

MrsHoney says...

petethefeet wrote:
MrsHoney wrote:
petethefeet wrote:
This is like asking Turkeys to vote for Christmas. The fact is that roads affect the lives of all of us. Turn this round the other way - If you ask Probation Officers if they think Probation is a good idea then you will only get one answer as their interests and career are wrapped up in it. They are the last people you should ask for an unbiased answer and same goes for motorists.
Why shouldn't motorists get a say? They're the ones having to drive slowly, usually when there is no need. They say - "The main beneficiaries of slower speeds are - children, pedestrians, cyclists, disabled, elderly and non car owners"
To me the only people in that list that should have a say are cyclists. All the others should be on the pavement anyway and crossing the roads when it's safe to do so. I'm all for 20mph zones when it's sensible but the route I drive I rarely see any pedestrians nevermind people wandering about in the road so why go at 20?
Why do you believe that the onus should be on 'others' to keep out of the way (other than for their own survival of course)? The status quo that we have now has been built up over the centuries on the defacto principle that "might is right". The actual legal situation is quite the opposite and, trust me, if you ever knock over and injure a cyclist then in all probability it will be your fault. People love the advantages of cars but just don't seem to understand the other side of the awful impact that they have had on people and community life. We've had to evolve a defensive capability to survive this change that simply wasn't in us during the 19th century (read the case of the first fatality in Croydon in the 1870's). I'm a car driver, motor-bike rider, cyclist, pedestrian & runner. It's amazing how my feelings change depending upon the mode that I chose. I believe that we should listen more to the non-motorists!
I think you'll find that I did say cyclists opinions should be taken into consideration. And if a stretch of road is particularly dangerous for cyclists then fair enough, reduce the speed. But not ALL roads are if people cycle properly (and yes, drive properly!) As for me believing the onus should be on others to keep out of the way, er yes, it's a road not a pavement!! So I do expect pedestrians to keep out of the way! Why would you think it's alright for them to treat a road as an extension of the footpath?! That's nuts. The onus IS on them to cross the road safely not to just cross whenever they fancy and expect the traffic to be crawling along slow enough to miss them!
[quote][p][bold]petethefeet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrsHoney[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]petethefeet[/bold] wrote: This is like asking Turkeys to vote for Christmas. The fact is that roads affect the lives of all of us. Turn this round the other way - If you ask Probation Officers if they think Probation is a good idea then you will only get one answer as their interests and career are wrapped up in it. They are the last people you should ask for an unbiased answer and same goes for motorists.[/p][/quote]Why shouldn't motorists get a say? They're the ones having to drive slowly, usually when there is no need. They say - "The main beneficiaries of slower speeds are - children, pedestrians, cyclists, disabled, elderly and non car owners" To me the only people in that list that should have a say are cyclists. All the others should be on the pavement anyway and crossing the roads when it's safe to do so. I'm all for 20mph zones when it's sensible but the route I drive I rarely see any pedestrians nevermind people wandering about in the road so why go at 20?[/p][/quote]Why do you believe that the onus should be on 'others' to keep out of the way (other than for their own survival of course)? The status quo that we have now has been built up over the centuries on the defacto principle that "might is right". The actual legal situation is quite the opposite and, trust me, if you ever knock over and injure a cyclist then in all probability it will be your fault. People love the advantages of cars but just don't seem to understand the other side of the awful impact that they have had on people and community life. We've had to evolve a defensive capability to survive this change that simply wasn't in us during the 19th century (read the case of the first fatality in Croydon in the 1870's). I'm a car driver, motor-bike rider, cyclist, pedestrian & runner. It's amazing how my feelings change depending upon the mode that I chose. I believe that we should listen more to the non-motorists![/p][/quote]I think you'll find that I did say cyclists opinions should be taken into consideration. And if a stretch of road is particularly dangerous for cyclists then fair enough, reduce the speed. But not ALL roads are if people cycle properly (and yes, drive properly!) As for me believing the onus should be on others to keep out of the way, er yes, it's a road not a pavement!! So I do expect pedestrians to keep out of the way! Why would you think it's alright for them to treat a road as an extension of the footpath?! That's nuts. The onus IS on them to cross the road safely not to just cross whenever they fancy and expect the traffic to be crawling along slow enough to miss them! MrsHoney
  • Score: 3204

10:23am Fri 16 May 14

petethefeet says...

Perhaps Anna, Paul and myself should start a campaign to sign up to a pledge never to drive above 20mph in built-up areas? It wouldn't need that many followers to effectively enforce a 20mph speed limit regardless of the legal limit. I can hear the gnashing of teeth now........
Perhaps Anna, Paul and myself should start a campaign to sign up to a pledge never to drive above 20mph in built-up areas? It wouldn't need that many followers to effectively enforce a 20mph speed limit regardless of the legal limit. I can hear the gnashing of teeth now........ petethefeet
  • Score: 3297

10:28am Fri 16 May 14

Warren Z says...

The Councillor thinks the wrong questions were asked,no doubt happier if the council had set the questions with their usual spin. Maybe "do you want a 20mph limit or do you want to help to murder small children".
The Councillor thinks the wrong questions were asked,no doubt happier if the council had set the questions with their usual spin. Maybe "do you want a 20mph limit or do you want to help to murder small children". Warren Z
  • Score: 3050

10:30am Fri 16 May 14

Ichabod76 says...

petethefeet wrote:
Perhaps Anna, Paul and myself should start a campaign to sign up to a pledge never to drive above 20mph in built-up areas? It wouldn't need that many followers to effectively enforce a 20mph speed limit regardless of the legal limit. I can hear the gnashing of teeth now........
I think you'll get as many positive responses as the 20's plenty consultation, what was it 8 ?
so 8 of you driving around at 20, that'll make a difference won't it !
[quote][p][bold]petethefeet[/bold] wrote: Perhaps Anna, Paul and myself should start a campaign to sign up to a pledge never to drive above 20mph in built-up areas? It wouldn't need that many followers to effectively enforce a 20mph speed limit regardless of the legal limit. I can hear the gnashing of teeth now........[/p][/quote]I think you'll get as many positive responses as the 20's plenty consultation, what was it 8 ? so 8 of you driving around at 20, that'll make a difference won't it ! Ichabod76
  • Score: 3053

10:40am Fri 16 May 14

hirsty says...

Predictable petty responses, every time I read Press comments it reminds me 'never to read the bottom half of the internet' ...

Many drivers think they have a God given right to own the road, and everyone else had better stay the Hell out of their way, or suffer the consequences. In the meantime, everyone else has to put up with the noise, pollution & danger whilst going about their daily business.

20mph is absolutely fine for anyone in built-up areas - around pedestrians, cycles, kids, dogs, people stepping off buses and yes, drunks. For too long the car has a had a complete free run in the planning of our cities, soon all but the most essential journeys will be priced off the road & we'll look back on the last 60-years as a period of temporary madness.
Predictable petty responses, every time I read Press comments it reminds me 'never to read the bottom half of the internet' ... Many drivers think they have a God given right to own the road, and everyone else had better stay the Hell out of their way, or suffer the consequences. In the meantime, everyone else has to put up with the noise, pollution & danger whilst going about their daily business. 20mph is absolutely fine for anyone in built-up areas - around pedestrians, cycles, kids, dogs, people stepping off buses and yes, drunks. For too long the car has a had a complete free run in the planning of our cities, soon all but the most essential journeys will be priced off the road & we'll look back on the last 60-years as a period of temporary madness. hirsty
  • Score: 3173

11:00am Fri 16 May 14

petethefeet says...

Ichabod76 wrote:
petethefeet wrote:
Perhaps Anna, Paul and myself should start a campaign to sign up to a pledge never to drive above 20mph in built-up areas? It wouldn't need that many followers to effectively enforce a 20mph speed limit regardless of the legal limit. I can hear the gnashing of teeth now........
I think you'll get as many positive responses as the 20's plenty consultation, what was it 8 ?
so 8 of you driving around at 20, that'll make a difference won't it !
Mmmmmm!. I think the idea would spread. It's actually been done in a couple of cities to get people to focus on a max of 30mph. These initiatives were spawned by councils but there is no reason why ordinary people shouldn't do it. After all, 20/30mph is a max not a target.
Originally, mechanically propelled vehicles had to be preceded by a person carrying a red flag. I think it came in about 1841 in one of the locomotive acts. It was repealed in about 1876 in another locomotives act. When I get chance I'll have to look them up in Halsbury's laws of England. There's about 110 volumes and besides detailing the acts they give a summary of the background/ social changes going on at the time. Anybody wishing to examine true history (other than who slaughtered who in battle) should read them. Unfortunately, buying them outright will cost you about 7 grand!
[quote][p][bold]Ichabod76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]petethefeet[/bold] wrote: Perhaps Anna, Paul and myself should start a campaign to sign up to a pledge never to drive above 20mph in built-up areas? It wouldn't need that many followers to effectively enforce a 20mph speed limit regardless of the legal limit. I can hear the gnashing of teeth now........[/p][/quote]I think you'll get as many positive responses as the 20's plenty consultation, what was it 8 ? so 8 of you driving around at 20, that'll make a difference won't it ![/p][/quote]Mmmmmm!. I think the idea would spread. It's actually been done in a couple of cities to get people to focus on a max of 30mph. These initiatives were spawned by councils but there is no reason why ordinary people shouldn't do it. After all, 20/30mph is a max not a target. Originally, mechanically propelled vehicles had to be preceded by a person carrying a red flag. I think it came in about 1841 in one of the locomotive acts. It was repealed in about 1876 in another locomotives act. When I get chance I'll have to look them up in Halsbury's laws of England. There's about 110 volumes and besides detailing the acts they give a summary of the background/ social changes going on at the time. Anybody wishing to examine true history (other than who slaughtered who in battle) should read them. Unfortunately, buying them outright will cost you about 7 grand! petethefeet
  • Score: 3178

11:11am Fri 16 May 14

GrumpyLocal says...

hirsty wrote:
Predictable petty responses, every time I read Press comments it reminds me 'never to read the bottom half of the internet' ...

Many drivers think they have a God given right to own the road, and everyone else had better stay the Hell out of their way, or suffer the consequences. In the meantime, everyone else has to put up with the noise, pollution & danger whilst going about their daily business.

20mph is absolutely fine for anyone in built-up areas - around pedestrians, cycles, kids, dogs, people stepping off buses and yes, drunks. For too long the car has a had a complete free run in the planning of our cities, soon all but the most essential journeys will be priced off the road & we'll look back on the last 60-years as a period of temporary madness.
You are aware the the roads are actually built for the Drivers of vehicles. Why would it not be obvious for drivers to think they have a "God given right to own the road", maybe not god given but in every other definition they do. Foot paths are for pedestrians & if a driver needs to cross the footpath to get into their drive, they must give way to the pedestrian because that is their domain. If a Pedestrian needs to cross a road then they must give way to the driver because they are using someone else's domain. The obvious exceptions are Zebra crossings & light controlled crossings that bestow the domain in favour of the pedestrian for limited periods of time to allow safe passage.
You comment about the last 60 years is ridiculous, for the entire history of civilised mankind, transport networks have been the backbone of development, commerce and progression to where we are today. The method of transportation has evolved allowing us to travel greater distances at higher speeds but the benefits have been huge. To imply that we have made a mistake in heavens forbid building roads to allow people to get to work or take the kids to friends houses is bizarre.
[quote][p][bold]hirsty[/bold] wrote: Predictable petty responses, every time I read Press comments it reminds me 'never to read the bottom half of the internet' ... Many drivers think they have a God given right to own the road, and everyone else had better stay the Hell out of their way, or suffer the consequences. In the meantime, everyone else has to put up with the noise, pollution & danger whilst going about their daily business. 20mph is absolutely fine for anyone in built-up areas - around pedestrians, cycles, kids, dogs, people stepping off buses and yes, drunks. For too long the car has a had a complete free run in the planning of our cities, soon all but the most essential journeys will be priced off the road & we'll look back on the last 60-years as a period of temporary madness.[/p][/quote]You are aware the the roads are actually built for the Drivers of vehicles. Why would it not be obvious for drivers to think they have a "God given right to own the road", maybe not god given but in every other definition they do. Foot paths are for pedestrians & if a driver needs to cross the footpath to get into their drive, they must give way to the pedestrian because that is their domain. If a Pedestrian needs to cross a road then they must give way to the driver because they are using someone else's domain. The obvious exceptions are Zebra crossings & light controlled crossings that bestow the domain in favour of the pedestrian for limited periods of time to allow safe passage. You comment about the last 60 years is ridiculous, for the entire history of civilised mankind, transport networks have been the backbone of development, commerce and progression to where we are today. The method of transportation has evolved allowing us to travel greater distances at higher speeds but the benefits have been huge. To imply that we have made a mistake in heavens forbid building roads to allow people to get to work or take the kids to friends houses is bizarre. GrumpyLocal
  • Score: 4123

12:01pm Fri 16 May 14

rking1977 says...

I live on Hamilton Drive in Holgate, where the police/council recently did a speed survey using a black box monitor. It was installed for ten days in a 30mph residential zone between the primary school and park.

Every single day without exception it recorded vehicles travelling at well over 50mph. Some were pushing 60mph. That data is from an FoI request.

Yet instead of enforcing the serious speeding highlighted by the survey, the powers that be have recently spent a lot of money covering every cul-de-sac and side road in 20mph signs - roads where it is impossible to go more than 10mph.

And I've never seen any enforcement whatsoever, on my street or neighbouring ones. Speed limits are meaningless if you don't enforce them!
I live on Hamilton Drive in Holgate, where the police/council recently did a speed survey using a black box monitor. It was installed for ten days in a 30mph residential zone between the primary school and park. Every single day without exception it recorded vehicles travelling at well over 50mph. Some were pushing 60mph. That data is from an FoI request. Yet instead of enforcing the serious speeding highlighted by the survey, the powers that be have recently spent a lot of money covering every cul-de-sac and side road in 20mph signs - roads where it is impossible to go more than 10mph. And I've never seen any enforcement whatsoever, on my street or neighbouring ones. Speed limits are meaningless if you don't enforce them! rking1977
  • Score: 3079

12:10pm Fri 16 May 14

Ichabod76 says...

petethefeet wrote:
Ichabod76 wrote:
petethefeet wrote:
Perhaps Anna, Paul and myself should start a campaign to sign up to a pledge never to drive above 20mph in built-up areas? It wouldn't need that many followers to effectively enforce a 20mph speed limit regardless of the legal limit. I can hear the gnashing of teeth now........
I think you'll get as many positive responses as the 20's plenty consultation, what was it 8 ?
so 8 of you driving around at 20, that'll make a difference won't it !
Mmmmmm!. I think the idea would spread. It's actually been done in a couple of cities to get people to focus on a max of 30mph. These initiatives were spawned by councils but there is no reason why ordinary people shouldn't do it. After all, 20/30mph is a max not a target.
Originally, mechanically propelled vehicles had to be preceded by a person carrying a red flag. I think it came in about 1841 in one of the locomotive acts. It was repealed in about 1876 in another locomotives act. When I get chance I'll have to look them up in Halsbury's laws of England. There's about 110 volumes and besides detailing the acts they give a summary of the background/ social changes going on at the time. Anybody wishing to examine true history (other than who slaughtered who in battle) should read them. Unfortunately, buying them outright will cost you about 7 grand!
I think you mean
The Highway Act 1835

The Locomotives on Highways Act 1861, The Locomotive Act 1865 and the Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act 1878

The Locomotive Act 1865 (Red Flag Act):

Stipulated that self-propelled vehicles should be accompanied by a crew of three; and if the vehicle was attached to two or more vehicles an additional person was to accompany the vehicles, and a man with a red flag walking at least 60 yd (55 m) ahead of each vehicle, who was also required assist with the passage of horses and carriages. The vehicle was required to stop at the signal of the flag bearer

Cars never had to have a man with a red flag walking in front !

I'm not even sure how your point is relevant as motor vehicle technology has moved on since 1865 ?
[quote][p][bold]petethefeet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ichabod76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]petethefeet[/bold] wrote: Perhaps Anna, Paul and myself should start a campaign to sign up to a pledge never to drive above 20mph in built-up areas? It wouldn't need that many followers to effectively enforce a 20mph speed limit regardless of the legal limit. I can hear the gnashing of teeth now........[/p][/quote]I think you'll get as many positive responses as the 20's plenty consultation, what was it 8 ? so 8 of you driving around at 20, that'll make a difference won't it ![/p][/quote]Mmmmmm!. I think the idea would spread. It's actually been done in a couple of cities to get people to focus on a max of 30mph. These initiatives were spawned by councils but there is no reason why ordinary people shouldn't do it. After all, 20/30mph is a max not a target. Originally, mechanically propelled vehicles had to be preceded by a person carrying a red flag. I think it came in about 1841 in one of the locomotive acts. It was repealed in about 1876 in another locomotives act. When I get chance I'll have to look them up in Halsbury's laws of England. There's about 110 volumes and besides detailing the acts they give a summary of the background/ social changes going on at the time. Anybody wishing to examine true history (other than who slaughtered who in battle) should read them. Unfortunately, buying them outright will cost you about 7 grand![/p][/quote]I think you mean The Highway Act 1835 The Locomotives on Highways Act 1861, The Locomotive Act 1865 and the Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act 1878 The Locomotive Act 1865 (Red Flag Act): Stipulated that self-propelled vehicles should be accompanied by a crew of three; and [bold]if the vehicle was attached to two or more vehicles an additional person was to accompany the vehicles, and a man with a red flag walking at least 60 yd (55 m)[/bold] ahead of each vehicle, who was also required assist with the passage of horses and carriages. The vehicle was required to stop at the signal of the flag bearer Cars never had to have a man with a red flag walking in front ! I'm not even sure how your point is relevant as motor vehicle technology has moved on since 1865 ? Ichabod76
  • Score: 2740

12:12pm Fri 16 May 14

MrsHoney says...

petethefeet wrote:
Ichabod76 wrote:
petethefeet wrote:
Perhaps Anna, Paul and myself should start a campaign to sign up to a pledge never to drive above 20mph in built-up areas? It wouldn't need that many followers to effectively enforce a 20mph speed limit regardless of the legal limit. I can hear the gnashing of teeth now........
I think you'll get as many positive responses as the 20's plenty consultation, what was it 8 ?
so 8 of you driving around at 20, that'll make a difference won't it !
Mmmmmm!. I think the idea would spread. It's actually been done in a couple of cities to get people to focus on a max of 30mph. These initiatives were spawned by councils but there is no reason why ordinary people shouldn't do it. After all, 20/30mph is a max not a target.
Originally, mechanically propelled vehicles had to be preceded by a person carrying a red flag. I think it came in about 1841 in one of the locomotive acts. It was repealed in about 1876 in another locomotives act. When I get chance I'll have to look them up in Halsbury's laws of England. There's about 110 volumes and besides detailing the acts they give a summary of the background/ social changes going on at the time. Anybody wishing to examine true history (other than who slaughtered who in battle) should read them. Unfortunately, buying them outright will cost you about 7 grand!
You say it's a max not a target, tell that to my driving instructor who told me that I must get up to the maximum speed as soon as it was safely possible to do so.
[quote][p][bold]petethefeet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ichabod76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]petethefeet[/bold] wrote: Perhaps Anna, Paul and myself should start a campaign to sign up to a pledge never to drive above 20mph in built-up areas? It wouldn't need that many followers to effectively enforce a 20mph speed limit regardless of the legal limit. I can hear the gnashing of teeth now........[/p][/quote]I think you'll get as many positive responses as the 20's plenty consultation, what was it 8 ? so 8 of you driving around at 20, that'll make a difference won't it ![/p][/quote]Mmmmmm!. I think the idea would spread. It's actually been done in a couple of cities to get people to focus on a max of 30mph. These initiatives were spawned by councils but there is no reason why ordinary people shouldn't do it. After all, 20/30mph is a max not a target. Originally, mechanically propelled vehicles had to be preceded by a person carrying a red flag. I think it came in about 1841 in one of the locomotive acts. It was repealed in about 1876 in another locomotives act. When I get chance I'll have to look them up in Halsbury's laws of England. There's about 110 volumes and besides detailing the acts they give a summary of the background/ social changes going on at the time. Anybody wishing to examine true history (other than who slaughtered who in battle) should read them. Unfortunately, buying them outright will cost you about 7 grand![/p][/quote]You say it's a max not a target, tell that to my driving instructor who told me that I must get up to the maximum speed as soon as it was safely possible to do so. MrsHoney
  • Score: 1282

12:13pm Fri 16 May 14

Zebedee says...

I've got a great idea. Don't know why nobody else has thought of it. Why don't we insist that while driving through any town each car must be preceded by a man carrying and waving a red flag. That would stop accidents. With the ridiculous health and safety brigade ruling the country that's probably where we're going to end up!
I've got a great idea. Don't know why nobody else has thought of it. Why don't we insist that while driving through any town each car must be preceded by a man carrying and waving a red flag. That would stop accidents. With the ridiculous health and safety brigade ruling the country that's probably where we're going to end up! Zebedee
  • Score: 1073

12:19pm Fri 16 May 14

YorkCityLuke says...

GrumpyLocal wrote:
hirsty wrote:
Predictable petty responses, every time I read Press comments it reminds me 'never to read the bottom half of the internet' ...

Many drivers think they have a God given right to own the road, and everyone else had better stay the Hell out of their way, or suffer the consequences. In the meantime, everyone else has to put up with the noise, pollution & danger whilst going about their daily business.

