Barkston Ash villagers send 20mph petition to Whitehall

York Press: Villagers’ 20mph petition sent to Whitehall Villagers’ 20mph petition sent to Whitehall

A PETITION signed by more than 200 people who want 20mph speed limits introduced in their village has been submitted to the Government.

Residents in Barkston Ash, near Tadcaster, have launched a campaign calling for the current speed limit through their village to be cut from 30mph. They have been backed by Selby and Ainsty MP Nigel Adams.

He submitted the petition to the Department for Transport, while Barkston Ash county councillor Andrew Lee has also sent it to North Yorkshire County Council’s highways department.

Campaigners claim drivers are ignoring the village’s warning signs and putting children in danger.

They say 20mph limits were already in place outside schools in Tadcaster and Boston Spa and this meant Barkston Ash should get the same treatment.

The issue will be discussed at next month’s parish council meeting.

Comments (18)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:18am Tue 18 Feb 14

yorkandproud says...

Personally, I think 20 mph outside schools is acceptable., but this should also be coupled with no parking within , say, 200 metres of schools. One of the main problems near schools, is the "school run parents" parking everywhere, including double yellow lines etc, and making visibility very difficult.
Personally, I think 20 mph outside schools is acceptable., but this should also be coupled with no parking within , say, 200 metres of schools. One of the main problems near schools, is the "school run parents" parking everywhere, including double yellow lines etc, and making visibility very difficult. yorkandproud

10:17am Tue 18 Feb 14

PKH says...

I am not saying it's the case here, but quite often the locals that shout the loudest about excessive speed are some of the worst offenders.
I am not saying it's the case here, but quite often the locals that shout the loudest about excessive speed are some of the worst offenders. PKH

10:46am Tue 18 Feb 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

change a few signs... cant be enforced... stays the same...

on a different note changing a speed limit wont make a difference to the safety of your children. if a child is in the road and gets hit by a car at 20mph or 30mph they are still at a massive risk... Morel of the story don’t let your kids play near roads at all...
change a few signs... cant be enforced... stays the same... on a different note changing a speed limit wont make a difference to the safety of your children. if a child is in the road and gets hit by a car at 20mph or 30mph they are still at a massive risk... Morel of the story don’t let your kids play near roads at all... Archiebold the 1st

10:54am Tue 18 Feb 14

BL2 says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
change a few signs... cant be enforced... stays the same...

on a different note changing a speed limit wont make a difference to the safety of your children. if a child is in the road and gets hit by a car at 20mph or 30mph they are still at a massive risk... Morel of the story don’t let your kids play near roads at all...
Totally agree. Went through Stilingfleet (I think it was) the other day and saw a sign asking motorists to "Take car of our children"? Hang on? It's nothing to do with me, as a motorist, to tak care of them. I will drive carefully and considerately but that's not going to stop a kid running out in front of me if the parents or carers don't take care of them and teach them basic road safety! Take some responsibility for once! By all means punish bad and dangerous drivers, but don't blame them for shortcomings in others!
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: change a few signs... cant be enforced... stays the same... on a different note changing a speed limit wont make a difference to the safety of your children. if a child is in the road and gets hit by a car at 20mph or 30mph they are still at a massive risk... Morel of the story don’t let your kids play near roads at all...[/p][/quote]Totally agree. Went through Stilingfleet (I think it was) the other day and saw a sign asking motorists to "Take car of our children"? Hang on? It's nothing to do with me, as a motorist, to tak care of them. I will drive carefully and considerately but that's not going to stop a kid running out in front of me if the parents or carers don't take care of them and teach them basic road safety! Take some responsibility for once! By all means punish bad and dangerous drivers, but don't blame them for shortcomings in others! BL2

