‘Contradictory’ claims re (From York Press)

A couple of years ago I read a post on a blog relating to the Hull area, it consisted of a diatribe against the people speeding outside the individual's home, and then finished with the nugget that the drivers who dawdled along were even worse as the poster had to wait an age for them to pass before they could cross the road.

Although an extreme view, I too do not like crossing infront of any vehicle and I am irritated both as a driver and pedestrian with an innapropriately low speed limit such as that on the upper part of Bishopthorpe Road.

There are so many dubious facts behind the 20s plenty campaign, and they are always proffered with the certainty that they will counter a valid point raised by people who are genuinely concerened that this blanket policy will actually do more harm than good.

What is of deep concern is the blind acceptance by City of York Council, they lap up the list of so called benefits without carrying out a proper assesement of the potential negative impact of the concept.

When all is said and done Cllr Semlyen is paid to promote this scheme, and whilst this is not wrong, from the Councils point of view it is rather like having a Ford ( picked at random ) salesman advising that the car fleet needs replacing.

Many European countries with 20mph urban limits have a much more enlightened view of pedestrian and cyclist safety. We need to wake up and realise that they have got it right and our insular little Englander -or little yorkie - view is untenable.

E=MC^2 wrote:
Many European countries with 20mph urban limits have a much more enlightened view of pedestrian and cyclist safety. We need to wake up and realise that they have got it right and our insular little Englander -or little yorkie - view is untenable.

On a recent visit to Northern Spain I observed the 30 kmh ( 18.6 mph ) limits, but the context is different from the UK, for example cars are allowed to park right up to zebras crossings, double parking is common and the driving style in wider urban areas generally makes the UK look sedate.

I have driven, and walked in various UK towns and cities in the past year and all of them have embraced 20mph to some extent, but the methods vary enormously. I was impressed with two examples, Southend sea front where the pavement and road are 'merged' and the Scottish system which instead of having permanent 20 mph outside schools, links the 'English' flashing amber lights to a speed sign TWENTY WHEN LIGHTS FLASH.

Cllr Semlyen will surely be gratified that the Scottish have actually adopted the TWENTYS PLENTY slogan in what struck me as well chosen 20mph side street areas.


I can see benefits in some aspects of 20mph schemes, but whilst the proponents of blanket 20mph schemes stonewall genuine concerns, such as the lessening of the effect of a lower speed limit by its over use, and the tendency for pedestrians to compensate for lower speeds by reducing their vigilance, I will remain highly sceptical.

I object to this mainly on the grounds of cost, but, also on the basis that it appears to be opposed by the majority. As I have seen many times with the Council, they will doctor reports with impunity to get the result they desire, and this is no exception.

How on earth did this piece of nonsense get this far? The cost alone is enough to say stop!
A backed up queue of traffic at 20mph can only impede emergency vehicles and perhaps actually cost lives.
On the other hand, creeping around York's empty streets in the early hours might raise suspicion of curb crawling.
I really can't see any benefits to wasting all this money on the whim of some loony councillor.

Just noticed a letter from Anna Semlyen
on Friday 14th page. The comments on that one seem to have been pulled, not hard to guess why, a case study from a generation ago on cycling and walking levels.

I would guess her ecomomy figures are also from that era, on a 4 speed 1980's gearbox you would be in third from 16 or 17 up to near the 30mph limit whilst a modern car needs a change up in the low twenties to a more economical gear.

What this means is the old car would be less economical at say 27 than 20mph because the engine is turning faster and frictional forces are greater. In a modern car the frictional forces still increase but are more than offset by the reduced engine speed due to running in a higher gear.

It is also worth noting that many more cars now incorporate regenerative braking where the car is braked by the counter force created by generating electricity which charges the battery, instead of relying solely on an alternator driven by the engine, thus saving fuel, especially in town driving.