20mph is absolutely fine for anyone in built-up areas - around pedestrians, cycles, kids, dogs, people stepping off buses and yes, drunks. For too long the car has a had a complete free run in the planning of our cities, soon all but the most essential journeys will be priced off the road & we'll look back on the last 60-years as a period of temporary madness.
You are aware the the roads are actually built for the Drivers of vehicles. Why would it not be obvious for drivers to think they have a "God given right to own the road", maybe not god given but in every other definition they do. Foot paths are for pedestrians & if a driver needs to cross the footpath to get into their drive, they must give way to the pedestrian because that is their domain. If a Pedestrian needs to cross a road then they must give way to the driver because they are using someone else's domain. The obvious exceptions are Zebra crossings & light controlled crossings that bestow the domain in favour of the pedestrian for limited periods of time to allow safe passage.
You comment about the last 60 years is ridiculous, for the entire history of civilised mankind, transport networks have been the backbone of development, commerce and progression to where we are today. The method of transportation has evolved allowing us to travel greater distances at higher speeds but the benefits have been huge. To imply that we have made a mistake in heavens forbid building roads to allow people to get to work or take the kids to friends houses is bizarre.
Although I agree with you about the utility of cars, I can't help but take exception to your comment about the road network being the 'domain' of cars. As a responsible cyclist, I'd like to think that if I travel in a safe manner on roads I won't come to any harm, because I have as much right to be there as motorists (who are also, for the most part, responsible). But there is the occasional idiot, whether riding a bike or in a car, who thinks he 'owns' the road and acts accordingly. Surely it's better to just accept that roads are there for the convenience of ALL road users, and that larger motorised vehicles must take extra responsibility for their driving due to threat they pose?
[quote][p][bold]GrumpyLocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hirsty[/bold] wrote: Predictable petty responses, every time I read Press comments it reminds me 'never to read the bottom half of the internet' ... Many drivers think they have a God given right to own the road, and everyone else had better stay the Hell out of their way, or suffer the consequences. In the meantime, everyone else has to put up with the noise, pollution & danger whilst going about their daily business. 20mph is absolutely fine for anyone in built-up areas - around pedestrians, cycles, kids, dogs, people stepping off buses and yes, drunks. For too long the car has a had a complete free run in the planning of our cities, soon all but the most essential journeys will be priced off the road & we'll look back on the last 60-years as a period of temporary madness.[/p][/quote]You are aware the the roads are actually built for the Drivers of vehicles. Why would it not be obvious for drivers to think they have a "God given right to own the road", maybe not god given but in every other definition they do. Foot paths are for pedestrians & if a driver needs to cross the footpath to get into their drive, they must give way to the pedestrian because that is their domain. If a Pedestrian needs to cross a road then they must give way to the driver because they are using someone else's domain. The obvious exceptions are Zebra crossings & light controlled crossings that bestow the domain in favour of the pedestrian for limited periods of time to allow safe passage. You comment about the last 60 years is ridiculous, for the entire history of civilised mankind, transport networks have been the backbone of development, commerce and progression to where we are today. The method of transportation has evolved allowing us to travel greater distances at higher speeds but the benefits have been huge. To imply that we have made a mistake in heavens forbid building roads to allow people to get to work or take the kids to friends houses is bizarre.[/p][/quote]Although I agree with you about the utility of cars, I can't help but take exception to your comment about the road network being the 'domain' of cars. As a responsible cyclist, I'd like to think that if I travel in a safe manner on roads I won't come to any harm, because I have as much right to be there as motorists (who are also, for the most part, responsible). But there is the occasional idiot, whether riding a bike or in a car, who thinks he 'owns' the road and acts accordingly. Surely it's better to just accept that roads are there for the convenience of ALL road users, and that larger motorised vehicles must take extra responsibility for their driving due to threat they pose? YorkCityLuke
  • Score: 1116

12:31pm Fri 16 May 14

bpk68 says...

I'm not sure the Dutch (as per Peddling P's article reference) have such a great idea there: pedestrians and vehicles roaming wild and free on the same plane? Erm...sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

What does get annoying though, is this constant thrusting of the 'think of the children' message. Shouldn't some kind of responsible adult be either a) watching them to make sure they're not in the road / b) teaching them that roads aren't playgrounds?

I'm really not sure what people want nowadays with our roads. Time was, roads used to be for vehicles and pavements were for pedestrians, or other, non-vehicular things. But now it seems that vehicles have to give up their space to co-mingle with everything else around them.

And where do we stop? What happens when, at 20mph, people are still injured? Drop it to 10mph? Ban anything that isn't a foot-propelled cardboard cut out similar to the Flintstones?

Do yourself a favour, give the road some respect and stay off it unless absolutely necessary. Vehicles don't go driving around on the pavement, so why are you risking your neck on the roads?
I'm not sure the Dutch (as per Peddling P's article reference) have such a great idea there: pedestrians and vehicles roaming wild and free on the same plane? Erm...sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. What does get annoying though, is this constant thrusting of the 'think of the children' message. Shouldn't some kind of responsible adult be either a) watching them to make sure they're not in the road / b) teaching them that roads aren't playgrounds? I'm really not sure what people want nowadays with our roads. Time was, roads used to be for vehicles and pavements were for pedestrians, or other, non-vehicular things. But now it seems that vehicles have to give up their space to co-mingle with everything else around them. And where do we stop? What happens when, at 20mph, people are still injured? Drop it to 10mph? Ban anything that isn't a foot-propelled cardboard cut out similar to the Flintstones? Do yourself a favour, give the road some respect and stay off it unless absolutely necessary. Vehicles don't go driving around on the pavement, so why are you risking your neck on the roads? bpk68
  • Score: 1437

12:59pm Fri 16 May 14

petethefeet says...

MrsHoney wrote:
petethefeet wrote:
Ichabod76 wrote:
petethefeet wrote:
Perhaps Anna, Paul and myself should start a campaign to sign up to a pledge never to drive above 20mph in built-up areas? It wouldn't need that many followers to effectively enforce a 20mph speed limit regardless of the legal limit. I can hear the gnashing of teeth now........
I think you'll get as many positive responses as the 20's plenty consultation, what was it 8 ?
so 8 of you driving around at 20, that'll make a difference won't it !
Mmmmmm!. I think the idea would spread. It's actually been done in a couple of cities to get people to focus on a max of 30mph. These initiatives were spawned by councils but there is no reason why ordinary people shouldn't do it. After all, 20/30mph is a max not a target.
Originally, mechanically propelled vehicles had to be preceded by a person carrying a red flag. I think it came in about 1841 in one of the locomotive acts. It was repealed in about 1876 in another locomotives act. When I get chance I'll have to look them up in Halsbury's laws of England. There's about 110 volumes and besides detailing the acts they give a summary of the background/ social changes going on at the time. Anybody wishing to examine true history (other than who slaughtered who in battle) should read them. Unfortunately, buying them outright will cost you about 7 grand!
You say it's a max not a target, tell that to my driving instructor who told me that I must get up to the maximum speed as soon as it was safely possible to do so.
Once again, people misunderstanding the reasons. A driving test examiner wants to see that you can cope at the max and that's why you are trained to that. There is no legal requirement that you try and target the maximum speed.
[quote][p][bold]MrsHoney[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]petethefeet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ichabod76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]petethefeet[/bold] wrote: Perhaps Anna, Paul and myself should start a campaign to sign up to a pledge never to drive above 20mph in built-up areas? It wouldn't need that many followers to effectively enforce a 20mph speed limit regardless of the legal limit. I can hear the gnashing of teeth now........[/p][/quote]I think you'll get as many positive responses as the 20's plenty consultation, what was it 8 ? so 8 of you driving around at 20, that'll make a difference won't it ![/p][/quote]Mmmmmm!. I think the idea would spread. It's actually been done in a couple of cities to get people to focus on a max of 30mph. These initiatives were spawned by councils but there is no reason why ordinary people shouldn't do it. After all, 20/30mph is a max not a target. Originally, mechanically propelled vehicles had to be preceded by a person carrying a red flag. I think it came in about 1841 in one of the locomotive acts. It was repealed in about 1876 in another locomotives act. When I get chance I'll have to look them up in Halsbury's laws of England. There's about 110 volumes and besides detailing the acts they give a summary of the background/ social changes going on at the time. Anybody wishing to examine true history (other than who slaughtered who in battle) should read them. Unfortunately, buying them outright will cost you about 7 grand![/p][/quote]You say it's a max not a target, tell that to my driving instructor who told me that I must get up to the maximum speed as soon as it was safely possible to do so.[/p][/quote]Once again, people misunderstanding the reasons. A driving test examiner wants to see that you can cope at the max and that's why you are trained to that. There is no legal requirement that you try and target the maximum speed. petethefeet
  • Score: 994

1:07pm Fri 16 May 14

nearlyman says...

Semlyan is well acquainted with hypocrisy and double standards being the Green Socialist Capitalist that she clearly is............
Semlyan is well acquainted with hypocrisy and double standards being the Green Socialist Capitalist that she clearly is............ nearlyman
  • Score: 1007

1:11pm Fri 16 May 14

petethefeet says...

Ichabod76 wrote:
petethefeet wrote:
Ichabod76 wrote:
petethefeet wrote:
Perhaps Anna, Paul and myself should start a campaign to sign up to a pledge never to drive above 20mph in built-up areas? It wouldn't need that many followers to effectively enforce a 20mph speed limit regardless of the legal limit. I can hear the gnashing of teeth now........
I think you'll get as many positive responses as the 20's plenty consultation, what was it 8 ?
so 8 of you driving around at 20, that'll make a difference won't it !
Mmmmmm!. I think the idea would spread. It's actually been done in a couple of cities to get people to focus on a max of 30mph. These initiatives were spawned by councils but there is no reason why ordinary people shouldn't do it. After all, 20/30mph is a max not a target.
Originally, mechanically propelled vehicles had to be preceded by a person carrying a red flag. I think it came in about 1841 in one of the locomotive acts. It was repealed in about 1876 in another locomotives act. When I get chance I'll have to look them up in Halsbury's laws of England. There's about 110 volumes and besides detailing the acts they give a summary of the background/ social changes going on at the time. Anybody wishing to examine true history (other than who slaughtered who in battle) should read them. Unfortunately, buying them outright will cost you about 7 grand!
I think you mean
The Highway Act 1835

The Locomotives on Highways Act 1861, The Locomotive Act 1865 and the Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act 1878

The Locomotive Act 1865 (Red Flag Act):

Stipulated that self-propelled vehicles should be accompanied by a crew of three; and if the vehicle was attached to two or more vehicles an additional person was to accompany the vehicles, and a man with a red flag walking at least 60 yd (55 m) ahead of each vehicle, who was also required assist with the passage of horses and carriages. The vehicle was required to stop at the signal of the flag bearer

Cars never had to have a man with a red flag walking in front !

I'm not even sure how your point is relevant as motor vehicle technology has moved on since 1865 ?
No, I meant the locomotives acts - it's just the dates I was hazy with. I think I confused the 1840's with the acts that defined the bicycle as a carriage - forever condemning them to ride on the road. It's interesting that the first British casualty, Bridget Driscoll, was killed just after they removed the requirement of the red-flag man. Bad day in History!
[quote][p][bold]Ichabod76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]petethefeet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ichabod76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]petethefeet[/bold] wrote: Perhaps Anna, Paul and myself should start a campaign to sign up to a pledge never to drive above 20mph in built-up areas? It wouldn't need that many followers to effectively enforce a 20mph speed limit regardless of the legal limit. I can hear the gnashing of teeth now........[/p][/quote]I think you'll get as many positive responses as the 20's plenty consultation, what was it 8 ? so 8 of you driving around at 20, that'll make a difference won't it ![/p][/quote]Mmmmmm!. I think the idea would spread. It's actually been done in a couple of cities to get people to focus on a max of 30mph. These initiatives were spawned by councils but there is no reason why ordinary people shouldn't do it. After all, 20/30mph is a max not a target. Originally, mechanically propelled vehicles had to be preceded by a person carrying a red flag. I think it came in about 1841 in one of the locomotive acts. It was repealed in about 1876 in another locomotives act. When I get chance I'll have to look them up in Halsbury's laws of England. There's about 110 volumes and besides detailing the acts they give a summary of the background/ social changes going on at the time. Anybody wishing to examine true history (other than who slaughtered who in battle) should read them. Unfortunately, buying them outright will cost you about 7 grand![/p][/quote]I think you mean The Highway Act 1835 The Locomotives on Highways Act 1861, The Locomotive Act 1865 and the Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act 1878 The Locomotive Act 1865 (Red Flag Act): Stipulated that self-propelled vehicles should be accompanied by a crew of three; and [bold]if the vehicle was attached to two or more vehicles an additional person was to accompany the vehicles, and a man with a red flag walking at least 60 yd (55 m)[/bold] ahead of each vehicle, who was also required assist with the passage of horses and carriages. The vehicle was required to stop at the signal of the flag bearer Cars never had to have a man with a red flag walking in front ! I'm not even sure how your point is relevant as motor vehicle technology has moved on since 1865 ?[/p][/quote]No, I meant the locomotives acts - it's just the dates I was hazy with. I think I confused the 1840's with the acts that defined the bicycle as a carriage - forever condemning them to ride on the road. It's interesting that the first British casualty, Bridget Driscoll, was killed just after they removed the requirement of the red-flag man. Bad day in History! petethefeet
  • Score: 1104

1:12pm Fri 16 May 14

BL2 says...

This is utter rubbish! I suspect that a majority of people oppose 20mph limits. They are too slow, damaging for motorised vehicles, pollution causing, unenforceable and serve no useful purpose what so ever.
This is utter rubbish! I suspect that a majority of people oppose 20mph limits. They are too slow, damaging for motorised vehicles, pollution causing, unenforceable and serve no useful purpose what so ever. BL2
  • Score: 1313

1:37pm Fri 16 May 14

york_chap says...

Part of the problem is that, often, the people instigating and supporting these schemes don't regularly drive and a fair proportion don't even hold a driving licence. Yet they consider themselves to be absolutely qualified to dictate how people who do have a licence and who actually drive vehicles on a regular basis should be doing so.

I often go swimming in the sea during the summer, but that doesn't make me qualified to dictate what speed jet skis and boats should be limited to.

Virtually all drivers are also pedestrians and quite a few are cyclists too; so they understand the situation from both perspectives. Hence the lack of support from most rational drivers; 20mph is both unrealistically slow and unecessary in most situations, as well as being far below their level of competency. If 30mph is dangerously fast, it wouldn't have been introduced as the default urban speed limit in the first place.
Part of the problem is that, often, the people instigating and supporting these schemes don't regularly drive and a fair proportion don't even hold a driving licence. Yet they consider themselves to be absolutely qualified to dictate how people who do have a licence and who actually drive vehicles on a regular basis should be doing so. I often go swimming in the sea during the summer, but that doesn't make me qualified to dictate what speed jet skis and boats should be limited to. Virtually all drivers are also pedestrians and quite a few are cyclists too; so they understand the situation from both perspectives. Hence the lack of support from most rational drivers; 20mph is both unrealistically slow and unecessary in most situations, as well as being far below their level of competency. If 30mph is dangerously fast, it wouldn't have been introduced as the default urban speed limit in the first place. york_chap
  • Score: 1221

1:50pm Fri 16 May 14

Ichabod76 says...

petethefeet wrote:
Ichabod76 wrote:
petethefeet wrote:
Ichabod76 wrote:
petethefeet wrote:
Perhaps Anna, Paul and myself should start a campaign to sign up to a pledge never to drive above 20mph in built-up areas? It wouldn't need that many followers to effectively enforce a 20mph speed limit regardless of the legal limit. I can hear the gnashing of teeth now........
I think you'll get as many positive responses as the 20's plenty consultation, what was it 8 ?
so 8 of you driving around at 20, that'll make a difference won't it !
Mmmmmm!. I think the idea would spread. It's actually been done in a couple of cities to get people to focus on a max of 30mph. These initiatives were spawned by councils but there is no reason why ordinary people shouldn't do it. After all, 20/30mph is a max not a target.
Originally, mechanically propelled vehicles had to be preceded by a person carrying a red flag. I think it came in about 1841 in one of the locomotive acts. It was repealed in about 1876 in another locomotives act. When I get chance I'll have to look them up in Halsbury's laws of England. There's about 110 volumes and besides detailing the acts they give a summary of the background/ social changes going on at the time. Anybody wishing to examine true history (other than who slaughtered who in battle) should read them. Unfortunately, buying them outright will cost you about 7 grand!
I think you mean
The Highway Act 1835

The Locomotives on Highways Act 1861, The Locomotive Act 1865 and the Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act 1878

The Locomotive Act 1865 (Red Flag Act):

Stipulated that self-propelled vehicles should be accompanied by a crew of three; and if the vehicle was attached to two or more vehicles an additional person was to accompany the vehicles, and a man with a red flag walking at least 60 yd (55 m) ahead of each vehicle, who was also required assist with the passage of horses and carriages. The vehicle was required to stop at the signal of the flag bearer

Cars never had to have a man with a red flag walking in front !

I'm not even sure how your point is relevant as motor vehicle technology has moved on since 1865 ?
No, I meant the locomotives acts - it's just the dates I was hazy with. I think I confused the 1840's with the acts that defined the bicycle as a carriage - forever condemning them to ride on the road. It's interesting that the first British casualty, Bridget Driscoll, was killed just after they removed the requirement of the red-flag man. Bad day in History!
Bridget Driscoll was killed by a car that had been limited to 4mph

so should we start a campaign for 4's plenty ?

what does this history have to do with the story of "20 mph campaigner dismisses driver survey claims"

when her own survey received 8 responses in favour ?
[quote][p][bold]petethefeet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ichabod76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]petethefeet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ichabod76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]petethefeet[/bold] wrote: Perhaps Anna, Paul and myself should start a campaign to sign up to a pledge never to drive above 20mph in built-up areas? It wouldn't need that many followers to effectively enforce a 20mph speed limit regardless of the legal limit. I can hear the gnashing of teeth now........[/p][/quote]I think you'll get as many positive responses as the 20's plenty consultation, what was it 8 ? so 8 of you driving around at 20, that'll make a difference won't it ![/p][/quote]Mmmmmm!. I think the idea would spread. It's actually been done in a couple of cities to get people to focus on a max of 30mph. These initiatives were spawned by councils but there is no reason why ordinary people shouldn't do it. After all, 20/30mph is a max not a target. Originally, mechanically propelled vehicles had to be preceded by a person carrying a red flag. I think it came in about 1841 in one of the locomotive acts. It was repealed in about 1876 in another locomotives act. When I get chance I'll have to look them up in Halsbury's laws of England. There's about 110 volumes and besides detailing the acts they give a summary of the background/ social changes going on at the time. Anybody wishing to examine true history (other than who slaughtered who in battle) should read them. Unfortunately, buying them outright will cost you about 7 grand![/p][/quote]I think you mean The Highway Act 1835 The Locomotives on Highways Act 1861, The Locomotive Act 1865 and the Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act 1878 The Locomotive Act 1865 (Red Flag Act): Stipulated that self-propelled vehicles should be accompanied by a crew of three; and [bold]if the vehicle was attached to two or more vehicles an additional person was to accompany the vehicles, and a man with a red flag walking at least 60 yd (55 m)[/bold] ahead of each vehicle, who was also required assist with the passage of horses and carriages. The vehicle was required to stop at the signal of the flag bearer Cars never had to have a man with a red flag walking in front ! I'm not even sure how your point is relevant as motor vehicle technology has moved on since 1865 ?[/p][/quote]No, I meant the locomotives acts - it's just the dates I was hazy with. I think I confused the 1840's with the acts that defined the bicycle as a carriage - forever condemning them to ride on the road. It's interesting that the first British casualty, Bridget Driscoll, was killed just after they removed the requirement of the red-flag man. Bad day in History![/p][/quote]Bridget Driscoll was killed by a car that had been limited to 4mph so should we start a campaign for 4's plenty ? what does this history have to do with the story of "20 mph campaigner dismisses driver survey claims" when her own survey received 8 responses in favour ? Ichabod76
  • Score: 1229

1:52pm Fri 16 May 14

What-a-joke-they-are says...

I am in favour of 20 Zones near schools, and would support wider use of them in 'residential' streets (even playstreets!) where the definition of 'residential' gives way to 'general thoroughfare' like on Bishopsthorpe road.

20 zones on wide open, empty roads with little pedestrian use are frustrating and potentially damaging to the safety or roads leading from them as frustrated drivers 'make up lost time' as soon as they get out of a 20.

Likewise, the swathe of 40 and 50 signs appearing on our major arterial roads (A1079/A19) cause confusion and distract attention from the road as you work out what speed you are currently supposed to be doing

Take Escrick/Deighton it is now 60/40/50/40/50/60 over 3/4 of a mile

Personally I pay little attention to 20 signs save they act as a 'beware pedestrians' indicator, this council and the blanket appearance of them in York make me want to drive faster to spite them - what is the phycology in that?

Driver training and road safety are critical for everyone - but 'pick and mix' speed limits confuse and frustrate (me)
I am in favour of 20 Zones near schools, and would support wider use of them in 'residential' streets (even playstreets!) where the definition of 'residential' gives way to 'general thoroughfare' like on Bishopsthorpe road. 20 zones on wide open, empty roads with little pedestrian use are frustrating and potentially damaging to the safety or roads leading from them as frustrated drivers 'make up lost time' as soon as they get out of a 20. Likewise, the swathe of 40 and 50 signs appearing on our major arterial roads (A1079/A19) cause confusion and distract attention from the road as you work out what speed you are currently supposed to be doing Take Escrick/Deighton it is now 60/40/50/40/50/60 over 3/4 of a mile Personally I pay little attention to 20 signs save they act as a 'beware pedestrians' indicator, this council and the blanket appearance of them in York make me want to drive faster to spite them - what is the phycology in that? Driver training and road safety are critical for everyone - but 'pick and mix' speed limits confuse and frustrate (me) What-a-joke-they-are
  • Score: 1136

2:11pm Fri 16 May 14

chunkyyorkie says...