11:38am Tue 18 Feb 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

BL2 wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote: change a few signs... cant be enforced... stays the same... on a different note changing a speed limit wont make a difference to the safety of your children. if a child is in the road and gets hit by a car at 20mph or 30mph they are still at a massive risk... Morel of the story don’t let your kids play near roads at all...
Totally agree. Went through Stilingfleet (I think it was) the other day and saw a sign asking motorists to "Take car of our children"? Hang on? It's nothing to do with me, as a motorist, to tak care of them. I will drive carefully and considerately but that's not going to stop a kid running out in front of me if the parents or carers don't take care of them and teach them basic road safety! Take some responsibility for once! By all means punish bad and dangerous drivers, but don't blame them for shortcomings in others!
you win the prize for being the first person to agree with anything i say on here.... you can have a reduntand 30mph sign... they will be worth loads in a few years time..
[quote][p][bold]BL2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: change a few signs... cant be enforced... stays the same... on a different note changing a speed limit wont make a difference to the safety of your children. if a child is in the road and gets hit by a car at 20mph or 30mph they are still at a massive risk... Morel of the story don’t let your kids play near roads at all...[/p][/quote]Totally agree. Went through Stilingfleet (I think it was) the other day and saw a sign asking motorists to "Take car of our children"? Hang on? It's nothing to do with me, as a motorist, to tak care of them. I will drive carefully and considerately but that's not going to stop a kid running out in front of me if the parents or carers don't take care of them and teach them basic road safety! Take some responsibility for once! By all means punish bad and dangerous drivers, but don't blame them for shortcomings in others![/p][/quote]you win the prize for being the first person to agree with anything i say on here.... you can have a reduntand 30mph sign... they will be worth loads in a few years time.. Archiebold the 1st

12:48pm Tue 18 Feb 14

MorkofYork says...

I was going past Westfield the other day driving along at 9mph because that's as fast as you could go with cars parked along one side and it dawned on me the 20mph signs are even useless there.

If drivers can be trusted to drive safely away from schools then why suddenly do we need extra control around them ?

You can absolutely drive recklessly at 20mph anyway if it's busy.
I was going past Westfield the other day driving along at 9mph because that's as fast as you could go with cars parked along one side and it dawned on me the 20mph signs are even useless there. If drivers can be trusted to drive safely away from schools then why suddenly do we need extra control around them ? You can absolutely drive recklessly at 20mph anyway if it's busy. MorkofYork

1:07pm Tue 18 Feb 14

MCWM says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
change a few signs... cant be enforced... stays the same... on a different note changing a speed limit wont make a difference to the safety of your children. if a child is in the road and gets hit by a car at 20mph or 30mph they are still at a massive risk... Morel of the story don’t let your kids play near roads at all...
Not true. The correlation between speed and consequence in collisions with pedestrians is well documented. Extract from the CTC using data from a DFT produced report:

A pedestrian hit at 40mph has a 31% chance of death; hit at 30mph and that risk falls to 7%; at 20mph the risk is negligible.

Bear in mind that stat is only talking about fatalities, and doesn’t take into account the the increase in significant injuries associated with increased collisions speeds. Also, from the same article:

a study into 20 mph zones in London found that casualties fell by an average of 42%.

I'm not advocating a blanket 20mph limit and I totally agree that a lower speed limit does not absolve people of their responsibilities with respect to ensuring their children’s safety, but saying there's no difference between being hit at 20mph and 30mph is total nonsense.
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: change a few signs... cant be enforced... stays the same... on a different note changing a speed limit wont make a difference to the safety of your children. if a child is in the road and gets hit by a car at 20mph or 30mph they are still at a massive risk... Morel of the story don’t let your kids play near roads at all...[/p][/quote]Not true. The correlation between speed and consequence in collisions with pedestrians is well documented. Extract from the CTC using data from a DFT produced report: A pedestrian hit at 40mph has a 31% chance of death; hit at 30mph and that risk falls to 7%; at 20mph the risk is negligible. Bear in mind that stat is only talking about fatalities, and doesn’t take into account the the increase in significant injuries associated with increased collisions speeds. Also, from the same article: a study into 20 mph zones in London found that casualties fell by an average of 42%. I'm not advocating a blanket 20mph limit and I totally agree that a lower speed limit does not absolve people of their responsibilities with respect to ensuring their children’s safety, but saying there's no difference between being hit at 20mph and 30mph is total nonsense. MCWM