The 20mph zones are unpopular for many reasons, very few are even to do with the road safety issues. It’s more to do with the ‘using a sledgehammer to crack a nut’ manner that it has been implemented. Often seemingly without thought or any local knowledge. Thousands of signs have been bought and put up but council workers all at tax payers’ expense and often in ridiculous locations where they are a total unnecessary waste of time and money.
The heavy-handedness is plain stupid. The vast majority of roads and cul-de-sacs that are now littered with 20mph signs have never had one single incident in decades, let alone an actual accident involving an injury or where speed would have been a factor. All the policy has done is annoy people who would much rather have seen a bit of common sense used in the implementation which would have also saved a lot of money. On many streets no one will ever reach 20mph because they are either too short or too narrow….equally there are some of the ‘main’ roads that should have remained at 30mph for various reasons.
To make it clear, I have no objections to slowing traffic down to 20mph outside schools, I take road safety very seriously….but I find it ludicrous when on certain roads that they have put the signs up which they shouldn’t have. Now if I attempt to stick and 20 on those roads I get overtaken by aggressively driven cars who are frustrated, which actually causes a potentially dangerous situation; on several occasions in the last year I have attempted 20 and actually been overtaken by push bikes. That is the ridiculousness of the situation!
The reason the policy has become so ironic is that it was presumably agreed with Highway Agency, City Council as well as the Police and yet in the few ‘main’ roads that were 30mph and are now 20 we all regularly see all the above organisations vehicles who do not adhere to the new limits. If they are not bothering to conform and nothing happens to them well clearly nobody else will bother either. And for that very reason it is seen by most people to be a waste.
The 20mph zones are unpopular for many reasons, very few are even to do with the road safety issues. It’s more to do with the ‘using a sledgehammer to crack a nut’ manner that it has been implemented. Often seemingly without thought or any local knowledge. Thousands of signs have been bought and put up but council workers all at tax payers’ expense and often in ridiculous locations where they are a total unnecessary waste of time and money. The heavy-handedness is plain stupid. The vast majority of roads and cul-de-sacs that are now littered with 20mph signs have never had one single incident in decades, let alone an actual accident involving an injury or where speed would have been a factor. All the policy has done is annoy people who would much rather have seen a bit of common sense used in the implementation which would have also saved a lot of money. On many streets no one will ever reach 20mph because they are either too short or too narrow….equally there are some of the ‘main’ roads that should have remained at 30mph for various reasons. To make it clear, I have no objections to slowing traffic down to 20mph outside schools, I take road safety very seriously….but I find it ludicrous when on certain roads that they have put the signs up which they shouldn’t have. Now if I attempt to stick and 20 on those roads I get overtaken by aggressively driven cars who are frustrated, which actually causes a potentially dangerous situation; on several occasions in the last year I have attempted 20 and actually been overtaken by push bikes. That is the ridiculousness of the situation! The reason the policy has become so ironic is that it was presumably agreed with Highway Agency, City Council as well as the Police and yet in the few ‘main’ roads that were 30mph and are now 20 we all regularly see all the above organisations vehicles who do not adhere to the new limits. If they are not bothering to conform and nothing happens to them well clearly nobody else will bother either. And for that very reason it is seen by most people to be a waste. chunkyyorkie
  • Score: 1064

2:58pm Fri 16 May 14

holyroller says...

petethefeet wrote:
Perhaps Anna, Paul and myself should start a campaign to sign up to a pledge never to drive above 20mph in built-up areas? It wouldn't need that many followers to effectively enforce a 20mph speed limit regardless of the legal limit. I can hear the gnashing of teeth now........
You should. You'll find - like York City Council, that you'll mostly be the fastest vehicles on the road. Mostly, it's almost impossible to drive above 20 hence many peoples antagonism to spending half a million quid on just the first phase.

Targeted streets based on need, few people will be against. Blanket, pointless, unenforceable city wide limits is what most seem to disagree with.
[quote][p][bold]petethefeet[/bold] wrote: Perhaps Anna, Paul and myself should start a campaign to sign up to a pledge never to drive above 20mph in built-up areas? It wouldn't need that many followers to effectively enforce a 20mph speed limit regardless of the legal limit. I can hear the gnashing of teeth now........[/p][/quote]You should. You'll find - like York City Council, that you'll mostly be the fastest vehicles on the road. Mostly, it's almost impossible to drive above 20 hence many peoples antagonism to spending half a million quid on just the first phase. Targeted streets based on need, few people will be against. Blanket, pointless, unenforceable city wide limits is what most seem to disagree with. holyroller
  • Score: 1075

3:06pm Fri 16 May 14

Caecilius says...

So more than 75% of motorists agree that a 20 mph limit (in residential areas, don't forget) improves safety for pedestrians but only about 30% are willing to accept it. From which it follows that 45% of motorists think that it's more important for them to get to their - probably local - destination a few minutes sooner than to concern themselves about other people's safety. Not exactly a big surprise, given the track record of the car lobby in York. Petethefeet is spot on - give them the right of veto, and nobody else's interests will ever get a look in.
So more than 75% of motorists agree that a 20 mph limit (in residential areas, don't forget) improves safety for pedestrians but only about 30% are willing to accept it. From which it follows that 45% of motorists think that it's more important for them to get to their - probably local - destination a few minutes sooner than to concern themselves about other people's safety. Not exactly a big surprise, given the track record of the car lobby in York. Petethefeet is spot on - give them the right of veto, and nobody else's interests will ever get a look in. Caecilius
  • Score: 1260

3:23pm Fri 16 May 14

petethefeet says...

@Ichabod76.
The point that I've been trying to get through is that since the end of the late Victorian era we've had to seriously adapt our behaviour to survive the threat of the car. I remember back in the early 60's that the old octogenarian further up our road never seemed to walk anywhere else but the middle of the road. I'm not advocating that but we could do with some retraction of the problem. It galls me when I'm running along the footway, intending to go straight on, and I find car drivers usually expect me to give way as I cross numerous side-junctions. When turning left they wouldn't cut across the bows of other road users so why should they cut-up runners & pedestrians? Check your highway code in this respect - it says that wen turning, give way to pedestrians already crossing. So, if you hit a runner then he is already crossing...
Back in 2000 I lived in Reston, Virginia. That was a very middle-class, enlightened community. Every road junction had 4-way pedestrian crossings AND THEY ENFORCED IT. Car drivers were so courteous in stopping that it was almost embarrassing. One day....
@Ichabod76. The point that I've been trying to get through is that since the end of the late Victorian era we've had to seriously adapt our behaviour to survive the threat of the car. I remember back in the early 60's that the old octogenarian further up our road never seemed to walk anywhere else but the middle of the road. I'm not advocating that but we could do with some retraction of the problem. It galls me when I'm running along the footway, intending to go straight on, and I find car drivers usually expect me to give way as I cross numerous side-junctions. When turning left they wouldn't cut across the bows of other road users so why should they cut-up runners & pedestrians? Check your highway code in this respect - it says that wen turning, give way to pedestrians already crossing. So, if you hit a runner then he is already crossing... Back in 2000 I lived in Reston, Virginia. That was a very middle-class, enlightened community. Every road junction had 4-way pedestrian crossings AND THEY ENFORCED IT. Car drivers were so courteous in stopping that it was almost embarrassing. One day.... petethefeet
  • Score: 1081

3:42pm Fri 16 May 14

Fabius the Delayer says...

rking1977 wrote:
I live on Hamilton Drive in Holgate, where the police/council recently did a speed survey using a black box monitor. It was installed for ten days in a 30mph residential zone between the primary school and park.

Every single day without exception it recorded vehicles travelling at well over 50mph. Some were pushing 60mph. That data is from an FoI request.

Yet instead of enforcing the serious speeding highlighted by the survey, the powers that be have recently spent a lot of money covering every cul-de-sac and side road in 20mph signs - roads where it is impossible to go more than 10mph.

And I've never seen any enforcement whatsoever, on my street or neighbouring ones. Speed limits are meaningless if you don't enforce them!
So how would changing a 3 for a 2 on a sign nobody pays any attention to change anything??!! and before you counter with a Speed-camera, These only work on legal car owners. Not car thieves, the unregistered the uninsured etc etc.. Again I say:- Enforce the laws we have already and leave the law abiding driver alone. Don't change the law to criminalise more people when you can't catch the ons at large already...
[quote][p][bold]rking1977[/bold] wrote: I live on Hamilton Drive in Holgate, where the police/council recently did a speed survey using a black box monitor. It was installed for ten days in a 30mph residential zone between the primary school and park. Every single day without exception it recorded vehicles travelling at well over 50mph. Some were pushing 60mph. That data is from an FoI request. Yet instead of enforcing the serious speeding highlighted by the survey, the powers that be have recently spent a lot of money covering every cul-de-sac and side road in 20mph signs - roads where it is impossible to go more than 10mph. And I've never seen any enforcement whatsoever, on my street or neighbouring ones. Speed limits are meaningless if you don't enforce them![/p][/quote]So how would changing a 3 for a 2 on a sign nobody pays any attention to change anything??!! and before you counter with a Speed-camera, These only work on legal car owners. Not car thieves, the unregistered the uninsured etc etc.. Again I say:- Enforce the laws we have already and leave the law abiding driver alone. Don't change the law to criminalise more people when you can't catch the ons at large already... Fabius the Delayer
  • Score: 1101

3:51pm Fri 16 May 14

petethefeet says...

Fabius the Delayer wrote:
rking1977 wrote:
I live on Hamilton Drive in Holgate, where the police/council recently did a speed survey using a black box monitor. It was installed for ten days in a 30mph residential zone between the primary school and park.

Every single day without exception it recorded vehicles travelling at well over 50mph. Some were pushing 60mph. That data is from an FoI request.

Yet instead of enforcing the serious speeding highlighted by the survey, the powers that be have recently spent a lot of money covering every cul-de-sac and side road in 20mph signs - roads where it is impossible to go more than 10mph.

And I've never seen any enforcement whatsoever, on my street or neighbouring ones. Speed limits are meaningless if you don't enforce them!
So how would changing a 3 for a 2 on a sign nobody pays any attention to change anything??!! and before you counter with a Speed-camera, These only work on legal car owners. Not car thieves, the unregistered the uninsured etc etc.. Again I say:- Enforce the laws we have already and leave the law abiding driver alone. Don't change the law to criminalise more people when you can't catch the ons at large already...
The police, armed with ANR cameras and the DVLA computer have got most of the uninsured drivers off the road. Nowadays, you cannot tax a vehicle without insurance & mot and you'll soon get pulled up if your vehicle isn't taxed. That's one of the reasons why roads are much safer now. But again I say, It's not just about road safety per say. It's about peoples perceived anxiety of the road, whether or not it is statistically justified. Because of this, we now tend to wrap our kids in cotton-wool. That's not good.
[quote][p][bold]Fabius the Delayer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rking1977[/bold] wrote: I live on Hamilton Drive in Holgate, where the police/council recently did a speed survey using a black box monitor. It was installed for ten days in a 30mph residential zone between the primary school and park. Every single day without exception it recorded vehicles travelling at well over 50mph. Some were pushing 60mph. That data is from an FoI request. Yet instead of enforcing the serious speeding highlighted by the survey, the powers that be have recently spent a lot of money covering every cul-de-sac and side road in 20mph signs - roads where it is impossible to go more than 10mph. And I've never seen any enforcement whatsoever, on my street or neighbouring ones. Speed limits are meaningless if you don't enforce them![/p][/quote]So how would changing a 3 for a 2 on a sign nobody pays any attention to change anything??!! and before you counter with a Speed-camera, These only work on legal car owners. Not car thieves, the unregistered the uninsured etc etc.. Again I say:- Enforce the laws we have already and leave the law abiding driver alone. Don't change the law to criminalise more people when you can't catch the ons at large already...[/p][/quote]The police, armed with ANR cameras and the DVLA computer have got most of the uninsured drivers off the road. Nowadays, you cannot tax a vehicle without insurance & mot and you'll soon get pulled up if your vehicle isn't taxed. That's one of the reasons why roads are much safer now. But again I say, It's not just about road safety per say. It's about peoples perceived anxiety of the road, whether or not it is statistically justified. Because of this, we now tend to wrap our kids in cotton-wool. That's not good. petethefeet
  • Score: 1006

4:02pm Fri 16 May 14

the original Homer says...

petethefeet wrote:
@Ichabod76.
The point that I've been trying to get through is that since the end of the late Victorian era we've had to seriously adapt our behaviour to survive the threat of the car. I remember back in the early 60's that the old octogenarian further up our road never seemed to walk anywhere else but the middle of the road. I'm not advocating that but we could do with some retraction of the problem. It galls me when I'm running along the footway, intending to go straight on, and I find car drivers usually expect me to give way as I cross numerous side-junctions. When turning left they wouldn't cut across the bows of other road users so why should they cut-up runners & pedestrians? Check your highway code in this respect - it says that wen turning, give way to pedestrians already crossing. So, if you hit a runner then he is already crossing...
Back in 2000 I lived in Reston, Virginia. That was a very middle-class, enlightened community. Every road junction had 4-way pedestrian crossings AND THEY ENFORCED IT. Car drivers were so courteous in stopping that it was almost embarrassing. One day....
A runner on the pavement isn't "already crossing" - he is coming to a road where he should check for cars that may already be turning into that road.

As a car driver you would expect him to be following the course of the pavement round the corner. If he goes straight on, then he has effectively crossed a junction (between pavement and road).
[quote][p][bold]petethefeet[/bold] wrote: @Ichabod76. The point that I've been trying to get through is that since the end of the late Victorian era we've had to seriously adapt our behaviour to survive the threat of the car. I remember back in the early 60's that the old octogenarian further up our road never seemed to walk anywhere else but the middle of the road. I'm not advocating that but we could do with some retraction of the problem. It galls me when I'm running along the footway, intending to go straight on, and I find car drivers usually expect me to give way as I cross numerous side-junctions. When turning left they wouldn't cut across the bows of other road users so why should they cut-up runners & pedestrians? Check your highway code in this respect - it says that wen turning, give way to pedestrians already crossing. So, if you hit a runner then he is already crossing... Back in 2000 I lived in Reston, Virginia. That was a very middle-class, enlightened community. Every road junction had 4-way pedestrian crossings AND THEY ENFORCED IT. Car drivers were so courteous in stopping that it was almost embarrassing. One day....[/p][/quote]A runner on the pavement isn't "already crossing" - he is coming to a road where he should check for cars that may already be turning into that road. As a car driver you would expect him to be following the course of the pavement round the corner. If he goes straight on, then he has effectively crossed a junction (between pavement and road). the original Homer
  • Score: 1219

4:12pm Fri 16 May 14

courier46 says...

the original Homer wrote:
petethefeet wrote:
@Ichabod76.
The point that I've been trying to get through is that since the end of the late Victorian era we've had to seriously adapt our behaviour to survive the threat of the car. I remember back in the early 60's that the old octogenarian further up our road never seemed to walk anywhere else but the middle of the road. I'm not advocating that but we could do with some retraction of the problem. It galls me when I'm running along the footway, intending to go straight on, and I find car drivers usually expect me to give way as I cross numerous side-junctions. When turning left they wouldn't cut across the bows of other road users so why should they cut-up runners & pedestrians? Check your highway code in this respect - it says that wen turning, give way to pedestrians already crossing. So, if you hit a runner then he is already crossing...
Back in 2000 I lived in Reston, Virginia. That was a very middle-class, enlightened community. Every road junction had 4-way pedestrian crossings AND THEY ENFORCED IT. Car drivers were so courteous in stopping that it was almost embarrassing. One day....
A runner on the pavement isn't "already crossing" - he is coming to a road where he should check for cars that may already be turning into that road.

As a car driver you would expect him to be following the course of the pavement round the corner. If he goes straight on, then he has effectively crossed a junction (between pavement and road).
I agree.Too many people do not take responsibility for there own safety and when i run there is no way on Earth i would expect or trust a car to stop for me!
[quote][p][bold]the original Homer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]petethefeet[/bold] wrote: @Ichabod76. The point that I've been trying to get through is that since the end of the late Victorian era we've had to seriously adapt our behaviour to survive the threat of the car. I remember back in the early 60's that the old octogenarian further up our road never seemed to walk anywhere else but the middle of the road. I'm not advocating that but we could do with some retraction of the problem. It galls me when I'm running along the footway, intending to go straight on, and I find car drivers usually expect me to give way as I cross numerous side-junctions. When turning left they wouldn't cut across the bows of other road users so why should they cut-up runners & pedestrians? Check your highway code in this respect - it says that wen turning, give way to pedestrians already crossing. So, if you hit a runner then he is already crossing... Back in 2000 I lived in Reston, Virginia. That was a very middle-class, enlightened community. Every road junction had 4-way pedestrian crossings AND THEY ENFORCED IT. Car drivers were so courteous in stopping that it was almost embarrassing. One day....[/p][/quote]A runner on the pavement isn't "already crossing" - he is coming to a road where he should check for cars that may already be turning into that road. As a car driver you would expect him to be following the course of the pavement round the corner. If he goes straight on, then he has effectively crossed a junction (between pavement and road).[/p][/quote]I agree.Too many people do not take responsibility for there own safety and when i run there is no way on Earth i would expect or trust a car to stop for me! courier46
  • Score: 1221

4:27pm Fri 16 May 14

Ichabod76 says...

survive the threat of the car

Ha ha aha ha ha ha ha hah aha

yeah whatever !

It galls me when I'm running along the footway, intending to go straight on, and I find car drivers usually expect me to give way as I cross numerous side-junctions.

why don't you run along the road then ?
survive the threat of the car Ha ha aha ha ha ha ha hah aha yeah whatever ! It galls me when I'm running along the footway, intending to go straight on, and I find car drivers usually expect me to give way as I cross numerous side-junctions. why don't you run along the road then ? Ichabod76
  • Score: 1313

4:28pm Fri 16 May 14

Ichabod76 says...

Caecilius wrote:
So more than 75% of motorists agree that a 20 mph limit (in residential areas, don't forget) improves safety for pedestrians but only about 30% are willing to accept it. From which it follows that 45% of motorists think that it's more important for them to get to their - probably local - destination a few minutes sooner than to concern themselves about other people's safety. Not exactly a big surprise, given the track record of the car lobby in York. Petethefeet is spot on - give them the right of veto, and nobody else's interests will ever get a look in.
How did you manage to make a comment without mentioning Water Lane ?
[quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: So more than 75% of motorists agree that a 20 mph limit (in residential areas, don't forget) improves safety for pedestrians but only about 30% are willing to accept it. From which it follows that 45% of motorists think that it's more important for them to get to their - probably local - destination a few minutes sooner than to concern themselves about other people's safety. Not exactly a big surprise, given the track record of the car lobby in York. Petethefeet is spot on - give them the right of veto, and nobody else's interests will ever get a look in.[/p][/quote]How did you manage to make a comment without mentioning Water Lane ? Ichabod76
  • Score: 1009

4:30pm Fri 16 May 14

chunkyyorkie says...

People who choose to speed far above the limit on any given road do so because of the type of people they are, they have scant regard for the law. In exactly the same way they may not have insurance, they may carry a knife, they may drink & drive, be red light jumpers, cycle on pavements, abuse children, murder, are cruel to animals, they may steal, cheat on taxes – simply put they think the rules don’t apply to them. It’s the character of person they are, it’s not because they drive a car. And even if the speed limit was 10mph they would still do 50mph because that’s the type of people they are. Furthermore if they continue and go unpunished every single day in plain sight, in their minds, there is no incentive for them to change their behavior.
As far as road safety goes, well self-preservation should always be priority. Err on the side of caution and driving/cycling/walk
ing with a defensive attitude usually is the best way to stay out of harm. Regardless if you are in the right, it’s always best to avoid the misery of a trip to hospital or worse.
People who choose to speed far above the limit on any given road do so because of the type of people they are, they have scant regard for the law. In exactly the same way they may not have insurance, they may carry a knife, they may drink & drive, be red light jumpers, cycle on pavements, abuse children, murder, are cruel to animals, they may steal, cheat on taxes – simply put they think the rules don’t apply to them. It’s the character of person they are, it’s not because they drive a car. And even if the speed limit was 10mph they would still do 50mph because that’s the type of people they are. Furthermore if they continue and go unpunished every single day in plain sight, in their minds, there is no incentive for them to change their behavior. As far as road safety goes, well self-preservation should always be priority. Err on the side of caution and driving/cycling/walk ing with a defensive attitude usually is the best way to stay out of harm. Regardless if you are in the right, it’s always best to avoid the misery of a trip to hospital or worse. chunkyyorkie
  • Score: 1533

4:33pm Fri 16 May 14

GrumpyLocal says...

YorkCityLuke wrote:
GrumpyLocal wrote:
hirsty wrote:
Predictable petty responses, every time I read Press comments it reminds me 'never to read the bottom half of the internet' ...

Many drivers think they have a God given right to own the road, and everyone else had better stay the Hell out of their way, or suffer the consequences. In the meantime, everyone else has to put up with the noise, pollution & danger whilst going about their daily business.

20mph is absolutely fine for anyone in built-up areas - around pedestrians, cycles, kids, dogs, people stepping off buses and yes, drunks. For too long the car has a had a complete free run in the planning of our cities, soon all but the most essential journeys will be priced off the road & we'll look back on the last 60-years as a period of temporary madness.
You are aware the the roads are actually built for the Drivers of vehicles. Why would it not be obvious for drivers to think they have a "God given right to own the road", maybe not god given but in every other definition they do. Foot paths are for pedestrians & if a driver needs to cross the footpath to get into their drive, they must give way to the pedestrian because that is their domain. If a Pedestrian needs to cross a road then they must give way to the driver because they are using someone else's domain. The obvious exceptions are Zebra crossings & light controlled crossings that bestow the domain in favour of the pedestrian for limited periods of time to allow safe passage.
You comment about the last 60 years is ridiculous, for the entire history of civilised mankind, transport networks have been the backbone of development, commerce and progression to where we are today. The method of transportation has evolved allowing us to travel greater distances at higher speeds but the benefits have been huge. To imply that we have made a mistake in heavens forbid building roads to allow people to get to work or take the kids to friends houses is bizarre.
Although I agree with you about the utility of cars, I can't help but take exception to your comment about the road network being the 'domain' of cars. As a responsible cyclist, I'd like to think that if I travel in a safe manner on roads I won't come to any harm, because I have as much right to be there as motorists (who are also, for the most part, responsible). But there is the occasional idiot, whether riding a bike or in a car, who thinks he 'owns' the road and acts accordingly. Surely it's better to just accept that roads are there for the convenience of ALL road users, and that larger motorised vehicles must take extra responsibility for their driving due to threat they pose?
Think you'll notice if you read again that I said "built for the Drivers of vehicles" not "built for the Drivers of cars". There are many types of vehicles that use the road network which is why I kept the statement broad.
As for larger vehicles taking extra responsibility I disagree totally.
The driver of a large vehicle can be totally observant and adhere to all the rules yet still come into contact with a smaller vehicle due to errors by the smaller vehicle's driver. If is not fair for the large vehicle to assume any responsibility at all just because they are large.
My view is that larger vehicles should be given far more respect by other drivers because they can inflict greater damage than anything else on the road. As a cyclist and car driver I am always far more wary about articulated trucks than I would be a Chevrolet Matiz. I adopt a defensive driving approach on the bike & in the car and assume that if there is the opportunity for another driver to stupid, there is the chance they will be.
Smaller vehicles, pedestrians & bikes are able to remove themselves from a dangerous position far more easily than a bus or a truck & that might be why they so often put themselves in a position of risk.
[quote][p][bold]YorkCityLuke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GrumpyLocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hirsty[/bold] wrote: Predictable petty responses, every time I read Press comments it reminds me 'never to read the bottom half of the internet' ... Many drivers think they have a God given right to own the road, and everyone else had better stay the Hell out of their way, or suffer the consequences. In the meantime, everyone else has to put up with the noise, pollution & danger whilst going about their daily business. 20mph is absolutely fine for anyone in built-up areas - around pedestrians, cycles, kids, dogs, people stepping off buses and yes, drunks. For too long the car has a had a complete free run in the planning of our cities, soon all but the most essential journeys will be priced off the road & we'll look back on the last 60-years as a period of temporary madness.[/p][/quote]You are aware the the roads are actually built for the Drivers of vehicles. Why would it not be obvious for drivers to think they have a "God given right to own the road", maybe not god given but in every other definition they do. Foot paths are for pedestrians & if a driver needs to cross the footpath to get into their drive, they must give way to the pedestrian because that is their domain. If a Pedestrian needs to cross a road then they must give way to the driver because they are using someone else's domain. The obvious exceptions are Zebra crossings & light controlled crossings that bestow the domain in favour of the pedestrian for limited periods of time to allow safe passage. You comment about the last 60 years is ridiculous, for the entire history of civilised mankind, transport networks have been the backbone of development, commerce and progression to where we are today. The method of transportation has evolved allowing us to travel greater distances at higher speeds but the benefits have been huge. To imply that we have made a mistake in heavens forbid building roads to allow people to get to work or take the kids to friends houses is bizarre.[/p][/quote]Although I agree with you about the utility of cars, I can't help but take exception to your comment about the road network being the 'domain' of cars. As a responsible cyclist, I'd like to think that if I travel in a safe manner on roads I won't come to any harm, because I have as much right to be there as motorists (who are also, for the most part, responsible). But there is the occasional idiot, whether riding a bike or in a car, who thinks he 'owns' the road and acts accordingly. Surely it's better to just accept that roads are there for the convenience of ALL road users, and that larger motorised vehicles must take extra responsibility for their driving due to threat they pose?[/p][/quote]Think you'll notice if you read again that I said "built for the Drivers of vehicles" not "built for the Drivers of cars". There are many types of vehicles that use the road network which is why I kept the statement broad. As for larger vehicles taking extra responsibility I disagree totally. The driver of a large vehicle can be totally observant and adhere to all the rules yet still come into contact with a smaller vehicle due to errors by the smaller vehicle's driver. If is not fair for the large vehicle to assume any responsibility at all just because they are large. My view is that larger vehicles should be given far more respect by other drivers because they can inflict greater damage than anything else on the road. As a cyclist and car driver I am always far more wary about articulated trucks than I would be a Chevrolet Matiz. I adopt a defensive driving approach on the bike & in the car and assume that if there is the opportunity for another driver to stupid, there is the chance they will be. Smaller vehicles, pedestrians & bikes are able to remove themselves from a dangerous position far more easily than a bus or a truck & that might be why they so often put themselves in a position of risk. GrumpyLocal
  • Score: 1175

4:53pm Fri 16 May 14

GrumpyLocal says...

Caecilius wrote:
So more than 75% of motorists agree that a 20 mph limit (in residential areas, don't forget) improves safety for pedestrians but only about 30% are willing to accept it. From which it follows that 45% of motorists think that it's more important for them to get to their - probably local - destination a few minutes sooner than to concern themselves about other people's safety. Not exactly a big surprise, given the track record of the car lobby in York. Petethefeet is spot on - give them the right of veto, and nobody else's interests will ever get a look in.
I reckon that if you asked 100 bungee jumpers whether bungee jumping with bungee 3 cords was safer (but less interesting) than only using one, about 90-100% of them would agree. I also reckon that only 0-10% of these people would actually advocate using 3 bungee cords for every jump.

It is no more important for a driver to get to work than it is for a pedestrian to get to work or a cyclist either. I also don't think that many drivers believe that many drivers think their journey is important enough to put any class of commuter at more risk at all. The situation at the moment is this:

Pedestrian knocked over on way to work = Report in local newspaper, people complaining of too many cars, bad driving etc etc. Normally very little detail about why the pedestrian was in the road, or if the driver was actually at fault or the innocent victim of a daydreaming pedestrian stepping in to the road.

Two cars have small knock at roundabout = No coverage at in the press, no one cares because it was just metal that got bent, insurance sorts it out. Both drivers are put out and without cars while being repaired.

Two pedestrians bump into each other in street = One or both say sorry.

Driver slams brakes to not hit pedestrian = No coverage at all just winds the driver up for a few minutes.

The disproportionate reaction to the first incident is only there because a large thing hits a small thing causing more damage to the small thing.
[quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: So more than 75% of motorists agree that a 20 mph limit (in residential areas, don't forget) improves safety for pedestrians but only about 30% are willing to accept it. From which it follows that 45% of motorists think that it's more important for them to get to their - probably local - destination a few minutes sooner than to concern themselves about other people's safety. Not exactly a big surprise, given the track record of the car lobby in York. Petethefeet is spot on - give them the right of veto, and nobody else's interests will ever get a look in.[/p][/quote]I reckon that if you asked 100 bungee jumpers whether bungee jumping with bungee 3 cords was safer (but less interesting) than only using one, about 90-100% of them would agree. I also reckon that only 0-10% of these people would actually advocate using 3 bungee cords for every jump. It is no more important for a driver to get to work than it is for a pedestrian to get to work or a cyclist either. I also don't think that many drivers believe that many drivers think their journey is important enough to put any class of commuter at more risk at all. The situation at the moment is this: Pedestrian knocked over on way to work = Report in local newspaper, people complaining of too many cars, bad driving etc etc. Normally very little detail about why the pedestrian was in the road, or if the driver was actually at fault or the innocent victim of a daydreaming pedestrian stepping in to the road. Two cars have small knock at roundabout = No coverage at in the press, no one cares because it was just metal that got bent, insurance sorts it out. Both drivers are put out and without cars while being repaired. Two pedestrians bump into each other in street = One or both say sorry. Driver slams brakes to not hit pedestrian = No coverage at all just winds the driver up for a few minutes. The disproportionate reaction to the first incident is only there because a large thing hits a small thing causing more damage to the small thing. GrumpyLocal
  • Score: 1049

4:58pm Fri 16 May 14

Alf Garnett says...

Most young drivrs aren't in favour of lower speed limits. Quite right too, poor mites. Why should they have the chance of self expression and personal fulfilment curtailed by spoilsport oldies and whingeing mothers and toddlers ?
Most young drivrs aren't in favour of lower speed limits. Quite right too, poor mites. Why should they have the chance of self expression and personal fulfilment curtailed by spoilsport oldies and whingeing mothers and toddlers ? Alf Garnett
  • Score: 1494

5:04pm Fri 16 May 14

Stevie D says...

MrsHoney wrote:
You say it's a max not a target, tell that to my driving instructor who told me that I must get up to the maximum speed as soon as it was safely possible to do so.

That's because it's a test, and you have to demonstrate that you can drive safely, up to the maximum speed allowed where it is safe and sensible to do so. That doesn't mean you have to drive like that once you have passed your test.

chunkyyorkie wrote:
People who choose to speed far above the limit on any given road do so because of the type of people they are, they have scant regard for the law. In exactly the same way they may not have insurance, they may carry a knife, they may drink & drive, be red light jumpers, cycle on pavements, abuse children, murder, are cruel to animals, they may steal, cheat on taxes – simply put they think the rules don’t apply to them.

Whoa, talk about total overreaction! Perhaps it's because, they have recognised that in some cases the law is bloody stupid and serves no worthwhile purpose. There are times when I do 45–50mph in 30 limits because those particular limits are totally inappropriate, do not meet any of the government's speed limit criteria, and should not be in place. That doesn't mean that I'm a murderer (I'm not) who thinks it's appropriate to drive at that speed in residential areas (I don't).
[quote][bold]MrsHoney[/bold] wrote: You say it's a max not a target, tell that to my driving instructor who told me that I must get up to the maximum speed as soon as it was safely possible to do so.[/quote] That's because it's a test, and you have to demonstrate that you can drive safely, up to the maximum speed allowed where it is safe and sensible to do so. That doesn't mean you have to drive like that once you have passed your test. [quote][/bold]chunkyyorkie[/bold] wrote: People who choose to speed far above the limit on any given road do so because of the type of people they are, they have scant regard for the law. In exactly the same way they may not have insurance, they may carry a knife, they may drink & drive, be red light jumpers, cycle on pavements, abuse children, murder, are cruel to animals, they may steal, cheat on taxes – simply put they think the rules don’t apply to them.[/quote] Whoa, talk about total overreaction! Perhaps it's because, they have recognised that [italic]in some cases[/italic] the law is bloody stupid and serves no worthwhile purpose. There are times when I do 45–50mph in 30 limits because [i]those particular limits[/i] are totally inappropriate, do not meet any of the government's speed limit criteria, and should not be in place. That doesn't mean that I'm a murderer (I'm not) who thinks it's appropriate to drive at that speed in residential areas (I don't). Stevie D
  • Score: 1122

5:16pm Fri 16 May 14

Cheeky face says...

Good comments from most people.

A police commissioner in E Anglia was so annoyed with regular changes to speed limits that he said "Let drivers choose their own speeds so long as it is safe".

The worst driver I have seen on Bishopthorpe Rd this week was in a City Of York council vehicle. He tailgated me in a dangerous way, and was probably doing 30 plus.

The Times or Telegraph to-day had an article on this subject. Meaningless 20mph sections are annoying was implied by one contributor to the article.

Hitting a pedestrian at 20mph or at 30 mph has vastly varying likely consequences..

Long term if we do not sort out transport cars will do well to reach 20mph on some motorways! And only 5mph in London.
Good comments from most people. A police commissioner in E Anglia was so annoyed with regular changes to speed limits that he said "Let drivers choose their own speeds so long as it is safe". The worst driver I have seen on Bishopthorpe Rd this week was in a City Of York council vehicle. He tailgated me in a dangerous way, and was probably doing 30 plus. The Times or Telegraph to-day had an article on this subject. Meaningless 20mph sections are annoying was implied by one contributor to the article. Hitting a pedestrian at 20mph or at 30 mph has vastly varying likely consequences.. Long term if we do not sort out transport cars will do well to reach 20mph on some motorways! And only 5mph in London. Cheeky face
  • Score: 1404

6:13pm Fri 16 May 14

Silver says...

bpk68 wrote:
I'm not sure the Dutch (as per Peddling P's article reference) have such a great idea there: pedestrians and vehicles roaming wild and free on the same plane? Erm...sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

What does get annoying though, is this constant thrusting of the 'think of the children' message. Shouldn't some kind of responsible adult be either a) watching them to make sure they're not in the road / b) teaching them that roads aren't playgrounds?

I'm really not sure what people want nowadays with our roads. Time was, roads used to be for vehicles and pavements were for pedestrians, or other, non-vehicular things. But now it seems that vehicles have to give up their space to co-mingle with everything else around them.

And where do we stop? What happens when, at 20mph, people are still injured? Drop it to 10mph? Ban anything that isn't a foot-propelled cardboard cut out similar to the Flintstones?

Do yourself a favour, give the road some respect and stay off it unless absolutely necessary. Vehicles don't go driving around on the pavement, so why are you risking your neck on the roads?
It's actually more dangerous for pedestrians in Holland right now as the cyclists expect the pedestrian to give way, they will not stop or go around you on a path but will collide with you. So I fully agree with you, the only things we need to have is common courtesy for people, and education to young people that they need to try not to step onto the road unless they're going to cross the road and then look both ways.
20 is a good idea outside schools etc, if it's done a cul de sac it's not a big issue but why not. But main roads should stay as they are.
[quote][p][bold]bpk68[/bold] wrote: I'm not sure the Dutch (as per Peddling P's article reference) have such a great idea there: pedestrians and vehicles roaming wild and free on the same plane? Erm...sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. What does get annoying though, is this constant thrusting of the 'think of the children' message. Shouldn't some kind of responsible adult be either a) watching them to make sure they're not in the road / b) teaching them that roads aren't playgrounds? I'm really not sure what people want nowadays with our roads. Time was, roads used to be for vehicles and pavements were for pedestrians, or other, non-vehicular things. But now it seems that vehicles have to give up their space to co-mingle with everything else around them. And where do we stop? What happens when, at 20mph, people are still injured? Drop it to 10mph? Ban anything that isn't a foot-propelled cardboard cut out similar to the Flintstones? Do yourself a favour, give the road some respect and stay off it unless absolutely necessary. Vehicles don't go driving around on the pavement, so why are you risking your neck on the roads?[/p][/quote]It's actually more dangerous for pedestrians in Holland right now as the cyclists expect the pedestrian to give way, they will not stop or go around you on a path but will collide with you. So I fully agree with you, the only things we need to have is common courtesy for people, and education to young people that they need to try not to step onto the road unless they're going to cross the road and then look both ways. 20 is a good idea outside schools etc, if it's done a cul de sac it's not a big issue but why not. But main roads should stay as they are. Silver
  • Score: 1237

6:35pm Fri 16 May 14

wallman says...

doing 200 to 300 miles a week in York my average speed is 12 mph why do I need a further reduction in my speed just because some people don't like the car
doing 200 to 300 miles a week in York my average speed is 12 mph why do I need a further reduction in my speed just because some people don't like the car wallman
  • Score: 1101

6:44pm Fri 16 May 14

Cheeky face says...

Is the council camera-car DEFINITELY allowed to catch motorists not obeying 20 mph limits.? The police are not prepared to do anything!

Speed activated message sign illuminators could help; and they could be turned off near schools out of schooling periods.

Devolving powers may be the answer provided it is legal/lawful!

New cars from next year will all have black box/trackers. What enforcement will come in then; and who will compete for the revenue?

Transgressing over the 20 limit at 2am in Bishopthorpe Rd is more excusable than doing over 20 in Low Ousegate!

On rural roads there can be mandatory and recommended limits!
Is the council camera-car DEFINITELY allowed to catch motorists not obeying 20 mph limits.? The police are not prepared to do anything! Speed activated message sign illuminators could help; and they could be turned off near schools out of schooling periods. Devolving powers may be the answer provided it is legal/lawful! New cars from next year will all have black box/trackers. What enforcement will come in then; and who will compete for the revenue? Transgressing over the 20 limit at 2am in Bishopthorpe Rd is more excusable than doing over 20 in Low Ousegate! On rural roads there can be mandatory and recommended limits! Cheeky face
  • Score: 1333

6:51pm Fri 16 May 14

Cheeky face says...

Wallman.
Noted I assume it is congestion that you are experiencing! If not you are advised to buy a another car.


On the Toure De France day in York can competitors beat 20mph? If so, what speeding offence applies to them and the video camera team?
Wallman. Noted I assume it is congestion that you are experiencing! If not you are advised to buy a another car. On the Toure De France day in York can competitors beat 20mph? If so, what speeding offence applies to them and the video camera team? Cheeky face
  • Score: 1092

7:05pm Fri 16 May 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

Interesting that most people are discussing the merits (or not) of a 20mph speed limit.

The main thrust of this article is ONCE AGAIN Anna Semlyen ignoring the views of the electorate to further her own personal agenda and lifelong obsessive pet project.

We get a lot of calls for resignation of councillors around here, but not enough for Coun Semlyen. I don't know how she has the brass neck, I really don't.

I feel sorry for the people who actually voted for her thinking she might represent them :-(
Interesting that most people are discussing the merits (or not) of a 20mph speed limit. The main thrust of this article is ONCE AGAIN Anna Semlyen ignoring the views of the electorate to further her own personal agenda and lifelong obsessive pet project. We get a lot of calls for resignation of councillors around here, but not enough for Coun Semlyen. I don't know how she has the brass neck, I really don't. I feel sorry for the people who actually voted for her thinking she might represent them :-( Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 1252

7:07pm Fri 16 May 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

Cheeky face wrote:
Wallman.
Noted I assume it is congestion that you are experiencing! If not you are advised to buy a another car.


On the Toure De France day in York can competitors beat 20mph? If so, what speeding offence applies to them and the video camera team?
Closed roads for private event, speed limits don't apply.
[quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: Wallman. Noted I assume it is congestion that you are experiencing! If not you are advised to buy a another car. On the Toure De France day in York can competitors beat 20mph? If so, what speeding offence applies to them and the video camera team?[/p][/quote]Closed roads for private event, speed limits don't apply. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 1262

8:24pm Fri 16 May 14

piaggio1 says...

nearlyman wrote:
Semlyan is well acquainted with hypocrisy and double standards being the Green Socialist Capitalist that she clearly is............
Er since when was she a socialist????
She has more buy to lets than 20mph signs down hamilton drive....
[quote][p][bold]nearlyman[/bold] wrote: Semlyan is well acquainted with hypocrisy and double standards being the Green Socialist Capitalist that she clearly is............[/p][/quote]Er since when was she a socialist???? She has more buy to lets than 20mph signs down hamilton drive.... piaggio1
  • Score: 1218

8:44pm Fri 16 May 14

Woody G Mellor says...

I see the score adjuster is allowed to stay up late tonight. Sad little turd.
I see the score adjuster is allowed to stay up late tonight. Sad little turd. Woody G Mellor
  • Score: 1085

8:55pm Fri 16 May 14

Silver says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Interesting that most people are discussing the merits (or not) of a 20mph speed limit.

The main thrust of this article is ONCE AGAIN Anna Semlyen ignoring the views of the electorate to further her own personal agenda and lifelong obsessive pet project.

We get a lot of calls for resignation of councillors around here, but not enough for Coun Semlyen. I don't know how she has the brass neck, I really don't.

I feel sorry for the people who actually voted for her thinking she might represent them :-(
In fairness thats not news. She's done it before, she'll do it again, she's got an obvious agenda and doesn't seem to want to represent anything but her lifelong obsessive pet project. The canny York voters will not vote for her again, I hope
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: Interesting that most people are discussing the merits (or not) of a 20mph speed limit. The main thrust of this article is ONCE AGAIN Anna Semlyen ignoring the views of the electorate to further her own personal agenda and lifelong obsessive pet project. We get a lot of calls for resignation of councillors around here, but not enough for Coun Semlyen. I don't know how she has the brass neck, I really don't. I feel sorry for the people who actually voted for her thinking she might represent them :-([/p][/quote]In fairness thats not news. She's done it before, she'll do it again, she's got an obvious agenda and doesn't seem to want to represent anything but her lifelong obsessive pet project. The canny York voters will not vote for her again, I hope Silver
  • Score: 1189

9:50pm Fri 16 May 14

MorkofYork says...

The only roads that should have 20mph signs are those where there's some sort of proven problem with people going over 20mph. They should be enforced if there's really a problem. I doubt there even are any are there ? Like i've said before, schools are self limiting at peak times, there might be some i'm not aware of.

All the other ones can go.
The only roads that should have 20mph signs are those where there's some sort of proven problem with people going over 20mph. They should be enforced if there's really a problem. I doubt there even are any are there ? Like i've said before, schools are self limiting at peak times, there might be some i'm not aware of. All the other ones can go. MorkofYork
  • Score: 1025

10:06pm Fri 16 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

samthedog wrote:
Even at 20 your still going to cause some damage if a child runs out in front of you, isn't it better to educate the child not to do that!
If you are in any gear other than 1st or 2nd at 20mph you have no engine braking (as well as polluting more) and it could probably take more distance to stop than in the correct gear at 30mph. Automatic drivers should select "1" or "2" instead of the "D" gear position.
[quote][p][bold]samthedog[/bold] wrote: Even at 20 your still going to cause some damage if a child runs out in front of you, isn't it better to educate the child not to do that![/p][/quote]If you are in any gear other than 1st or 2nd at 20mph you have no engine braking (as well as polluting more) and it could probably take more distance to stop than in the correct gear at 30mph. Automatic drivers should select "1" or "2" instead of the "D" gear position. KevinWard59
  • Score: 1132

10:09pm Fri 16 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

MorkofYork wrote:
Motorists are fully qualified and know there's no need for 20mph limits everywhere. This is what it boils down to. This is why people don't follow them.
It's a case of freedom or what Anna semylen wants, what do you think were going to go for ?
Driver psychology shows that sensible and well thought out regulation is followed but amateurish statements undermine any regulation and if deemed unnecessary will be ignored. (Hence flaunting of Mobile Phone Regs etc.)
[quote][p][bold]MorkofYork[/bold] wrote: Motorists are fully qualified and know there's no need for 20mph limits everywhere. This is what it boils down to. This is why people don't follow them. It's a case of freedom or what Anna semylen wants, what do you think were going to go for ?[/p][/quote]Driver psychology shows that sensible and well thought out regulation is followed but amateurish statements undermine any regulation and if deemed unnecessary will be ignored. (Hence flaunting of Mobile Phone Regs etc.) KevinWard59
  • Score: 1539

10:11pm Fri 16 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

courier46 wrote:
That`s funny a councillor saying that the "wrong questions where asked" yet this is what this council do all the time to get the answers they want to hear ,in fact all policitions do this all the time.
We don't need a default 20mph we need inforcement of the 30mph and on a regular basis.
What questions were asked it the residential side streets off Fulford Road and ulford Main Street - they must have objected as there are none!
[quote][p][bold]courier46[/bold] wrote: That`s funny a councillor saying that the "wrong questions where asked" yet this is what this council do all the time to get the answers they want to hear ,in fact all policitions do this all the time. We don't need a default 20mph we need inforcement of the 30mph and on a regular basis.[/p][/quote]What questions were asked it the residential side streets off Fulford Road and ulford Main Street - they must have objected as there are none! KevinWard59
  • Score: 1749

10:12pm Fri 16 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Anna Semlyen:
Claimed the IAM had been 'asking the wrong questions of an unrepresentative sample'.

And Anna would be the right person to ask the right questions from a (Her) representative sample.

If you want something to be pointless, implement it on the basis of false facts.
Not many "Advanced Cyclists"!
[quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: Anna Semlyen: Claimed the IAM had been 'asking the wrong questions of an unrepresentative sample'. And Anna would be the right person to ask the right questions from a (Her) representative sample. If you want something to be pointless, implement it on the basis of false facts.[/p][/quote]Not many "Advanced Cyclists"! KevinWard59
  • Score: 1144

10:12pm Fri 16 May 14

petethefeet says...

Cheeky face wrote:
Wallman.
Noted I assume it is congestion that you are experiencing! If not you are advised to buy a another car.