1:16pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

MCWM wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote: change a few signs... cant be enforced... stays the same... on a different note changing a speed limit wont make a difference to the safety of your children. if a child is in the road and gets hit by a car at 20mph or 30mph they are still at a massive risk... Morel of the story don’t let your kids play near roads at all...
Not true. The correlation between speed and consequence in collisions with pedestrians is well documented. Extract from the CTC using data from a DFT produced report: A pedestrian hit at 40mph has a 31% chance of death; hit at 30mph and that risk falls to 7%; at 20mph the risk is negligible. Bear in mind that stat is only talking about fatalities, and doesn’t take into account the the increase in significant injuries associated with increased collisions speeds. Also, from the same article: a study into 20 mph zones in London found that casualties fell by an average of 42%. I'm not advocating a blanket 20mph limit and I totally agree that a lower speed limit does not absolve people of their responsibilities with respect to ensuring their children’s safety, but saying there's no difference between being hit at 20mph and 30mph is total nonsense.
you're missing my point. Yes there is a relation with how fast you are going and the damage you cause but its also car dependant, human dependant, braking times etc etc. My point was that if your child is hit at 20mph or 30mph your kid is still going to get hurt and even have a chance of death. So maybe install proper safety awareness or keep an eye on them more. We both know that this 30mph zone will not reduce peoples’ speed so relying on it doing so isn’t right. Obviously I’m not as daft to believe if something hits you at a faster speed it will hurt you more... but they both carry the exact same consequences. Studies will say whatever people want them too.. Personally I wouldn’t compare a London zone that had casualties fall by 42% as this makes me think how many accidents where there in the first place? How many have there been on this road? Let’s face it being hit at 20mph or 30mph can kill you regardless. So as per usual risk management remove risk before reducing it… is reducing it to 20mph going to remove it? No.. Would pedestrian rails stop kids from freely running out? Yes.. (that’s only an example)
[quote][p][bold]MCWM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: change a few signs... cant be enforced... stays the same... on a different note changing a speed limit wont make a difference to the safety of your children. if a child is in the road and gets hit by a car at 20mph or 30mph they are still at a massive risk... Morel of the story don’t let your kids play near roads at all...[/p][/quote]Not true. The correlation between speed and consequence in collisions with pedestrians is well documented. Extract from the CTC using data from a DFT produced report: A pedestrian hit at 40mph has a 31% chance of death; hit at 30mph and that risk falls to 7%; at 20mph the risk is negligible. Bear in mind that stat is only talking about fatalities, and doesn’t take into account the the increase in significant injuries associated with increased collisions speeds. Also, from the same article: a study into 20 mph zones in London found that casualties fell by an average of 42%. I'm not advocating a blanket 20mph limit and I totally agree that a lower speed limit does not absolve people of their responsibilities with respect to ensuring their children’s safety, but saying there's no difference between being hit at 20mph and 30mph is total nonsense.[/p][/quote]you're missing my point. Yes there is a relation with how fast you are going and the damage you cause but its also car dependant, human dependant, braking times etc etc. My point was that if your child is hit at 20mph or 30mph your kid is still going to get hurt and even have a chance of death. So maybe install proper safety awareness or keep an eye on them more. We both know that this 30mph zone will not reduce peoples’ speed so relying on it doing so isn’t right. Obviously I’m not as daft to believe if something hits you at a faster speed it will hurt you more... but they both carry the exact same consequences. Studies will say whatever people want them too.. Personally I wouldn’t compare a London zone that had casualties fall by 42% as this makes me think how many accidents where there in the first place? How many have there been on this road? Let’s face it being hit at 20mph or 30mph can kill you regardless. So as per usual risk management remove risk before reducing it… is reducing it to 20mph going to remove it? No.. Would pedestrian rails stop kids from freely running out? Yes.. (that’s only an example) Archiebold the 1st

1:56pm Tue 18 Feb 14

york_chap says...

I had to drive through a 20mph zone in another city last month. There were big white markings on the road and large signs as you entered the zone, repeater signs on pretty much every other lamp post, plus one or two vertical banners on lamp-posts saying 'slower speeds' and a picture of a 20mph sign etc, plus signs for speed cameras.

Yet as I entered the zone, every single vehicle in the line ahead of me, including a local council vehicle, continued at 28-30mph. We were even overetaken by a couple of motorbikes. All oncoming traffic was travelling at roughly the same speed too. The only time the traffic slowed down was as it approached a speed camera, after which drivers all just accellerated away again, back up to 30mph.

Blanket zones don't work. In a typical built up area with roads of a reasonable width, 30mph feels about right. 20mph on the other hand, feels like a funeral procession or like you're about to roll to a stop. I suspect that one of the reasons people don't adhere to these limits is the fact that 20mph feels impossibly slow and is symptomatic of the nanny state culture which just gets worse and worse. It's the same with the apparent insistance on having traffic lights on every single new road junction; because clearly drivers can't be trusted to make decisions as to whether it's safe to make a turn.
I had to drive through a 20mph zone in another city last month. There were big white markings on the road and large signs as you entered the zone, repeater signs on pretty much every other lamp post, plus one or two vertical banners on lamp-posts saying 'slower speeds' and a picture of a 20mph sign etc, plus signs for speed cameras. Yet as I entered the zone, every single vehicle in the line ahead of me, including a local council vehicle, continued at 28-30mph. We were even overetaken by a couple of motorbikes. All oncoming traffic was travelling at roughly the same speed too. The only time the traffic slowed down was as it approached a speed camera, after which drivers all just accellerated away again, back up to 30mph. Blanket zones don't work. In a typical built up area with roads of a reasonable width, 30mph feels about right. 20mph on the other hand, feels like a funeral procession or like you're about to roll to a stop. I suspect that one of the reasons people don't adhere to these limits is the fact that 20mph feels impossibly slow and is symptomatic of the nanny state culture which just gets worse and worse. It's the same with the apparent insistance on having traffic lights on every single new road junction; because clearly drivers can't be trusted to make decisions as to whether it's safe to make a turn. york_chap

2:09pm Tue 18 Feb 14

MouseHouse says...

20 is plenty in all built up areas.

In exchange raise the limit on motorways to 80 mph.
20 is plenty in all built up areas. In exchange raise the limit on motorways to 80 mph. MouseHouse

2:34pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Bo Jolly says...

MCWM wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
change a few signs... cant be enforced... stays the same... on a different note changing a speed limit wont make a difference to the safety of your children. if a child is in the road and gets hit by a car at 20mph or 30mph they are still at a massive risk... Morel of the story don’t let your kids play near roads at all...
Not true. The correlation between speed and consequence in collisions with pedestrians is well documented. Extract from the CTC using data from a DFT produced report:

A pedestrian hit at 40mph has a 31% chance of death; hit at 30mph and that risk falls to 7%; at 20mph the risk is negligible.

Bear in mind that stat is only talking about fatalities, and doesn’t take into account the the increase in significant injuries associated with increased collisions speeds. Also, from the same article:

a study into 20 mph zones in London found that casualties fell by an average of 42%.

I'm not advocating a blanket 20mph limit and I totally agree that a lower speed limit does not absolve people of their responsibilities with respect to ensuring their children’s safety, but saying there's no difference between being hit at 20mph and 30mph is total nonsense.
Misleading. In the two best studied blanket 20mph schemes - Portsmouth and Oxford - accident rates went *up* after the introduction of the blanket speed limits. It is not known why, but it may be that pedestrians/cyclists
/vulnerable road users ended up with a false sense of security and put themselves at greater risk or that the reduced limits induced carelessness in drivers or some combination of the two.

The point is that there is no convincing evidence that blanket 20mph limits result in greater road safety.
[quote][p][bold]MCWM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: change a few signs... cant be enforced... stays the same... on a different note changing a speed limit wont make a difference to the safety of your children. if a child is in the road and gets hit by a car at 20mph or 30mph they are still at a massive risk... Morel of the story don’t let your kids play near roads at all...[/p][/quote]Not true. The correlation between speed and consequence in collisions with pedestrians is well documented. Extract from the CTC using data from a DFT produced report: A pedestrian hit at 40mph has a 31% chance of death; hit at 30mph and that risk falls to 7%; at 20mph the risk is negligible. Bear in mind that stat is only talking about fatalities, and doesn’t take into account the the increase in significant injuries associated with increased collisions speeds. Also, from the same article: a study into 20 mph zones in London found that casualties fell by an average of 42%. I'm not advocating a blanket 20mph limit and I totally agree that a lower speed limit does not absolve people of their responsibilities with respect to ensuring their children’s safety, but saying there's no difference between being hit at 20mph and 30mph is total nonsense.[/p][/quote]Misleading. In the two best studied blanket 20mph schemes - Portsmouth and Oxford - accident rates went *up* after the introduction of the blanket speed limits. It is not known why, but it may be that pedestrians/cyclists /vulnerable road users ended up with a false sense of security and put themselves at greater risk or that the reduced limits induced carelessness in drivers or some combination of the two. The point is that there is no convincing evidence that blanket 20mph limits result in greater road safety. Bo Jolly

5:00pm Tue 18 Feb 14

MorkofYork says...

When people are forced to drive slower than their competency level it causes stress and one of the worst things you can be on the roads is stressed. People become less focused and more liable to drive erratically.

The only people who drive at 20 now are OAP's gripping onto their steering wheels like they're batting along at 90mph.
They are few and far between but i've seen the stress they cause to other drivers.

20mph is far too slow when the road is clear.