On the Toure De France day in York can competitors beat 20mph? If so, what speeding offence applies to them and the video camera team?
Technically, speed limits only apply to mechanically-propell
ed vehicles (although it has been known for the police to issue fixed-penalty notices to racing cyclists). However, they can fall foul of the victorian-era law of "pedalling furiously". But such laws can't stand nowadays unless some judge has defined in case law just what constitutes, and is measurable as 'pedalling furiously'.
[quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: Wallman. Noted I assume it is congestion that you are experiencing! If not you are advised to buy a another car. On the Toure De France day in York can competitors beat 20mph? If so, what speeding offence applies to them and the video camera team?[/p][/quote]Technically, speed limits only apply to mechanically-propell ed vehicles (although it has been known for the police to issue fixed-penalty notices to racing cyclists). However, they can fall foul of the victorian-era law of "pedalling furiously". But such laws can't stand nowadays unless some judge has defined in case law just what constitutes, and is measurable as 'pedalling furiously'. petethefeet
  • Score: 1050

10:14pm Fri 16 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

MrsHoney wrote:
petethefeet wrote:
This is like asking Turkeys to vote for Christmas. The fact is that roads affect the lives of all of us. Turn this round the other way - If you ask Probation Officers if they think Probation is a good idea then you will only get one answer as their interests and career are wrapped up in it. They are the last people you should ask for an unbiased answer and same goes for motorists.
Why shouldn't motorists get a say? They're the ones having to drive slowly, usually when there is no need. They say - "The main beneficiaries of slower speeds are - children, pedestrians, cyclists, disabled, elderly and non car owners"
To me the only people in that list that should have a say are cyclists. All the others should be on the pavement anyway and crossing the roads when it's safe to do so. I'm all for 20mph zones when it's sensible but the route I drive I rarely see any pedestrians nevermind people wandering about in the road so why go at 20?
Cyclists are often travelling in excess of 20mph and frequently on the pavement!
[quote][p][bold]MrsHoney[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]petethefeet[/bold] wrote: This is like asking Turkeys to vote for Christmas. The fact is that roads affect the lives of all of us. Turn this round the other way - If you ask Probation Officers if they think Probation is a good idea then you will only get one answer as their interests and career are wrapped up in it. They are the last people you should ask for an unbiased answer and same goes for motorists.[/p][/quote]Why shouldn't motorists get a say? They're the ones having to drive slowly, usually when there is no need. They say - "The main beneficiaries of slower speeds are - children, pedestrians, cyclists, disabled, elderly and non car owners" To me the only people in that list that should have a say are cyclists. All the others should be on the pavement anyway and crossing the roads when it's safe to do so. I'm all for 20mph zones when it's sensible but the route I drive I rarely see any pedestrians nevermind people wandering about in the road so why go at 20?[/p][/quote]Cyclists are often travelling in excess of 20mph and frequently on the pavement! KevinWard59
  • Score: 1562

10:17pm Fri 16 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

courier46 wrote:
That`s funny a councillor saying that the "wrong questions where asked" yet this is what this council do all the time to get the answers they want to hear ,in fact all policitions do this all the time.
We don't need a default 20mph we need inforcement of the 30mph and on a regular basis.
Time for another FOI request.
What question was asked with the mandatory consultation with the chief police officer and what was the response?
[quote][p][bold]courier46[/bold] wrote: That`s funny a councillor saying that the "wrong questions where asked" yet this is what this council do all the time to get the answers they want to hear ,in fact all policitions do this all the time. We don't need a default 20mph we need inforcement of the 30mph and on a regular basis.[/p][/quote]Time for another FOI request. What question was asked with the mandatory consultation with the chief police officer and what was the response? KevinWard59
  • Score: 1085

10:19pm Fri 16 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

petethefeet wrote:
MrsHoney wrote:
petethefeet wrote:
This is like asking Turkeys to vote for Christmas. The fact is that roads affect the lives of all of us. Turn this round the other way - If you ask Probation Officers if they think Probation is a good idea then you will only get one answer as their interests and career are wrapped up in it. They are the last people you should ask for an unbiased answer and same goes for motorists.
Why shouldn't motorists get a say? They're the ones having to drive slowly, usually when there is no need. They say - "The main beneficiaries of slower speeds are - children, pedestrians, cyclists, disabled, elderly and non car owners"
To me the only people in that list that should have a say are cyclists. All the others should be on the pavement anyway and crossing the roads when it's safe to do so. I'm all for 20mph zones when it's sensible but the route I drive I rarely see any pedestrians nevermind people wandering about in the road so why go at 20?
Why do you believe that the onus should be on 'others' to keep out of the way (other than for their own survival of course)? The status quo that we have now has been built up over the centuries on the defacto principle that "might is right". The actual legal situation is quite the opposite and, trust me, if you ever knock over and injure a cyclist then in all probability it will be your fault. People love the advantages of cars but just don't seem to understand the other side of the awful impact that they have had on people and community life. We've had to evolve a defensive capability to survive this change that simply wasn't in us during the 19th century (read the case of the first fatality in Croydon in the 1870's). I'm a car driver, motor-bike rider, cyclist, pedestrian & runner. It's amazing how my feelings change depending upon the mode that I chose. I believe that we should listen more to the non-motorists!
Like the non-motorist involved in the lendal bridge fiasco Pete?
[quote][p][bold]petethefeet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrsHoney[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]petethefeet[/bold] wrote: This is like asking Turkeys to vote for Christmas. The fact is that roads affect the lives of all of us. Turn this round the other way - If you ask Probation Officers if they think Probation is a good idea then you will only get one answer as their interests and career are wrapped up in it. They are the last people you should ask for an unbiased answer and same goes for motorists.[/p][/quote]Why shouldn't motorists get a say? They're the ones having to drive slowly, usually when there is no need. They say - "The main beneficiaries of slower speeds are - children, pedestrians, cyclists, disabled, elderly and non car owners" To me the only people in that list that should have a say are cyclists. All the others should be on the pavement anyway and crossing the roads when it's safe to do so. I'm all for 20mph zones when it's sensible but the route I drive I rarely see any pedestrians nevermind people wandering about in the road so why go at 20?[/p][/quote]Why do you believe that the onus should be on 'others' to keep out of the way (other than for their own survival of course)? The status quo that we have now has been built up over the centuries on the defacto principle that "might is right". The actual legal situation is quite the opposite and, trust me, if you ever knock over and injure a cyclist then in all probability it will be your fault. People love the advantages of cars but just don't seem to understand the other side of the awful impact that they have had on people and community life. We've had to evolve a defensive capability to survive this change that simply wasn't in us during the 19th century (read the case of the first fatality in Croydon in the 1870's). I'm a car driver, motor-bike rider, cyclist, pedestrian & runner. It's amazing how my feelings change depending upon the mode that I chose. I believe that we should listen more to the non-motorists![/p][/quote]Like the non-motorist involved in the lendal bridge fiasco Pete? KevinWard59
  • Score: 1153

10:23pm Fri 16 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

Ignatius Lumpopo wrote:
The UK has a stupid fixation of doing speed limits in multiples of ten. What's wrong with 25 mph?

And anyway, the 20 mph limit sign depicted at the top of this article - like many in York and North Yorkshire - is in the wrong typeface. If If those numbers aren't in Transport Heavy, they aren't statutory. North Yorkshire is almost unique in the country in thinking any old typeface will do when, legally, it won't.
At last someone has a little mor clue about sign regulation and authorisation.

Signs not meeting the specification of the official signs manual need authorisation. Duly authorised they can differ from the approved typeface.
[quote][p][bold]Ignatius Lumpopo[/bold] wrote: The UK has a stupid fixation of doing speed limits in multiples of ten. What's wrong with 25 mph? And anyway, the 20 mph limit sign depicted at the top of this article - like many in York and North Yorkshire - is in the wrong typeface. If If those numbers aren't in Transport Heavy, they aren't statutory. North Yorkshire is almost unique in the country in thinking any old typeface will do when, legally, it won't.[/p][/quote]At last someone has a little mor clue about sign regulation and authorisation. Signs not meeting the specification of the official signs manual need authorisation. Duly authorised they can differ from the approved typeface. KevinWard59
  • Score: 1592

10:28pm Fri 16 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

GrumpyLocal wrote:
hirsty wrote:
Predictable petty responses, every time I read Press comments it reminds me 'never to read the bottom half of the internet' ...

Many drivers think they have a God given right to own the road, and everyone else had better stay the Hell out of their way, or suffer the consequences. In the meantime, everyone else has to put up with the noise, pollution & danger whilst going about their daily business.

20mph is absolutely fine for anyone in built-up areas - around pedestrians, cycles, kids, dogs, people stepping off buses and yes, drunks. For too long the car has a had a complete free run in the planning of our cities, soon all but the most essential journeys will be priced off the road & we'll look back on the last 60-years as a period of temporary madness.
You are aware the the roads are actually built for the Drivers of vehicles. Why would it not be obvious for drivers to think they have a "God given right to own the road", maybe not god given but in every other definition they do. Foot paths are for pedestrians & if a driver needs to cross the footpath to get into their drive, they must give way to the pedestrian because that is their domain. If a Pedestrian needs to cross a road then they must give way to the driver because they are using someone else's domain. The obvious exceptions are Zebra crossings & light controlled crossings that bestow the domain in favour of the pedestrian for limited periods of time to allow safe passage.
You comment about the last 60 years is ridiculous, for the entire history of civilised mankind, transport networks have been the backbone of development, commerce and progression to where we are today. The method of transportation has evolved allowing us to travel greater distances at higher speeds but the benefits have been huge. To imply that we have made a mistake in heavens forbid building roads to allow people to get to work or take the kids to friends houses is bizarre.
I really do think we must limit HS2 to 20mph when passing near a school in Yorkshire.
[quote][p][bold]GrumpyLocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hirsty[/bold] wrote: Predictable petty responses, every time I read Press comments it reminds me 'never to read the bottom half of the internet' ... Many drivers think they have a God given right to own the road, and everyone else had better stay the Hell out of their way, or suffer the consequences. In the meantime, everyone else has to put up with the noise, pollution & danger whilst going about their daily business. 20mph is absolutely fine for anyone in built-up areas - around pedestrians, cycles, kids, dogs, people stepping off buses and yes, drunks. For too long the car has a had a complete free run in the planning of our cities, soon all but the most essential journeys will be priced off the road & we'll look back on the last 60-years as a period of temporary madness.[/p][/quote]You are aware the the roads are actually built for the Drivers of vehicles. Why would it not be obvious for drivers to think they have a "God given right to own the road", maybe not god given but in every other definition they do. Foot paths are for pedestrians & if a driver needs to cross the footpath to get into their drive, they must give way to the pedestrian because that is their domain. If a Pedestrian needs to cross a road then they must give way to the driver because they are using someone else's domain. The obvious exceptions are Zebra crossings & light controlled crossings that bestow the domain in favour of the pedestrian for limited periods of time to allow safe passage. You comment about the last 60 years is ridiculous, for the entire history of civilised mankind, transport networks have been the backbone of development, commerce and progression to where we are today. The method of transportation has evolved allowing us to travel greater distances at higher speeds but the benefits have been huge. To imply that we have made a mistake in heavens forbid building roads to allow people to get to work or take the kids to friends houses is bizarre.[/p][/quote]I really do think we must limit HS2 to 20mph when passing near a school in Yorkshire. KevinWard59
  • Score: 1178

10:32pm Fri 16 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

york_chap wrote:
Of course most people who drive aren't going to be in favour of it - it implies (quite wrongly) that they're incapable of driving safely at 30mph and must instead drive at a crawl, just in case a pedestrian chooses to blindly step out into the road. This simply patronises and undermines drivers, whilst encouraging pedestrians that it's quite ok for them to wander about in the road. And when all is said and done, there's no actual evidence to show 20mph limits have any positive effect on the number of causalties.

Criminalising jaywalking (as practised in some other countries) would arguably have a greater effect on reducing pedestrian casualties. Of course though, as it's currently fashionable for councils to be seen as 'anti-car', such measures would never even be spoken of, let alone considered.

I've also seen adverts on the back of buses recently, which warn drivers "don't knock them down when they've knocked a few back - watch out for pedestrians 11pm - 3am". All the onus is on blaming drivers for the actions of careless and foolhardy pedestrians. How about some adverts warning pedestrians to "look both ways before you walk into the road"?
Got into a dispute wih my mother (a car licence holder/occasional driver) who argued that the signs were an unnecessary expense because its rare that there is a possibility of driving above 20 on York's congested roads.
[quote][p][bold]york_chap[/bold] wrote: Of course most people who drive aren't going to be in favour of it - it implies (quite wrongly) that they're incapable of driving safely at 30mph and must instead drive at a crawl, just in case a pedestrian chooses to blindly step out into the road. This simply patronises and undermines drivers, whilst encouraging pedestrians that it's quite ok for them to wander about in the road. And when all is said and done, there's no actual evidence to show 20mph limits have any positive effect on the number of causalties. Criminalising jaywalking (as practised in some other countries) would arguably have a greater effect on reducing pedestrian casualties. Of course though, as it's currently fashionable for councils to be seen as 'anti-car', such measures would never even be spoken of, let alone considered. I've also seen adverts on the back of buses recently, which warn drivers "don't knock them down when they've knocked a few back - watch out for pedestrians 11pm - 3am". All the onus is on blaming drivers for the actions of careless and foolhardy pedestrians. How about some adverts warning pedestrians to "look both ways before you walk into the road"?[/p][/quote]Got into a dispute wih my mother (a car licence holder/occasional driver) who argued that the signs were an unnecessary expense because its rare that there is a possibility of driving above 20 on York's congested roads. KevinWard59
  • Score: 1085

10:34pm Fri 16 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

rking1977 wrote:
I live on Hamilton Drive in Holgate, where the police/council recently did a speed survey using a black box monitor. It was installed for ten days in a 30mph residential zone between the primary school and park.

Every single day without exception it recorded vehicles travelling at well over 50mph. Some were pushing 60mph. That data is from an FoI request.

Yet instead of enforcing the serious speeding highlighted by the survey, the powers that be have recently spent a lot of money covering every cul-de-sac and side road in 20mph signs - roads where it is impossible to go more than 10mph.

And I've never seen any enforcement whatsoever, on my street or neighbouring ones. Speed limits are meaningless if you don't enforce them!
Excepting Fulford Road and Main Street, Fulford - don't forget!
[quote][p][bold]rking1977[/bold] wrote: I live on Hamilton Drive in Holgate, where the police/council recently did a speed survey using a black box monitor. It was installed for ten days in a 30mph residential zone between the primary school and park. Every single day without exception it recorded vehicles travelling at well over 50mph. Some were pushing 60mph. That data is from an FoI request. Yet instead of enforcing the serious speeding highlighted by the survey, the powers that be have recently spent a lot of money covering every cul-de-sac and side road in 20mph signs - roads where it is impossible to go more than 10mph. And I've never seen any enforcement whatsoever, on my street or neighbouring ones. Speed limits are meaningless if you don't enforce them![/p][/quote]Excepting Fulford Road and Main Street, Fulford - don't forget! KevinWard59
  • Score: 1971

10:37pm Fri 16 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

petethefeet wrote:
MrsHoney wrote:
petethefeet wrote:
Ichabod76 wrote:
petethefeet wrote:
Perhaps Anna, Paul and myself should start a campaign to sign up to a pledge never to drive above 20mph in built-up areas? It wouldn't need that many followers to effectively enforce a 20mph speed limit regardless of the legal limit. I can hear the gnashing of teeth now........
I think you'll get as many positive responses as the 20's plenty consultation, what was it 8 ?
so 8 of you driving around at 20, that'll make a difference won't it !
Mmmmmm!. I think the idea would spread. It's actually been done in a couple of cities to get people to focus on a max of 30mph. These initiatives were spawned by councils but there is no reason why ordinary people shouldn't do it. After all, 20/30mph is a max not a target.
Originally, mechanically propelled vehicles had to be preceded by a person carrying a red flag. I think it came in about 1841 in one of the locomotive acts. It was repealed in about 1876 in another locomotives act. When I get chance I'll have to look them up in Halsbury's laws of England. There's about 110 volumes and besides detailing the acts they give a summary of the background/ social changes going on at the time. Anybody wishing to examine true history (other than who slaughtered who in battle) should read them. Unfortunately, buying them outright will cost you about 7 grand!
You say it's a max not a target, tell that to my driving instructor who told me that I must get up to the maximum speed as soon as it was safely possible to do so.
Once again, people misunderstanding the reasons. A driving test examiner wants to see that you can cope at the max and that's why you are trained to that. There is no legal requirement that you try and target the maximum speed.
Why look through 110 volumes - just type the right question verbatum into a google search - simples!
[quote][p][bold]petethefeet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrsHoney[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]petethefeet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ichabod76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]petethefeet[/bold] wrote: Perhaps Anna, Paul and myself should start a campaign to sign up to a pledge never to drive above 20mph in built-up areas? It wouldn't need that many followers to effectively enforce a 20mph speed limit regardless of the legal limit. I can hear the gnashing of teeth now........[/p][/quote]I think you'll get as many positive responses as the 20's plenty consultation, what was it 8 ? so 8 of you driving around at 20, that'll make a difference won't it ![/p][/quote]Mmmmmm!. I think the idea would spread. It's actually been done in a couple of cities to get people to focus on a max of 30mph. These initiatives were spawned by councils but there is no reason why ordinary people shouldn't do it. After all, 20/30mph is a max not a target. Originally, mechanically propelled vehicles had to be preceded by a person carrying a red flag. I think it came in about 1841 in one of the locomotive acts. It was repealed in about 1876 in another locomotives act. When I get chance I'll have to look them up in Halsbury's laws of England. There's about 110 volumes and besides detailing the acts they give a summary of the background/ social changes going on at the time. Anybody wishing to examine true history (other than who slaughtered who in battle) should read them. Unfortunately, buying them outright will cost you about 7 grand![/p][/quote]You say it's a max not a target, tell that to my driving instructor who told me that I must get up to the maximum speed as soon as it was safely possible to do so.[/p][/quote]Once again, people misunderstanding the reasons. A driving test examiner wants to see that you can cope at the max and that's why you are trained to that. There is no legal requirement that you try and target the maximum speed.[/p][/quote]Why look through 110 volumes - just type the right question verbatum into a google search - simples! KevinWard59
  • Score: 1251

10:46pm Fri 16 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

What-a-joke-they-are wrote:
I am in favour of 20 Zones near schools, and would support wider use of them in 'residential' streets (even playstreets!) where the definition of 'residential' gives way to 'general thoroughfare' like on Bishopsthorpe road.

20 zones on wide open, empty roads with little pedestrian use are frustrating and potentially damaging to the safety or roads leading from them as frustrated drivers 'make up lost time' as soon as they get out of a 20.

Likewise, the swathe of 40 and 50 signs appearing on our major arterial roads (A1079/A19) cause confusion and distract attention from the road as you work out what speed you are currently supposed to be doing

Take Escrick/Deighton it is now 60/40/50/40/50/60 over 3/4 of a mile

Personally I pay little attention to 20 signs save they act as a 'beware pedestrians' indicator, this council and the blanket appearance of them in York make me want to drive faster to spite them - what is the phycology in that?

Driver training and road safety are critical for everyone - but 'pick and mix' speed limits confuse and frustrate (me)
Just as a reminder:-
Bishopthorpe Road and Scarcroft Road are the A59
Nunnery Lane and Prices Lane the A1036
Fulford Road and Fulford Main Street are the A19

The question agreed by 7 out of 13,000 I read in these columns was not responded because there was general agreement for residential side streets and it was stated that NOT on ANY "A" or "B" roads.
[quote][p][bold]What-a-joke-they-are[/bold] wrote: I am in favour of 20 Zones near schools, and would support wider use of them in 'residential' streets (even playstreets!) where the definition of 'residential' gives way to 'general thoroughfare' like on Bishopsthorpe road. 20 zones on wide open, empty roads with little pedestrian use are frustrating and potentially damaging to the safety or roads leading from them as frustrated drivers 'make up lost time' as soon as they get out of a 20. Likewise, the swathe of 40 and 50 signs appearing on our major arterial roads (A1079/A19) cause confusion and distract attention from the road as you work out what speed you are currently supposed to be doing Take Escrick/Deighton it is now 60/40/50/40/50/60 over 3/4 of a mile Personally I pay little attention to 20 signs save they act as a 'beware pedestrians' indicator, this council and the blanket appearance of them in York make me want to drive faster to spite them - what is the phycology in that? Driver training and road safety are critical for everyone - but 'pick and mix' speed limits confuse and frustrate (me)[/p][/quote]Just as a reminder:- Bishopthorpe Road and Scarcroft Road are the A59 Nunnery Lane and Prices Lane the A1036 Fulford Road and Fulford Main Street are the A19 The question agreed by 7 out of 13,000 I read in these columns was not responded because there was general agreement for residential side streets and it was stated that NOT on ANY "A" or "B" roads. KevinWard59
  • Score: 1212

10:58pm Fri 16 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

Cheeky face wrote:
Is the council camera-car DEFINITELY allowed to catch motorists not obeying 20 mph limits.? The police are not prepared to do anything!

Speed activated message sign illuminators could help; and they could be turned off near schools out of schooling periods.

Devolving powers may be the answer provided it is legal/lawful!

New cars from next year will all have black box/trackers. What enforcement will come in then; and who will compete for the revenue?

Transgressing over the 20 limit at 2am in Bishopthorpe Rd is more excusable than doing over 20 in Low Ousegate!

On rural roads there can be mandatory and recommended limits!
And don't forget the "Rural Roads" have the highest statistics because there are so many speed limits for the same road:-

Tractors around 25mph acheivable.
Vans over 3500kg and Lorries 40mph
Cars with Trailers mph
Busses and Coaches 50mph
Cars and Motorcycles 60mph

The danger as confirmed by accident statistics is mainly when trying to overtake the slower moving vehicles
[quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: Is the council camera-car DEFINITELY allowed to catch motorists not obeying 20 mph limits.? The police are not prepared to do anything! Speed activated message sign illuminators could help; and they could be turned off near schools out of schooling periods. Devolving powers may be the answer provided it is legal/lawful! New cars from next year will all have black box/trackers. What enforcement will come in then; and who will compete for the revenue? Transgressing over the 20 limit at 2am in Bishopthorpe Rd is more excusable than doing over 20 in Low Ousegate! On rural roads there can be mandatory and recommended limits![/p][/quote]And don't forget the "Rural Roads" have the highest statistics because there are so many speed limits for the same road:- Tractors around 25mph acheivable. Vans over 3500kg and Lorries 40mph Cars with Trailers mph Busses and Coaches 50mph Cars and Motorcycles 60mph The danger as confirmed by accident statistics is mainly when trying to overtake the slower moving vehicles KevinWard59
  • Score: 1857

11:03pm Fri 16 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

petethefeet wrote:
Cheeky face wrote:
Wallman.
Noted I assume it is congestion that you are experiencing! If not you are advised to buy a another car.


On the Toure De France day in York can competitors beat 20mph? If so, what speeding offence applies to them and the video camera team?
Technically, speed limits only apply to mechanically-propell

ed vehicles (although it has been known for the police to issue fixed-penalty notices to racing cyclists). However, they can fall foul of the victorian-era law of "pedalling furiously". But such laws can't stand nowadays unless some judge has defined in case law just what constitutes, and is measurable as 'pedalling furiously'.
Pete the feet you are wrong and probably confusing it with insurance.

Speed limit applies to ALL ROAD USERS as does drink driving except on a push bike it's drunk in charge and still remains at £50 but in my view should be increased and licence endorsable in the same way as driving without a licence.
[quote][p][bold]petethefeet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: Wallman. Noted I assume it is congestion that you are experiencing! If not you are advised to buy a another car. On the Toure De France day in York can competitors beat 20mph? If so, what speeding offence applies to them and the video camera team?[/p][/quote]Technically, speed limits only apply to mechanically-propell ed vehicles (although it has been known for the police to issue fixed-penalty notices to racing cyclists). However, they can fall foul of the victorian-era law of "pedalling furiously". But such laws can't stand nowadays unless some judge has defined in case law just what constitutes, and is measurable as 'pedalling furiously'.[/p][/quote]Pete the feet you are wrong and probably confusing it with insurance. Speed limit applies to ALL ROAD USERS as does drink driving except on a push bike it's drunk in charge and still remains at £50 but in my view should be increased and licence endorsable in the same way as driving without a licence. KevinWard59
  • Score: 1664

11:09pm Fri 16 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

Jon answered 5 years ago
i have been done twice for it unfortunately its a vehicle and it and you have to obey to speed limits i received two 40 pound fines sorry mate but that is what happened to me

https://uk.answers.y
ahoo.com/question/in
dex?qid=200909270859
39AAe6HwM
Jon answered 5 years ago i have been done twice for it unfortunately its a vehicle and it and you have to obey to speed limits i received two 40 pound fines sorry mate but that is what happened to me https://uk.answers.y ahoo.com/question/in dex?qid=200909270859 39AAe6HwM KevinWard59
  • Score: 1420

11:10pm Fri 16 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

? answered 5 years ago
You can go as fast as you want in the UK but if you are cycling mad the police can give you a £40 fine.
Source(s):
I work with the POLICE

Same Yahoo Answers page
? answered 5 years ago You can go as fast as you want in the UK but if you are cycling mad the police can give you a £40 fine. Source(s): I work with the POLICE Same Yahoo Answers page KevinWard59
  • Score: 1627

11:13pm Fri 16 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

And quoted as the "BEST ANSWER" was:-


STEVEN F answered 5 years ago

Legally, the bike is a vehicle. Speeding fines are NOT determined by the TYPE of vehicle. They are determined by the speed limit and the actual speed.
And quoted as the "BEST ANSWER" was:- STEVEN F answered 5 years ago Legally, the bike is a vehicle. Speeding fines are NOT determined by the TYPE of vehicle. They are determined by the speed limit and the actual speed. KevinWard59
  • Score: 2085

11:38pm Fri 16 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

Electric cars are also tax exempt and not classed as “Motor Vehicles" although the same does not apply to Hybrids
Electric cars are also tax exempt and not classed as “Motor Vehicles" although the same does not apply to Hybrids KevinWard59
  • Score: 1314

11:48pm Fri 16 May 14

wallman says...

lets face facts the anti-car folks are going to fix anything in their favour I just wish 100% of them drove a car and stopped being stupid
lets face facts the anti-car folks are going to fix anything in their favour I just wish 100% of them drove a car and stopped being stupid wallman
  • Score: 1069

11:56pm Fri 16 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

KevinWard59 wrote:
Cheeky face wrote:
Is the council camera-car DEFINITELY allowed to catch motorists not obeying 20 mph limits.? The police are not prepared to do anything!

Speed activated message sign illuminators could help; and they could be turned off near schools out of schooling periods.

Devolving powers may be the answer provided it is legal/lawful!

New cars from next year will all have black box/trackers. What enforcement will come in then; and who will compete for the revenue?

Transgressing over the 20 limit at 2am in Bishopthorpe Rd is more excusable than doing over 20 in Low Ousegate!

On rural roads there can be mandatory and recommended limits!
And don't forget the "Rural Roads" have the highest statistics because there are so many speed limits for the same road:-

Tractors around 25mph acheivable.
Vans over 3500kg and Lorries 40mph
Cars with Trailers mph
Busses and Coaches 50mph
Cars and Motorcycles 60mph

The danger as confirmed by accident statistics is mainly when trying to overtake the slower moving vehicles
https://www.gov.uk/s
peed-limits
[quote][p][bold]KevinWard59[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: Is the council camera-car DEFINITELY allowed to catch motorists not obeying 20 mph limits.? The police are not prepared to do anything! Speed activated message sign illuminators could help; and they could be turned off near schools out of schooling periods. Devolving powers may be the answer provided it is legal/lawful! New cars from next year will all have black box/trackers. What enforcement will come in then; and who will compete for the revenue? Transgressing over the 20 limit at 2am in Bishopthorpe Rd is more excusable than doing over 20 in Low Ousegate! On rural roads there can be mandatory and recommended limits![/p][/quote]And don't forget the "Rural Roads" have the highest statistics because there are so many speed limits for the same road:- Tractors around 25mph acheivable. Vans over 3500kg and Lorries 40mph Cars with Trailers mph Busses and Coaches 50mph Cars and Motorcycles 60mph The danger as confirmed by accident statistics is mainly when trying to overtake the slower moving vehicles[/p][/quote]https://www.gov.uk/s peed-limits KevinWard59
  • Score: 2460

12:09am Sat 17 May 14

deckhanddave says...

Don't these idiots ever listen????? The blanket 20mph is a load of B*ll*c**. I spend half my time watching for speed limit changes and the other half dodging the numb nuts and pot heads driving at 40 and 50mph in 30mph zones and now 20mph zones. All whilst dodging the speed humps, ramps, mini roundabouts, chicanes, potholes, cyclists and pedestrians! The idiots that are the problem don't give a fiddlers summat for the 20mph limit.
Don't these idiots ever listen????? The blanket 20mph is a load of B*ll*c**. I spend half my time watching for speed limit changes and the other half dodging the numb nuts and pot heads driving at 40 and 50mph in 30mph zones and now 20mph zones. All whilst dodging the speed humps, ramps, mini roundabouts, chicanes, potholes, cyclists and pedestrians! The idiots that are the problem don't give a fiddlers summat for the 20mph limit. deckhanddave
  • Score: 1008

12:37am Sat 17 May 14

Badgers Drift says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Interesting that most people are discussing the merits (or not) of a 20mph speed limit. The main thrust of this article is ONCE AGAIN Anna Semlyen ignoring the views of the electorate to further her own personal agenda and lifelong obsessive pet project. We get a lot of calls for resignation of councillors around here, but not enough for Coun Semlyen. I don't know how she has the brass neck, I really don't. I feel sorry for the people who actually voted for her thinking she might represent them :-(
Rumour has it that Coun Semlyen is standing down next year....

Mission accomplished!
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: Interesting that most people are discussing the merits (or not) of a 20mph speed limit. The main thrust of this article is ONCE AGAIN Anna Semlyen ignoring the views of the electorate to further her own personal agenda and lifelong obsessive pet project. We get a lot of calls for resignation of councillors around here, but not enough for Coun Semlyen. I don't know how she has the brass neck, I really don't. I feel sorry for the people who actually voted for her thinking she might represent them :-([/p][/quote]Rumour has it that Coun Semlyen is standing down next year.... Mission accomplished! Badgers Drift
  • Score: 1272

12:40am Sat 17 May 14

Badgers Drift says...

Ichabod76 wrote:
petethefeet wrote: Perhaps Anna, Paul and myself should start a campaign to sign up to a pledge never to drive above 20mph in built-up areas? It wouldn't need that many followers to effectively enforce a 20mph speed limit regardless of the legal limit. I can hear the gnashing of teeth now........
I think you'll get as many positive responses as the 20's plenty consultation, what was it 8 ? so 8 of you driving around at 20, that'll make a difference won't it !
7 out of 13,000
[quote][p][bold]Ichabod76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]petethefeet[/bold] wrote: Perhaps Anna, Paul and myself should start a campaign to sign up to a pledge never to drive above 20mph in built-up areas? It wouldn't need that many followers to effectively enforce a 20mph speed limit regardless of the legal limit. I can hear the gnashing of teeth now........[/p][/quote]I think you'll get as many positive responses as the 20's plenty consultation, what was it 8 ? so 8 of you driving around at 20, that'll make a difference won't it ![/p][/quote]7 out of 13,000 Badgers Drift
  • Score: 1453

4:33am Sat 17 May 14

molemolemole says...

I do 30 mph on my push bike throught the 20 zone!! Take that society!
I do 30 mph on my push bike throught the 20 zone!! Take that society! molemolemole
  • Score: 1012

6:10am Sat 17 May 14

petethefeet says...

KevinWard59 wrote:
petethefeet wrote:
Cheeky face wrote:
Wallman.
Noted I assume it is congestion that you are experiencing! If not you are advised to buy a another car.


On the Toure De France day in York can competitors beat 20mph? If so, what speeding offence applies to them and the video camera team?
Technically, speed limits only apply to mechanically-propell


ed vehicles (although it has been known for the police to issue fixed-penalty notices to racing cyclists). However, they can fall foul of the victorian-era law of "pedalling furiously". But such laws can't stand nowadays unless some judge has defined in case law just what constitutes, and is measurable as 'pedalling furiously'.
Pete the feet you are wrong and probably confusing it with insurance.

Speed limit applies to ALL ROAD USERS as does drink driving except on a push bike it's drunk in charge and still remains at £50 but in my view should be increased and licence endorsable in the same way as driving without a licence.
The police/CPS/magistrat
es get a lot wrong - unfortunately, it costs money to take it to a higher court. Like been drunk in charge of a bicycle, it's back to the Victorian-era laws and with speed it's the offence of "pedalling furiously".
[quote][p][bold]KevinWard59[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]petethefeet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: Wallman. Noted I assume it is congestion that you are experiencing! If not you are advised to buy a another car. On the Toure De France day in York can competitors beat 20mph? If so, what speeding offence applies to them and the video camera team?[/p][/quote]Technically, speed limits only apply to mechanically-propell ed vehicles (although it has been known for the police to issue fixed-penalty notices to racing cyclists). However, they can fall foul of the victorian-era law of "pedalling furiously". But such laws can't stand nowadays unless some judge has defined in case law just what constitutes, and is measurable as 'pedalling furiously'.[/p][/quote]Pete the feet you are wrong and probably confusing it with insurance. Speed limit applies to ALL ROAD USERS as does drink driving except on a push bike it's drunk in charge and still remains at £50 but in my view should be increased and licence endorsable in the same way as driving without a licence.[/p][/quote]The police/CPS/magistrat es get a lot wrong - unfortunately, it costs money to take it to a higher court. Like been drunk in charge of a bicycle, it's back to the Victorian-era laws and with speed it's the offence of "pedalling furiously". petethefeet
  • Score: 1298

6:10am Sat 17 May 14

petethefeet says...

KevinWard59 wrote:
petethefeet wrote:
Cheeky face wrote:
Wallman.
Noted I assume it is congestion that you are experiencing! If not you are advised to buy a another car.


On the Toure De France day in York can competitors beat 20mph? If so, what speeding offence applies to them and the video camera team?
Technically, speed limits only apply to mechanically-propell


ed vehicles (although it has been known for the police to issue fixed-penalty notices to racing cyclists). However, they can fall foul of the victorian-era law of "pedalling furiously". But such laws can't stand nowadays unless some judge has defined in case law just what constitutes, and is measurable as 'pedalling furiously'.
Pete the feet you are wrong and probably confusing it with insurance.

Speed limit applies to ALL ROAD USERS as does drink driving except on a push bike it's drunk in charge and still remains at £50 but in my view should be increased and licence endorsable in the same way as driving without a licence.
The police/CPS/magistrat
es get a lot wrong - unfortunately, it costs money to take it to a higher court. Like been drunk in charge of a bicycle, it's back to the Victorian-era laws and with speed it's the offence of "pedalling furiously".
[quote][p][bold]KevinWard59[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]petethefeet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: Wallman. Noted I assume it is congestion that you are experiencing! If not you are advised to buy a another car. On the Toure De France day in York can competitors beat 20mph? If so, what speeding offence applies to them and the video camera team?[/p][/quote]Technically, speed limits only apply to mechanically-propell ed vehicles (although it has been known for the police to issue fixed-penalty notices to racing cyclists). However, they can fall foul of the victorian-era law of "pedalling furiously". But such laws can't stand nowadays unless some judge has defined in case law just what constitutes, and is measurable as 'pedalling furiously'.[/p][/quote]Pete the feet you are wrong and probably confusing it with insurance. Speed limit applies to ALL ROAD USERS as does drink driving except on a push bike it's drunk in charge and still remains at £50 but in my view should be increased and licence endorsable in the same way as driving without a licence.[/p][/quote]The police/CPS/magistrat es get a lot wrong - unfortunately, it costs money to take it to a higher court. Like been drunk in charge of a bicycle, it's back to the Victorian-era laws and with speed it's the offence of "pedalling furiously". petethefeet
  • Score: 2994

6:21am Sat 17 May 14

petethefeet says...

wallman wrote:
lets face facts the anti-car folks are going to fix anything in their favour I just wish 100% of them drove a car and stopped being stupid
Wallman. You're confusing facts with (false) assumptions. Personally, I own a car and a sports motor-bike (and 2 pushbikes). The purpose of these blogs is to debate & that's what we are doing. In the end, the things that we discuss are not life-threatening or likely to result in famine, pestilence or war so why not 'chill' a bit more?
[quote][p][bold]wallman[/bold] wrote: lets face facts the anti-car folks are going to fix anything in their favour I just wish 100% of them drove a car and stopped being stupid[/p][/quote]Wallman. You're confusing facts with (false) assumptions. Personally, I own a car and a sports motor-bike (and 2 pushbikes). The purpose of these blogs is to debate & that's what we are doing. In the end, the things that we discuss are not life-threatening or likely to result in famine, pestilence or war so why not 'chill' a bit more? petethefeet
  • Score: 2320

9:43am Sat 17 May 14

courier46 says...

petethefeet wrote:
wallman wrote:
lets face facts the anti-car folks are going to fix anything in their favour I just wish 100% of them drove a car and stopped being stupid
Wallman. You're confusing facts with (false) assumptions. Personally, I own a car and a sports motor-bike (and 2 pushbikes). The purpose of these blogs is to debate & that's what we are doing. In the end, the things that we discuss are not life-threatening or likely to result in famine, pestilence or war so why not 'chill' a bit more?
To be accurate a car or indeed a bike are life threatening in the wrong hands.
[quote][p][bold]petethefeet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wallman[/bold] wrote: lets face facts the anti-car folks are going to fix anything in their favour I just wish 100% of them drove a car and stopped being stupid[/p][/quote]Wallman. You're confusing facts with (false) assumptions. Personally, I own a car and a sports motor-bike (and 2 pushbikes). The purpose of these blogs is to debate & that's what we are doing. In the end, the things that we discuss are not life-threatening or likely to result in famine, pestilence or war so why not 'chill' a bit more?[/p][/quote]To be accurate a car or indeed a bike are life threatening in the wrong hands. courier46
  • Score: 997

10:56am Sat 17 May 14

wallman says...

petethefeet some people need a car for health reasons shutting roads, 20mph speeds restrictions and idiots like you who say cars should give way to you when you are running don't help in debates
petethefeet some people need a car for health reasons shutting roads, 20mph speeds restrictions and idiots like you who say cars should give way to you when you are running don't help in debates wallman
  • Score: 2344

12:09pm Sat 17 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Anna Semlyen:
Claimed the IAM had been 'asking the wrong questions of an unrepresentative sample'.

And Anna would be the right person to ask the right questions from a (Her) representative sample.

If you want something to be pointless, implement it on the basis of false facts.
I think we should've asked the under three year old I tweeted about the other week when she said to her mother "mam there's no green man" pointing to the opposite side of the road. Her mother showed her it located on the post at her died and just above her head. The little girl then said "but that's silly, mummy".

Speaks in volumes about comparisons between who to and who not to ask any questions.
[quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: Anna Semlyen: Claimed the IAM had been 'asking the wrong questions of an unrepresentative sample'. And Anna would be the right person to ask the right questions from a (Her) representative sample. If you want something to be pointless, implement it on the basis of false facts.[/p][/quote]I think we should've asked the under three year old I tweeted about the other week when she said to her mother "mam there's no green man" pointing to the opposite side of the road. Her mother showed her it located on the post at her died and just above her head. The little girl then said "but that's silly, mummy". Speaks in volumes about comparisons between who to and who not to ask any questions. KevinWard59
  • Score: 1043

12:11pm Sat 17 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

samthedog wrote:
Even at 20 your still going to cause some damage if a child runs out in front of you, isn't it better to educate the child not to do that!
Think I vaguely recall an elderly person being killed (died a couple of days later) after being struck by a push bike.
[quote][p][bold]samthedog[/bold] wrote: Even at 20 your still going to cause some damage if a child runs out in front of you, isn't it better to educate the child not to do that![/p][/quote]Think I vaguely recall an elderly person being killed (died a couple of days later) after being struck by a push bike. KevinWard59
  • Score: 3004

12:12pm Sat 17 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Anna Semlyen:
Claimed the IAM had been 'asking the wrong questions of an unrepresentative sample'.

And Anna would be the right person to ask the right questions from a (Her) representative sample.

If you want something to be pointless, implement it on the basis of false facts.
Nothing new there then!
[quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: Anna Semlyen: Claimed the IAM had been 'asking the wrong questions of an unrepresentative sample'. And Anna would be the right person to ask the right questions from a (Her) representative sample. If you want something to be pointless, implement it on the basis of false facts.[/p][/quote]Nothing new there then! KevinWard59
  • Score: 3019

12:14pm Sat 17 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

samthedog wrote:
Even at 20 your still going to cause some damage if a child runs out in front of you, isn't it better to educate the child not to do that!
Especially near schools when supposedly under parental control and holding mummy's hand.
[quote][p][bold]samthedog[/bold] wrote: Even at 20 your still going to cause some damage if a child runs out in front of you, isn't it better to educate the child not to do that![/p][/quote]Especially near schools when supposedly under parental control and holding mummy's hand. KevinWard59
  • Score: 2757

12:30pm Sat 17 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

GrumpyLocal wrote:
YorkCityLuke wrote:
GrumpyLocal wrote:
hirsty wrote:
Predictable petty responses, every time I read Press comments it reminds me 'never to read the bottom half of the internet' ...

Many drivers think they have a God given right to own the road, and everyone else had better stay the Hell out of their way, or suffer the consequences. In the meantime, everyone else has to put up with the noise, pollution & danger whilst going about their daily business.