I bet half of those who signed don't drive or were blackmailed by threats of danger to children. As soon as they get in their cars they see there's no threat and drive as they normally would.
When people are forced to drive slower than their competency level it causes stress and one of the worst things you can be on the roads is stressed. People become less focused and more liable to drive erratically. The only people who drive at 20 now are OAP's gripping onto their steering wheels like they're batting along at 90mph. They are few and far between but i've seen the stress they cause to other drivers. 20mph is far too slow when the road is clear. I bet half of those who signed don't drive or were blackmailed by threats of danger to children. As soon as they get in their cars they see there's no threat and drive as they normally would. MorkofYork

5:14pm Tue 18 Feb 14

MarkyMarkMark says...

They can have the 20 limit from outside my road, if they like. No-one seems to be using it.
They can have the 20 limit from outside my road, if they like. No-one seems to be using it. MarkyMarkMark

5:47pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Ichabod76 says...

I say let them have their 20mph zone,
But if any resident of Barkston Ash is caught speeding in their own village they should be instantly disqualified from driving.
I say let them have their 20mph zone, But if any resident of Barkston Ash is caught speeding in their own village they should be instantly disqualified from driving. Ichabod76

9:19pm Tue 18 Feb 14

CariW says...

So where are they actually wanting this 20mph zone? I go through Barkston on a regular basis (family at Fenton) so know the road quite well.

The school is on the Tadcaster-Sherburn road (A162) which is a 40mph zone. The road through the village is a nightmare during school drop off/collections with parents parking on the main road (I have even seen them block it while they talk to each other). It is a church school (Roman Catholic) and having checked their admission criteria, it looks like the local (Barkston) kids come 5th out of 7.

So are they wanting to reduce the A road down from 40mph down to 20mph or are they talking about the main road through the village which the school isn't on.

The main road also has some nice tight corners and it isn't possible to go over 30 round them. Also,several residents park on the main road so even outside school drop off/collection it is like a slalom course. It's fun enough in a car, it gets very interesting at harvest time :) Now the common (between Barkston and Fenton), that has some serious speeding on it.

Barkston isn't a particularly big village, so it would be interesting to know how many of the signatures are actually villagers and how many are parents/families from other areas/villages who use the school.
So where are they actually wanting this 20mph zone? I go through Barkston on a regular basis (family at Fenton) so know the road quite well. The school is on the Tadcaster-Sherburn road (A162) which is a 40mph zone. The road through the village is a nightmare during school drop off/collections with parents parking on the main road (I have even seen them block it while they talk to each other). It is a church school (Roman Catholic) and having checked their admission criteria, it looks like the local (Barkston) kids come 5th out of 7. So are they wanting to reduce the A road down from 40mph down to 20mph or are they talking about the main road through the village which the school isn't on. The main road also has some nice tight corners and it isn't possible to go over 30 round them. Also,several residents park on the main road so even outside school drop off/collection it is like a slalom course. It's fun enough in a car, it gets very interesting at harvest time :) Now the common (between Barkston and Fenton), that has some serious speeding on it. Barkston isn't a particularly big village, so it would be interesting to know how many of the signatures are actually villagers and how many are parents/families from other areas/villages who use the school. CariW

12:55am Wed 19 Feb 14

strangebuttrue? says...

I heard a comment n TV the other day that said 80% of all accidents involving pedestrians and vehicles was alcohol related and involved the pedestrian walking out in front of moving vehicles. I know not if this is true but it seems to beg the question if it is. What are we doing about that or do we just go on penalising drivers who have done nothing wrong?
I heard a comment n TV the other day that said 80% of all accidents involving pedestrians and vehicles was alcohol related and involved the pedestrian walking out in front of moving vehicles. I know not if this is true but it seems to beg the question if it is. What are we doing about that or do we just go on penalising drivers who have done nothing wrong? strangebuttrue?

5:06pm Wed 19 Feb 14

MorkofYork says...

Oh Anna has no problem doing that what so ever.


BBC radio York interview. (automatic fault for drivers if they can't prove their innocence)
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=li-CvbCN_
C8
Oh Anna has no problem doing that what so ever. BBC radio York interview. (automatic fault for drivers if they can't prove their innocence) http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=li-CvbCN_ C8 MorkofYork

5:11pm Wed 19 Feb 14

MorkofYork says...

Even better, just reduce the limit to below what everyone drives, huh Anna ?

That way drivers may be liable for pedestrian/cyclists mistakes whether it's their fault or not.
Even better, just reduce the limit to below what everyone drives, huh Anna ? That way drivers may be liable for pedestrian/cyclists mistakes whether it's their fault or not. MorkofYork

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

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

I agree