20mph is absolutely fine for anyone in built-up areas - around pedestrians, cycles, kids, dogs, people stepping off buses and yes, drunks. For too long the car has a had a complete free run in the planning of our cities, soon all but the most essential journeys will be priced off the road & we'll look back on the last 60-years as a period of temporary madness.
You are aware the the roads are actually built for the Drivers of vehicles. Why would it not be obvious for drivers to think they have a "God given right to own the road", maybe not god given but in every other definition they do. Foot paths are for pedestrians & if a driver needs to cross the footpath to get into their drive, they must give way to the pedestrian because that is their domain. If a Pedestrian needs to cross a road then they must give way to the driver because they are using someone else's domain. The obvious exceptions are Zebra crossings & light controlled crossings that bestow the domain in favour of the pedestrian for limited periods of time to allow safe passage.
You comment about the last 60 years is ridiculous, for the entire history of civilised mankind, transport networks have been the backbone of development, commerce and progression to where we are today. The method of transportation has evolved allowing us to travel greater distances at higher speeds but the benefits have been huge. To imply that we have made a mistake in heavens forbid building roads to allow people to get to work or take the kids to friends houses is bizarre.
Although I agree with you about the utility of cars, I can't help but take exception to your comment about the road network being the 'domain' of cars. As a responsible cyclist, I'd like to think that if I travel in a safe manner on roads I won't come to any harm, because I have as much right to be there as motorists (who are also, for the most part, responsible). But there is the occasional idiot, whether riding a bike or in a car, who thinks he 'owns' the road and acts accordingly. Surely it's better to just accept that roads are there for the convenience of ALL road users, and that larger motorised vehicles must take extra responsibility for their driving due to threat they pose?
Think you'll notice if you read again that I said "built for the Drivers of vehicles" not "built for the Drivers of cars". There are many types of vehicles that use the road network which is why I kept the statement broad.
As for larger vehicles taking extra responsibility I disagree totally.
The driver of a large vehicle can be totally observant and adhere to all the rules yet still come into contact with a smaller vehicle due to errors by the smaller vehicle's driver. If is not fair for the large vehicle to assume any responsibility at all just because they are large.
My view is that larger vehicles should be given far more respect by other drivers because they can inflict greater damage than anything else on the road. As a cyclist and car driver I am always far more wary about articulated trucks than I would be a Chevrolet Matiz. I adopt a defensive driving approach on the bike & in the car and assume that if there is the opportunity for another driver to stupid, there is the chance they will be.
Smaller vehicles, pedestrians & bikes are able to remove themselves from a dangerous position far more easily than a bus or a truck & that might be why they so often put themselves in a position of risk.
There was a time when a car descending a hill had to give priority to a large vehicle (bus, coach or lorry) coming up the hill to prevent stalling/struggling/
losing momentum and coming to a halt....but that was before all the "Selfish" "Self Serving" attitudes came in.
[quote][p][bold]GrumpyLocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YorkCityLuke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GrumpyLocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hirsty[/bold] wrote: Predictable petty responses, every time I read Press comments it reminds me 'never to read the bottom half of the internet' ... Many drivers think they have a God given right to own the road, and everyone else had better stay the Hell out of their way, or suffer the consequences. In the meantime, everyone else has to put up with the noise, pollution & danger whilst going about their daily business. 20mph is absolutely fine for anyone in built-up areas - around pedestrians, cycles, kids, dogs, people stepping off buses and yes, drunks. For too long the car has a had a complete free run in the planning of our cities, soon all but the most essential journeys will be priced off the road & we'll look back on the last 60-years as a period of temporary madness.[/p][/quote]You are aware the the roads are actually built for the Drivers of vehicles. Why would it not be obvious for drivers to think they have a "God given right to own the road", maybe not god given but in every other definition they do. Foot paths are for pedestrians & if a driver needs to cross the footpath to get into their drive, they must give way to the pedestrian because that is their domain. If a Pedestrian needs to cross a road then they must give way to the driver because they are using someone else's domain. The obvious exceptions are Zebra crossings & light controlled crossings that bestow the domain in favour of the pedestrian for limited periods of time to allow safe passage. You comment about the last 60 years is ridiculous, for the entire history of civilised mankind, transport networks have been the backbone of development, commerce and progression to where we are today. The method of transportation has evolved allowing us to travel greater distances at higher speeds but the benefits have been huge. To imply that we have made a mistake in heavens forbid building roads to allow people to get to work or take the kids to friends houses is bizarre.[/p][/quote]Although I agree with you about the utility of cars, I can't help but take exception to your comment about the road network being the 'domain' of cars. As a responsible cyclist, I'd like to think that if I travel in a safe manner on roads I won't come to any harm, because I have as much right to be there as motorists (who are also, for the most part, responsible). But there is the occasional idiot, whether riding a bike or in a car, who thinks he 'owns' the road and acts accordingly. Surely it's better to just accept that roads are there for the convenience of ALL road users, and that larger motorised vehicles must take extra responsibility for their driving due to threat they pose?[/p][/quote]Think you'll notice if you read again that I said "built for the Drivers of vehicles" not "built for the Drivers of cars". There are many types of vehicles that use the road network which is why I kept the statement broad. As for larger vehicles taking extra responsibility I disagree totally. The driver of a large vehicle can be totally observant and adhere to all the rules yet still come into contact with a smaller vehicle due to errors by the smaller vehicle's driver. If is not fair for the large vehicle to assume any responsibility at all just because they are large. My view is that larger vehicles should be given far more respect by other drivers because they can inflict greater damage than anything else on the road. As a cyclist and car driver I am always far more wary about articulated trucks than I would be a Chevrolet Matiz. I adopt a defensive driving approach on the bike & in the car and assume that if there is the opportunity for another driver to stupid, there is the chance they will be. Smaller vehicles, pedestrians & bikes are able to remove themselves from a dangerous position far more easily than a bus or a truck & that might be why they so often put themselves in a position of risk.[/p][/quote]There was a time when a car descending a hill had to give priority to a large vehicle (bus, coach or lorry) coming up the hill to prevent stalling/struggling/ losing momentum and coming to a halt....but that was before all the "Selfish" "Self Serving" attitudes came in. KevinWard59
  • Score: 1260

12:32pm Sat 17 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

petethefeet wrote:
Perhaps Anna, Paul and myself should start a campaign to sign up to a pledge never to drive above 20mph in built-up areas? It wouldn't need that many followers to effectively enforce a 20mph speed limit regardless of the legal limit. I can hear the gnashing of teeth now........
There have been a few pledges from the York Council Road Safety Crew but they never responded to demands to include cyclists in a single pledge of any kind.
[quote][p][bold]petethefeet[/bold] wrote: Perhaps Anna, Paul and myself should start a campaign to sign up to a pledge never to drive above 20mph in built-up areas? It wouldn't need that many followers to effectively enforce a 20mph speed limit regardless of the legal limit. I can hear the gnashing of teeth now........[/p][/quote]There have been a few pledges from the York Council Road Safety Crew but they never responded to demands to include cyclists in a single pledge of any kind. KevinWard59
  • Score: 2900

6:56pm Sat 17 May 14

dementia says...

The twenty everwhere lobby if successful will make the 20 outside schools less effective as most drivers as now will ignore the 20 even where it is relevant ish. In Scotland and the USA 20 outside schools only applies when children are present with no road humps. Too sensible for England,
I presume the 20 plenty campaigner declared an interest and did not speak when this was debated in Council?
The twenty everwhere lobby if successful will make the 20 outside schools less effective as most drivers as now will ignore the 20 even where it is relevant ish. In Scotland and the USA 20 outside schools only applies when children are present with no road humps. Too sensible for England, I presume the 20 plenty campaigner declared an interest and did not speak when this was debated in Council? dementia
  • Score: 1086

7:04pm Sat 17 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

dementia wrote:
The twenty everwhere lobby if successful will make the 20 outside schools less effective as most drivers as now will ignore the 20 even where it is relevant ish. In Scotland and the USA 20 outside schools only applies when children are present with no road humps. Too sensible for England,
I presume the 20 plenty campaigner declared an interest and did not speak when this was debated in Council?
TBH Scots do generally work and legislate more logically and rationally in most areas and not only where Road Safety is Concerned.
[quote][p][bold]dementia[/bold] wrote: The twenty everwhere lobby if successful will make the 20 outside schools less effective as most drivers as now will ignore the 20 even where it is relevant ish. In Scotland and the USA 20 outside schools only applies when children are present with no road humps. Too sensible for England, I presume the 20 plenty campaigner declared an interest and did not speak when this was debated in Council?[/p][/quote]TBH Scots do generally work and legislate more logically and rationally in most areas and not only where Road Safety is Concerned. KevinWard59
  • Score: 1067

7:36pm Sat 17 May 14

notpedallingpaul says...

Caecilius wrote:
So more than 75% of motorists agree that a 20 mph limit (in residential areas, don't forget) improves safety for pedestrians but only about 30% are willing to accept it. From which it follows that 45% of motorists think that it's more important for them to get to their - probably local - destination a few minutes sooner than to concern themselves about other people's safety. Not exactly a big surprise, given the track record of the car lobby in York. Petethefeet is spot on - give them the right of veto, and nobody else's interests will ever get a look in.
What is this 'car lobby' in York, how do I join and where and how often does it meet?
I live in a street off Fishergate that has a 20mph limit and also road humps, do drivers adhere to 20mph, no they don't, some even ground the front spoiler as they go over the road humps.
My daughter lives in Southbank, there is a 20mph limit in her street, but its so narrow and has residents cars parked both sides that make it impossible to even go beyond a snails pace.
Finally I have yet to see anyone adhering to the 20mph limit on Bishopthorpe Road, buses included, and the money that is spent on schemes like this that are little more than a personal agenda of some councillors is beyond belief.
[quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: So more than 75% of motorists agree that a 20 mph limit (in residential areas, don't forget) improves safety for pedestrians but only about 30% are willing to accept it. From which it follows that 45% of motorists think that it's more important for them to get to their - probably local - destination a few minutes sooner than to concern themselves about other people's safety. Not exactly a big surprise, given the track record of the car lobby in York. Petethefeet is spot on - give them the right of veto, and nobody else's interests will ever get a look in.[/p][/quote]What is this 'car lobby' in York, how do I join and where and how often does it meet? I live in a street off Fishergate that has a 20mph limit and also road humps, do drivers adhere to 20mph, no they don't, some even ground the front spoiler as they go over the road humps. My daughter lives in Southbank, there is a 20mph limit in her street, but its so narrow and has residents cars parked both sides that make it impossible to even go beyond a snails pace. Finally I have yet to see anyone adhering to the 20mph limit on Bishopthorpe Road, buses included, and the money that is spent on schemes like this that are little more than a personal agenda of some councillors is beyond belief. notpedallingpaul
  • Score: 1125

7:52pm Sat 17 May 14

notpedallingpaul says...

piaggio1 wrote:
nearlyman wrote:
Semlyan is well acquainted with hypocrisy and double standards being the Green Socialist Capitalist that she clearly is............
Er since when was she a socialist????
She has more buy to lets than 20mph signs down hamilton drive....
And her very expensive yoga classes!
[quote][p][bold]piaggio1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nearlyman[/bold] wrote: Semlyan is well acquainted with hypocrisy and double standards being the Green Socialist Capitalist that she clearly is............[/p][/quote]Er since when was she a socialist???? She has more buy to lets than 20mph signs down hamilton drive....[/p][/quote]And her very expensive yoga classes! notpedallingpaul
  • Score: 1045

8:57pm Sat 17 May 14

browbeaten says...

Given york is one big traffic jam and to be avoided like the pox, i would like to congratulate the authorities but i fail to see how they can get the average speed up to 20mph in the first place. We wont even discuss the upteen thousand houses to be built that will probabably get the city down to 10 mph !
At least all this ,keeps some jobsworths off the dole !
Top tip move out of york before it impacts on its self .
Given york is one big traffic jam and to be avoided like the pox, i would like to congratulate the authorities but i fail to see how they can get the average speed up to 20mph in the first place. We wont even discuss the upteen thousand houses to be built that will probabably get the city down to 10 mph ! At least all this ,keeps some jobsworths off the dole ! Top tip move out of york before it impacts on its self . browbeaten
  • Score: 1043

2:43am Sun 18 May 14

Magicman! says...

Semlyn continus her own personal crusade against whoever it was that knocked her off her bike all those years ago - GET OVER IT! I've been knocked off my bike a couple of times, I do go around waging war against motorised vehicles.

"The main beneficiaries of slower speeds - children, pedestrians, cyclists, disabled, elderly and non car owners - were not asked their opinions by the IAM driver survey," she said.

OK, I am a cyclist, here's my view:
20mph speed limits should be used in specific areas only, such as outside a school or playing field exit, and on busier roads possibly enforced by a set of chicanes (not speed humps, as those generate addition noise and vibrations to houses facing onto the road). On longer stretches of road, there must be exceptional circumstances to merit a longer 20mph limit.
To put a blanket 20mph speed restriction everywhere simply reduces its effectiveness for triggering a driver to think "the speed limit drops here, there may be children around", because if the lower speed limit is everywhere then there's no trigger.
Semlyn continus her own personal crusade against whoever it was that knocked her off her bike all those years ago - GET OVER IT! I've been knocked off my bike a couple of times, I do go around waging war against motorised vehicles. [quote]"The main beneficiaries of slower speeds - children, pedestrians, cyclists, disabled, elderly and non car owners - were not asked their opinions by the IAM driver survey," she said. [/quote] OK, I am a cyclist, here's my view: 20mph speed limits should be used in specific areas only, such as outside a school or playing field exit, and on busier roads possibly enforced by a set of chicanes (not speed humps, as those generate addition noise and vibrations to houses facing onto the road). On longer stretches of road, there must be exceptional circumstances to merit a longer 20mph limit. To put a blanket 20mph speed restriction everywhere simply reduces its effectiveness for triggering a driver to think "the speed limit drops here, there may be children around", because if the lower speed limit is everywhere then there's no trigger. Magicman!
  • Score: 1110

2:52am Sun 18 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

Magicman! wrote:
Semlyn continus her own personal crusade against whoever it was that knocked her off her bike all those years ago - GET OVER IT! I've been knocked off my bike a couple of times, I do go around waging war against motorised vehicles.

"The main beneficiaries of slower speeds - children, pedestrians, cyclists, disabled, elderly and non car owners - were not asked their opinions by the IAM driver survey," she said.

OK, I am a cyclist, here's my view:
20mph speed limits should be used in specific areas only, such as outside a school or playing field exit, and on busier roads possibly enforced by a set of chicanes (not speed humps, as those generate addition noise and vibrations to houses facing onto the road). On longer stretches of road, there must be exceptional circumstances to merit a longer 20mph limit.
To put a blanket 20mph speed restriction everywhere simply reduces its effectiveness for triggering a driver to think "the speed limit drops here, there may be children around", because if the lower speed limit is everywhere then there's no trigger.
Take a look in my Dropbox files where you will find that you are 99% correct and it is not merely common sense - there are STRICT RULES for the implementation of a 20 mph ZONE and the sign design and specification is different to the "nonsense" signage used by CYC.

The local traffic order side of the issue seems to be correctly executed - but if it's not backed up by the correct signage ALL penalty notices WILL be successfully quashed..
[quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: Semlyn continus her own personal crusade against whoever it was that knocked her off her bike all those years ago - GET OVER IT! I've been knocked off my bike a couple of times, I do go around waging war against motorised vehicles. [quote]"The main beneficiaries of slower speeds - children, pedestrians, cyclists, disabled, elderly and non car owners - were not asked their opinions by the IAM driver survey," she said. [/quote] OK, I am a cyclist, here's my view: 20mph speed limits should be used in specific areas only, such as outside a school or playing field exit, and on busier roads possibly enforced by a set of chicanes (not speed humps, as those generate addition noise and vibrations to houses facing onto the road). On longer stretches of road, there must be exceptional circumstances to merit a longer 20mph limit. To put a blanket 20mph speed restriction everywhere simply reduces its effectiveness for triggering a driver to think "the speed limit drops here, there may be children around", because if the lower speed limit is everywhere then there's no trigger.[/p][/quote]Take a look in my Dropbox files where you will find that you are 99% correct and it is not merely common sense - there are STRICT RULES for the implementation of a 20 mph ZONE and the sign design and specification is different to the "nonsense" [regarding regulation] signage used by CYC. The local traffic order side of the issue seems to be correctly executed - but if it's not backed up by the correct signage ALL penalty notices WILL be successfully quashed.. KevinWard59
  • Score: 1009

3:00am Sun 18 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

The devil is in the detail and these obsessed people read the overview and get carried away on their whims and expectations.

They would not expect to be able to enforce a cardboard cut out circle with 20 scrawled in it with blue biro - but that isn't too great an exaggeration. There's a right way and a wrong way and CYC appear to have gotten complacent and being doing it the wrong way for over 20 years as the first FOI reply proves.
The devil is in the detail and these obsessed people read the overview and get carried away on their whims and expectations. They would not expect to be able to enforce a cardboard cut out circle with 20 scrawled in it with blue biro - but that isn't too great an exaggeration. There's a right way and a wrong way and CYC appear to have gotten complacent and being doing it the wrong way for over 20 years as the first FOI reply proves. KevinWard59
  • Score: 1018

3:05am Sun 18 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

notpedallingpaul wrote:
piaggio1 wrote:
nearlyman wrote:
Semlyan is well acquainted with hypocrisy and double standards being the Green Socialist Capitalist that she clearly is............
Er since when was she a socialist????
She has more buy to lets than 20mph signs down hamilton drive....
And her very expensive yoga classes!
Every time I see the name it reminds me of the pudding at school dinners 48 years ago.- Semolina.
[quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]piaggio1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nearlyman[/bold] wrote: Semlyan is well acquainted with hypocrisy and double standards being the Green Socialist Capitalist that she clearly is............[/p][/quote]Er since when was she a socialist???? She has more buy to lets than 20mph signs down hamilton drive....[/p][/quote]And her very expensive yoga classes![/p][/quote]Every time I see the name it reminds me of the pudding at school dinners 48 years ago.- Semolina. KevinWard59
  • Score: 1128

3:13am Sun 18 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

And there should be only TWO zig-zag lines on approach to a crossing in a 20 mph zone - to indicate to pedestrians the braking distance from 20mph of 20 feet and so should not attempt to cross if a car is within them: it won't be able to stop.
And there should be only TWO zig-zag lines on approach to a crossing in a 20 mph zone - to indicate to pedestrians the braking distance from 20mph of 20 feet and so should not attempt to cross if a car is within them: it won't be able to stop. KevinWard59
  • Score: 4949

10:13am Sun 18 May 14

nearlyman says...

KevinWard59 wrote:
notpedallingpaul wrote:
piaggio1 wrote:
nearlyman wrote:
Semlyan is well acquainted with hypocrisy and double standards being the Green Socialist Capitalist that she clearly is............
Er since when was she a socialist????
She has more buy to lets than 20mph signs down hamilton drive....
And her very expensive yoga classes!
Every time I see the name it reminds me of the pudding at school dinners 48 years ago.- Semolina.
There no Jam tho for anyone but semenyl.............
[quote][p][bold]KevinWard59[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]piaggio1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nearlyman[/bold] wrote: Semlyan is well acquainted with hypocrisy and double standards being the Green Socialist Capitalist that she clearly is............[/p][/quote]Er since when was she a socialist???? She has more buy to lets than 20mph signs down hamilton drive....[/p][/quote]And her very expensive yoga classes![/p][/quote]Every time I see the name it reminds me of the pudding at school dinners 48 years ago.- Semolina.[/p][/quote]There no Jam tho for anyone but semenyl............. nearlyman
  • Score: -37

10:13am Sun 18 May 14

nearlyman says...

KevinWard59 wrote:
notpedallingpaul wrote:
piaggio1 wrote:
nearlyman wrote:
Semlyan is well acquainted with hypocrisy and double standards being the Green Socialist Capitalist that she clearly is............
Er since when was she a socialist????
She has more buy to lets than 20mph signs down hamilton drive....
And her very expensive yoga classes!
Every time I see the name it reminds me of the pudding at school dinners 48 years ago.- Semolina.
There no Jam tho for anyone but semenyl.............
[quote][p][bold]KevinWard59[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]piaggio1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nearlyman[/bold] wrote: Semlyan is well acquainted with hypocrisy and double standards being the Green Socialist Capitalist that she clearly is............[/p][/quote]Er since when was she a socialist???? She has more buy to lets than 20mph signs down hamilton drive....[/p][/quote]And her very expensive yoga classes![/p][/quote]Every time I see the name it reminds me of the pudding at school dinners 48 years ago.- Semolina.[/p][/quote]There no Jam tho for anyone but semenyl............. nearlyman
  • Score: -58

10:42am Sun 18 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

"The main beneficiaries of slower speeds - children, pedestrians, cyclists, disabled, elderly and non car owners - were not asked their opinions by the IAM driver survey," she said.


Maybe they're not Advanced enough - or indeed IAM Members - Duh!
"The main beneficiaries of slower speeds - children, pedestrians, cyclists, disabled, elderly and non car owners - were not asked their opinions by the IAM driver survey," she said. Maybe they're not Advanced enough - or indeed IAM Members - Duh! KevinWard59
  • Score: -67

10:51pm Sun 18 May 14

What-a-joke-they-are says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Cheeky face wrote:
Wallman.
Noted I assume it is congestion that you are experiencing! If not you are advised to buy a another car.


On the Toure De France day in York can competitors beat 20mph? If so, what speeding offence applies to them and the video camera team?
Closed roads for private event, speed limits don't apply.
BUT

Cyclists can easily top 20 mph, they are silent, most don't have bells and they can kill if a pedestrian steps in front of them

Can we have bike police like they are starting to do in London please

Thanks
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: Wallman. Noted I assume it is congestion that you are experiencing! If not you are advised to buy a another car. On the Toure De France day in York can competitors beat 20mph? If so, what speeding offence applies to them and the video camera team?[/p][/quote]Closed roads for private event, speed limits don't apply.[/p][/quote]BUT Cyclists can easily top 20 mph, they are silent, most don't have bells and they can kill if a pedestrian steps in front of them Can we have bike police like they are starting to do in London please Thanks What-a-joke-they-are
  • Score: -10

11:38pm Sun 18 May 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

wallman wrote:
petethefeet some people need a car for health reasons shutting roads, 20mph speeds restrictions and idiots like you who say cars should give way to you when you are running don't help in debates
Nobody needs a car for health reasons.

The only reason someone would need a car is for transport. It's a transport machine.

"Ooh I have a sniffle, I'm driving cos it clears my nose"
"My asthma's bad, driving my car works better than my blue inhaler"

versus

"I need to get to Land's End."
"I've got all these friends and their stuff that need to be over there"

Transport reasons.
[quote][p][bold]wallman[/bold] wrote: petethefeet some people need a car for health reasons shutting roads, 20mph speeds restrictions and idiots like you who say cars should give way to you when you are running don't help in debates[/p][/quote]Nobody needs a car for health reasons. The only reason someone would need a car is for transport. It's a transport machine. "Ooh I have a sniffle, I'm driving cos it clears my nose" "My asthma's bad, driving my car works better than my blue inhaler" versus "I need to get to Land's End." "I've got all these friends and their stuff that need to be over there" Transport reasons. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 36

11:42pm Sun 18 May 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

What-a-joke-they-are wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Cheeky face wrote:
Wallman.
Noted I assume it is congestion that you are experiencing! If not you are advised to buy a another car.


On the Toure De France day in York can competitors beat 20mph? If so, what speeding offence applies to them and the video camera team?
Closed roads for private event, speed limits don't apply.
BUT

Cyclists can easily top 20 mph, they are silent, most don't have bells and they can kill if a pedestrian steps in front of them

Can we have bike police like they are starting to do in London please

Thanks
Ahem.

Closed roads.
Private event*





*world class race. Not many races with speed limits. What is it about reading you don't like?
[quote][p][bold]What-a-joke-they-are[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: Wallman. Noted I assume it is congestion that you are experiencing! If not you are advised to buy a another car. On the Toure De France day in York can competitors beat 20mph? If so, what speeding offence applies to them and the video camera team?[/p][/quote]Closed roads for private event, speed limits don't apply.[/p][/quote]BUT Cyclists can easily top 20 mph, they are silent, most don't have bells and they can kill if a pedestrian steps in front of them Can we have bike police like they are starting to do in London please Thanks[/p][/quote]Ahem. Closed roads. Private event* *world class race. Not many races with speed limits. What is it about reading you don't like? Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 91

7:12am Mon 19 May 14

rat scabies says...

Anna Semlyen wants locking up in a padded cell, she is a raving lunatic with absolutely no grasp on reality!
Anna Semlyen wants locking up in a padded cell, she is a raving lunatic with absolutely no grasp on reality! rat scabies
  • Score: -66

3:51pm Mon 19 May 14

the original Homer says...

How two faced can that woman get?

She thinks she can push her one-sided view, so long as she makes it clear she is not speaking as a Councillor, but speaking in her capacity as campaign manager of the 20's Plenty for Us campaign.

However, she objects to the IAM giving the other side of the debate, and claims they are unrepresentative.

I just don't see why she is representative but they aren't. Didn't they make it clear who they were and in what capacity they were speaking? I think "Institute of Advanced Motorists" is a fairly descriptive title.

Incidentally, even if they are a motorists group, many IAM members will also be in those other groups she talked about, i.e. pedestrians, cyclists, disabled and elderly. There will also be a limited number of non car owners in there, made up of motorcyclists and commercial vehicle drivers, and members who have given up driving. There will also be parents, teachers etc. who will have been thinking of children when giving their views. The IAM also have give automatic membership qualification to
emergency vehicle drivers and they must surely have a valid view.

On balance, the IAM is probably a lot less biased than Ms Semolina. I've read some of their previous articles and they do tend to consider the whole spectrum of road users before they make comments.

The main things IAM members have in common is that they have proven that their driving is above average, that they drive responsibly, and that they drive safely. That probably makes their view more valid than many of the rest of us.

I know she wasn't speaking as a Councillor, but I still find it worrying that anyone with such a dogmatic view can become a Councillor. I'm not up on these things, but don't they swear some sort of oath that they will speak on our behalf irrespective of their personal views?

The Councillors are all entitled to their private lives, but I think some of their out of work interests may actually be conflicts of interests. When they vote at Council meetings, how much of their vote is based on what the electorate want versus the Councillors' personal interests as cyclists and 20's plenty-ists and greenists, and.........?

Oh, and can I have a bonus 1000 thumbs downs please? - I put "Councillors" and "out of work" in the same sentence.
How two faced can that woman get? She thinks she can push her one-sided view, so long as she makes it clear she is not speaking as a Councillor, but speaking in her capacity as campaign manager of the 20's Plenty for Us campaign. However, she objects to the IAM giving the other side of the debate, and claims they are unrepresentative. I just don't see why she is representative but they aren't. Didn't they make it clear who they were and in what capacity they were speaking? I think "Institute of Advanced Motorists" is a fairly descriptive title. Incidentally, even if they are a motorists group, many IAM members will also be in those other groups she talked about, i.e. pedestrians, cyclists, disabled and elderly. There will also be a limited number of non car owners in there, made up of motorcyclists and commercial vehicle drivers, and members who have given up driving. There will also be parents, teachers etc. who will have been thinking of children when giving their views. The IAM also have give automatic membership qualification to emergency vehicle drivers and they must surely have a valid view. On balance, the IAM is probably a lot less biased than Ms Semolina. I've read some of their previous articles and they do tend to consider the whole spectrum of road users before they make comments. The main things IAM members have in common is that they have proven that their driving is above average, that they drive responsibly, and that they drive safely. That probably makes their view more valid than many of the rest of us. I know she wasn't speaking as a Councillor, but I still find it worrying that anyone with such a dogmatic view can become a Councillor. I'm not up on these things, but don't they swear some sort of oath that they will speak on our behalf irrespective of their personal views? The Councillors are all entitled to their private lives, but I think some of their out of work interests may actually be conflicts of interests. When they vote at Council meetings, how much of their vote is based on what the electorate want versus the Councillors' personal interests as cyclists and 20's plenty-ists and greenists, and.........? Oh, and can I have a bonus 1000 thumbs downs please? - I put "Councillors" and "out of work" in the same sentence. the original Homer
  • Score: -70

5:58pm Mon 19 May 14

phreaky pete says...

What short memories we have.....

http://www.yorkpress
.co.uk/news/9077565.
New_councillor_facin
g_inquiry/

"I was a new councillor, didn't know the rules" !?!?! What ?? Brass neck indeed, and this was after the national expenses scandal. Stupidity and arrogance epitomised... The jokes on us though as she kept her job(s) and has done plenty worse to our city since.

I realise I'm maybe comparing like with unlike, but if I were an employee of a firm on my first months of the job and I were say giving discount on goods in exchange for cash or was taking "guvvy" jobs in private that were taking revenue or customers from the company (far lesser crimes than council corruption no ?) I'd expect to be at best sacked, or at worst convicted for theft.

How does this monster think that she can just put on one of her masks (sneaky money-grabber, anti car axe-grinder, councillor) carry out a self-serving act and then put on one of her other masks and not have to be called to account ? Unfortunately, because we've let her........

All this makes me very upset and angry. What an awful human being, makes simpson-wrong, alexbackhander and ferret look quite saintly by comparison...
What short memories we have..... http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/news/9077565. New_councillor_facin g_inquiry/ "I was a new councillor, didn't know the rules" !?!?! What ?? Brass neck indeed, and this was after the national expenses scandal. Stupidity and arrogance epitomised... The jokes on us though as she kept her job(s) and has done plenty worse to our city since. I realise I'm maybe comparing like with unlike, but if I were an employee of a firm on my first months of the job and I were say giving discount on goods in exchange for cash or was taking "guvvy" jobs in private that were taking revenue or customers from the company (far lesser crimes than council corruption no ?) I'd expect to be at best sacked, or at worst convicted for theft. How does this monster think that she can just put on one of her masks (sneaky money-grabber, anti car axe-grinder, councillor) carry out a self-serving act and then put on one of her other masks and not have to be called to account ? Unfortunately, because we've let her........ All this makes me very upset and angry. What an awful human being, makes simpson-wrong, alexbackhander and ferret look quite saintly by comparison... phreaky pete
  • Score: -89

1:17pm Tue 20 May 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

Right i've still got this burning question... how many people get run over in york due to speed and not their own retardedness?

20mph signs down areas where you can't reach 20mph...

You will mostly see me overtaking anyone who is doing 20mph in an area where there is no need for it... and can i get done??? no....

the minority speaking for the majority again... how are disabled people more at risk to people going over 20mph????? i'm assuming they (along with parents kids and the elderly) cross the road at designated points and walk on the path? if this is the case problem f@ckin solved!!! so you nut job egoist stop wasting our money on a pointless and fictitious benefit making scheme!!!
Right i've still got this burning question... how many people get run over in york due to speed and not their own retardedness? 20mph signs down areas where you can't reach 20mph... You will mostly see me overtaking anyone who is doing 20mph in an area where there is no need for it... and can i get done??? no.... the minority speaking for the majority again... how are disabled people more at risk to people going over 20mph????? i'm assuming they (along with parents kids and the elderly) cross the road at designated points and walk on the path? if this is the case problem f@ckin solved!!! so you nut job egoist stop wasting our money on a pointless and fictitious benefit making scheme!!! Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: 7

3:03pm Tue 20 May 14

the original Homer says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
Right i've still got this burning question... how many people get run over in york due to speed and not their own retardedness?

20mph signs down areas where you can't reach 20mph...

You will mostly see me overtaking anyone who is doing 20mph in an area where there is no need for it... and can i get done??? no....

the minority speaking for the majority again... how are disabled people more at risk to people going over 20mph????? i'm assuming they (along with parents kids and the elderly) cross the road at designated points and walk on the path? if this is the case problem f@ckin solved!!! so you nut job egoist stop wasting our money on a pointless and fictitious benefit making scheme!!!
Archibold the 1st wrote:

"You will mostly see me overtaking anyone who is doing 20mph in an area where there is no need for it... and can i get done??? no.."


The problem will be that many drivers will aim to obey the 20 limit. Speedometers are at their least accurate at low speed, and many can't even give a steady reading so slow. By the time the drivers have left a margin as well, their actual speed could easily be closer to 10 than 20.

That means you'll come across a lot of cars going ridiculously slow, and there just won't be enough safe places to pass them all. You'll also have to look out for cars coming towards you where one is doing 10 and another is overtaking at 15, and neither will see you as their eyes are fixated on that needle.

These are some of the reasons why 20MPH limits only make sense in carefully chosen short stretches, where drivers can (and should) obey them properly.

Most drivers dislike widespread "by default" 20MPH limits, and it's not because they want to drive fast, it's because the schemes cause more problems than they solve.

20MPH limits can make roads safer, but only IF they are used where they matter. Trying to play the road safety card to justify default 20MPH limits is in my view dishonest.
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: Right i've still got this burning question... how many people get run over in york due to speed and not their own retardedness? 20mph signs down areas where you can't reach 20mph... You will mostly see me overtaking anyone who is doing 20mph in an area where there is no need for it... and can i get done??? no.... the minority speaking for the majority again... how are disabled people more at risk to people going over 20mph????? i'm assuming they (along with parents kids and the elderly) cross the road at designated points and walk on the path? if this is the case problem f@ckin solved!!! so you nut job egoist stop wasting our money on a pointless and fictitious benefit making scheme!!![/p][/quote]Archibold the 1st wrote: "You will mostly see me overtaking anyone who is doing 20mph in an area where there is no need for it... and can i get done??? no.." The problem will be that many drivers will aim to obey the 20 limit. Speedometers are at their least accurate at low speed, and many can't even give a steady reading so slow. By the time the drivers have left a margin as well, their actual speed could easily be closer to 10 than 20. That means you'll come across a lot of cars going ridiculously slow, and there just won't be enough safe places to pass them all. You'll also have to look out for cars coming towards you where one is doing 10 and another is overtaking at 15, and neither will see you as their eyes are fixated on that needle. These are some of the reasons why 20MPH limits only make sense in carefully chosen short stretches, where drivers can (and should) obey them properly. Most drivers dislike widespread "by default" 20MPH limits, and it's not because they want to drive fast, it's because the schemes cause more problems than they solve. 20MPH limits can make roads safer, but only IF they are used where they matter. Trying to play the road safety card to justify default 20MPH limits is in my view dishonest. the original Homer
  • Score: 3

3:08pm Tue 20 May 14

the original Homer says...

I used to get Sago and Semolina mixed up at school.

Now we can put them both together:

We Sago Semolina.......... go anywhere, just go!
I used to get Sago and Semolina mixed up at school. Now we can put them both together: We Sago Semolina.......... go anywhere, just go! the original Homer
  • Score: 6

3:24pm Tue 20 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

the original Homer wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
Right i've still got this burning question... how many people get run over in york due to speed and not their own retardedness?

20mph signs down areas where you can't reach 20mph...

You will mostly see me overtaking anyone who is doing 20mph in an area where there is no need for it... and can i get done??? no....

the minority speaking for the majority again... how are disabled people more at risk to people going over 20mph????? i'm assuming they (along with parents kids and the elderly) cross the road at designated points and walk on the path? if this is the case problem f@ckin solved!!! so you nut job egoist stop wasting our money on a pointless and fictitious benefit making scheme!!!
Archibold the 1st wrote:

"You will mostly see me overtaking anyone who is doing 20mph in an area where there is no need for it... and can i get done??? no.."


The problem will be that many drivers will aim to obey the 20 limit. Speedometers are at their least accurate at low speed, and many can't even give a steady reading so slow. By the time the drivers have left a margin as well, their actual speed could easily be closer to 10 than 20.

That means you'll come across a lot of cars going ridiculously slow, and there just won't be enough safe places to pass them all. You'll also have to look out for cars coming towards you where one is doing 10 and another is overtaking at 15, and neither will see you as their eyes are fixated on that needle.

These are some of the reasons why 20MPH limits only make sense in carefully chosen short stretches, where drivers can (and should) obey them properly.

Most drivers dislike widespread "by default" 20MPH limits, and it's not because they want to drive fast, it's because the schemes cause more problems than they solve.

20MPH limits can make roads safer, but only IF they are used where they matter. Trying to play the road safety card to justify default 20MPH limits is in my view dishonest.
Nice reminder Archibald 1st, of the OBVIOUS forthcoming excuse - "Sorry I didn't see the Child:- I was DISTRACTED Checking my Speedometer".
[quote][p][bold]the original Homer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: Right i've still got this burning question... how many people get run over in york due to speed and not their own retardedness? 20mph signs down areas where you can't reach 20mph... You will mostly see me overtaking anyone who is doing 20mph in an area where there is no need for it... and can i get done??? no.... the minority speaking for the majority again... how are disabled people more at risk to people going over 20mph????? i'm assuming they (along with parents kids and the elderly) cross the road at designated points and walk on the path? if this is the case problem f@ckin solved!!! so you nut job egoist stop wasting our money on a pointless and fictitious benefit making scheme!!![/p][/quote]Archibold the 1st wrote: "You will mostly see me overtaking anyone who is doing 20mph in an area where there is no need for it... and can i get done??? no.." The problem will be that many drivers will aim to obey the 20 limit. Speedometers are at their least accurate at low speed, and many can't even give a steady reading so slow. By the time the drivers have left a margin as well, their actual speed could easily be closer to 10 than 20. That means you'll come across a lot of cars going ridiculously slow, and there just won't be enough safe places to pass them all. You'll also have to look out for cars coming towards you where one is doing 10 and another is overtaking at 15, and neither will see you as their eyes are fixated on that needle. These are some of the reasons why 20MPH limits only make sense in carefully chosen short stretches, where drivers can (and should) obey them properly. Most drivers dislike widespread "by default" 20MPH limits, and it's not because they want to drive fast, it's because the schemes cause more problems than they solve. 20MPH limits can make roads safer, but only IF they are used where they matter. Trying to play the road safety card to justify default 20MPH limits is in my view dishonest.[/p][/quote]Nice reminder Archibald 1st, of the OBVIOUS forthcoming excuse - "Sorry I didn't see the Child:- I was DISTRACTED Checking my Speedometer". KevinWard59
  • Score: 3

3:30pm Tue 20 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

Try to teach a child the visual difference between 20ft and 45ft (braking distances from 20 and 30 respectively without thinking distance because driver should already be thinking).

There's a BIG difference - so imagine the EXTRA RISK elsewhere and in later life (assuming they don't get killed meantime's).
Try to teach a child the visual difference between 20ft and 45ft (braking distances from 20 and 30 respectively without thinking distance because driver should already be thinking). There's a BIG difference - so imagine the EXTRA RISK elsewhere and in later life (assuming they don't get killed meantime's). KevinWard59
  • Score: 0

3:35pm Tue 20 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

She said 20's Plenty for Us was asking for a default 20mph limit, not a blanket limit.

"We are delighted that drivers want to protect children," she said.

"Yet 80 per cent of child casualties happen on non-school trips. Public health research on child protection says default 20mph limits are key



If 80% non school trips then JUSTIFY why implemented near Schools - suspect the problem is more Parent Mentality than Children in Danger - Statistically & Logically Speaking.
She said 20's Plenty for Us was asking for a default 20mph limit, not a blanket limit. "We are delighted that drivers want to protect children," she said. "Yet 80 per cent of child casualties happen on non-school trips. Public health research on child protection says default 20mph limits are key If 80% non school trips then JUSTIFY why implemented near Schools - suspect the problem is more Parent Mentality than Children in Danger - Statistically & Logically Speaking. KevinWard59
  • Score: 2

4:24pm Tue 20 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
Right i've still got this burning question... how many people get run over in york due to speed and not their own retardedness?

20mph signs down areas where you can't reach 20mph...

You will mostly see me overtaking anyone who is doing 20mph in an area where there is no need for it... and can i get done??? no....

the minority speaking for the majority again... how are disabled people more at risk to people going over 20mph????? i'm assuming they (along with parents kids and the elderly) cross the road at designated points and walk on the path? if this is the case problem f@ckin solved!!! so you nut job egoist stop wasting our money on a pointless and fictitious benefit making scheme!!!
How many Nectar Points per Sign?
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: Right i've still got this burning question... how many people get run over in york due to speed and not their own retardedness? 20mph signs down areas where you can't reach 20mph... You will mostly see me overtaking anyone who is doing 20mph in an area where there is no need for it... and can i get done??? no.... the minority speaking for the majority again... how are disabled people more at risk to people going over 20mph????? i'm assuming they (along with parents kids and the elderly) cross the road at designated points and walk on the path? if this is the case problem f@ckin solved!!! so you nut job egoist stop wasting our money on a pointless and fictitious benefit making scheme!!![/p][/quote]How many Nectar Points per Sign? KevinWard59
  • Score: 3

7:44pm Tue 20 May 14

jay, york says...

The simple fact is, it's yet another vote loser for labour. Whats the betting once little jimmy realises this, we may well see some backtracking and a lot of costly signs being disposed of again..

The 20 mph across the board speed limit is like the offspring of Lendal Bridge. Totally inconceived, introduced by a non-driver who has no real comprehension of the matter and actually believes that the residents of York should have no say in this whatsoever - her words..
The Highway code as well as IAM feel it is absolutely fine and legal to drive at 30 mph in built up areas. Thje 20 mph zones should only be introduced in areas where there is an increased risk - for example near schools in residental areas, busy shopping areas and in narrow residential streets - all areas where the majority of sensible drivers would not expect to exceed 20mph anyway.

The trouble with semlyen is that she has her anti car blinkers on and there is a pure conflict of interest with her work for this 20s plenty campaign - I know she says she doesnt get paid for her York work, but this makes no difference. There is no doubt whatsoever that she is promoting the company she works for. What with this her yoga and property owner interests, I am surprised she manages to find time for her council work.
The simple fact is, it's yet another vote loser for labour. Whats the betting once little jimmy realises this, we may well see some backtracking and a lot of costly signs being disposed of again.. The 20 mph across the board speed limit is like the offspring of Lendal Bridge. Totally inconceived, introduced by a non-driver who has no real comprehension of the matter and actually believes that the residents of York should have no say in this whatsoever - her words.. The Highway code as well as IAM feel it is absolutely fine and legal to drive at 30 mph in built up areas. Thje 20 mph zones should only be introduced in areas where there is an increased risk - for example near schools in residental areas, busy shopping areas and in narrow residential streets - all areas where the majority of sensible drivers would not expect to exceed 20mph anyway. The trouble with semlyen is that she has her anti car blinkers on and there is a pure conflict of interest with her work for this 20s plenty campaign - I know she says she doesnt get paid for her York work, but this makes no difference. There is no doubt whatsoever that she is promoting the company she works for. What with this her yoga and property owner interests, I am surprised she manages to find time for her council work. jay, york
  • Score: 5

7:57pm Tue 20 May 14

inthesticks says...

Never mind the obvious fact that everyone just ignores the signs and usually does between 25 and 40 anyway. - How messy does the whole scheme look? Take a drive along Boroughbridge Rd from the Ainsty and look at the flippin mess; unnecessary painted metal clutter at the end of every street. Thanks a lot Anna. Obviously you took no notice of Sir Ron from York Civic Trust;
Quote: "YORK’S streets are scandalously cluttered with unnecessary street signs, the city’s top conservation body says.
There has been progress in the historic city centre, York Civic Trust admits. But outside the city walls – for example in Fishergate – Trust chairman Sir Ron Cooke says signs are sprouting at an alarming rate.
We agree. Yes, the city needs some signs. But there are far too many: not to mention an annoying lack of consistency over their design and style.
It is high time for a clear-out. People are not stupid and we don’t constantly need to be told what to do."
Never mind the obvious fact that everyone just ignores the signs and usually does between 25 and 40 anyway. - How messy does the whole scheme look? Take a drive along Boroughbridge Rd from the Ainsty and look at the flippin mess; unnecessary painted metal clutter at the end of every street. Thanks a lot Anna. Obviously you took no notice of Sir Ron from York Civic Trust; Quote: "YORK’S streets are scandalously cluttered with unnecessary street signs, the city’s top conservation body says. There has been progress in the historic city centre, York Civic Trust admits. But outside the city walls – for example in Fishergate – Trust chairman Sir Ron Cooke says signs are sprouting at an alarming rate. We agree. Yes, the city needs some signs. But there are far too many: not to mention an annoying lack of consistency over their design and style. It is high time for a clear-out. People are not stupid and we don’t constantly need to be told what to do." inthesticks
  • Score: 4

8:02pm Tue 20 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

Problem is they don't know how or when to inform, suggest or advise where signage is concerned and if those that require authorisation were applied for they would probably be advised of any obvious anomalies.
Problem is they don't know how or when to inform, suggest or advise where signage is concerned and if those that require authorisation were applied for they would probably be advised of any obvious anomalies. KevinWard59
  • Score: 1

3:08pm Wed 21 May 14

Ichabod76 says...

How much did it cost to put 20 signs on this street ?

https://www.google.c

o.uk/maps/@53.95601,

-1.122566,3a,75y,159

.66h,77.48t/data=!3m

4!1e1!3m2!1s_y8GdOek

p04mQ3KQSREuNg!2e0
How much did it cost to put 20 signs on this street ? https://www.google.c o.uk/maps/@53.95601, -1.122566,3a,75y,159 .66h,77.48t/data=!3m 4!1e1!3m2!1s_y8GdOek p04mQ3KQSREuNg!2e0 Ichabod76
  • Score: 0

4:01pm Wed 21 May 14

the original Homer says...

Ichabod76 wrote:
How much did it cost to put 20 signs on this street ?

https://www.google.c


o.uk/maps/@53.95601,


-1.122566,3a,75y,159


.66h,77.48t/data=!3m


4!1e1!3m2!1s_y8GdOek


p04mQ3KQSREuNg!2e0
Well, we were told it wasn''t a blanket limit, but a default.

Not sure what the difference was supposed to be, but the example shows that it is being applied indiscriminately, without thought,. That's what most of us would call blanket limit.

It makes a mockery of any claim that the limits are being applied sensibly.

There is no reason why that road could not have been left with a 30 MPH limit. Not that anyone would do 30, just that changing it to 20 makes absolutely no point.

There will be "30" signs on the reverse as well
[quote][p][bold]Ichabod76[/bold] wrote: How much did it cost to put 20 signs on this street ? https://www.google.c o.uk/maps/@53.95601, -1.122566,3a,75y,159 .66h,77.48t/data=!3m 4!1e1!3m2!1s_y8GdOek p04mQ3KQSREuNg!2e0[/p][/quote]Well, we were told it wasn''t a blanket limit, but a default. Not sure what the difference was supposed to be, but the example shows that it is being applied indiscriminately, without thought,. That's what most of us would call blanket limit. It makes a mockery of any claim that the limits are being applied sensibly. There is no reason why that road could not have been left with a 30 MPH limit. Not that anyone would do 30, just that changing it to 20 makes absolutely no point. There will be "30" signs on the reverse as well the original Homer
  • Score: 2

1:58pm Thu 22 May 14

Just_My_Twopenneth says...

Given that a 'fit' cyclist can easily achieve speeds in excess of 20MPH on the flat, (& or downhill) for a good length of time.

In which case, how do you think this works? i.e. not easy to enforce against cycles.

& before you start, yes I do cycle (as well as drive) but I am simply posing the obvious question.

Thanks

Just My Two Penneth
Given that a 'fit' cyclist can easily achieve speeds in excess of 20MPH on the flat, [which York is mostly...](& or downhill) for a good length of time. In which case, how do you think this works? i.e. not easy to enforce against cycles. & before you start, yes I do cycle (as well as drive) but I am simply posing the obvious question. Thanks Just My Two Penneth Just_My_Twopenneth
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

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

I agree