More York streets to get 20mph limits

More York streets to get 20mph limits

More York streets to get 20mph limits

Published in News York Press: Photograph of the Author by

STREETS in the east of York will join the city-wide 20 mph speed limit as the programme is rolled out in coming weeks.

City of York Council has announced that residents in the east of the city will be the next to get leaflets telling them about the upcoming change in their areas.

The policy started in the west of the city before being rolled out in the north this April. The council's ruling Labour group says widespread 20 mph limits will make the streets safer and more accessible for pedestrians and cyclists.

It was included in the 2011 Labour manifesto for York but has faced criticism since its inception and last year it was revealed that only seven residents out of 13,000 surveyed in a public consultation had voiced support for the policy.

Cllr David Levene, cabinet member for transport, said: "Introducing these speed limits aims to create an environment where traffic is travelling under 20mph, alongside and complementing our existing programme of targeted accident reduction measures.

"This will help improve the local environment of neighbourhoods for residents: replacing the mish-mash we have at the moment with a consistent, clearly understandable approach to promote more considerate driving."

And although North Yorkshire Police have spoken in favour of lower speed limits in residents streets, the scheme has been branded costly and ineffective by Labour's political opponents.

Both Conservative leader Chris Steward and Liberal Democrat leader Keith Aspden say they support 20 mphs limits in some areas but condemned the blanket approach being taken in York.

Cllr Steward said: "Although we continue to support 20mph schemes where residents back them, this continues not to be the case in York where the blanket approach does not enjoy popular support and is merely a vast unnecessary cost when the money could be better spent elsewhere.

"Unfortunately one of the real problems of the blanket zones is they also lessen the impact where the restrictions are most needed – including at schools"

Cllr Aspden added: "The council’s proposals would see 20mph limits on the vast majority of local roads, even narrow cul-de-sacs where cars would struggle to reach 20mph.

“I am not convinced it is an effective use of resources and residents will be concerned about signs being put everywhere, including in Fulford’s conservation area.”

Comments (79)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:04pm Mon 2 Jun 14

Young the Southbanker says...

D'you ever get the impression the councillor on the cabinet have got their fingers in their ears and are just shouting 'LaLaLaLaLaLa".
A law or rule that is unenforceable, uneccessary, wasteful and unwanted will not be respected; demeaning what respect there is for the law.
The Bridge fiasco lessons have not been learnt.
D'you ever get the impression the councillor on the cabinet have got their fingers in their ears and are just shouting 'LaLaLaLaLaLa". A law or rule that is unenforceable, uneccessary, wasteful and unwanted will not be respected; demeaning what respect there is for the law. The Bridge fiasco lessons have not been learnt. Young the Southbanker
  • Score: -746

6:38pm Mon 2 Jun 14

the original Homer says...

This is the classic set up like Blair/Brown did on their way out Nationally. Waste money everywhere in the knowledge that the next lot will have to spend more money putting it all right.

Puts the next council in a no-win situation.

It's time some of these councilors were investigated because some of their actions must be borderline criminal
This is the classic set up like Blair/Brown did on their way out Nationally. Waste money everywhere in the knowledge that the next lot will have to spend more money putting it all right. Puts the next council in a no-win situation. It's time some of these councilors were investigated because some of their actions must be borderline criminal the original Homer
  • Score: -1021

6:44pm Mon 2 Jun 14

mitch2nd says...

Whats the point when there is no one to enforce it, since moving to York I have been gob-smacked how many drivers jump red lights, when I contacted the Council re this they just said that they have cameras at must lights but have no right to prosecute, joke
Whats the point when there is no one to enforce it, since moving to York I have been gob-smacked how many drivers jump red lights, when I contacted the Council re this they just said that they have cameras at must lights but have no right to prosecute, joke mitch2nd
  • Score: -1320

6:47pm Mon 2 Jun 14

bloodaxe says...

Given that the standard of driving in York is deplorable: grilling red lights, speeding in 30 zones, ignoring pedestrian crossings, passing parked cars and crossing white lines in the face of oncoming traffic, parking on the pavement and cutting cyclists rather than slowing down because of oncoming traffic then any move which helps to make the life of cyclists, pedestrians and other road users safer is to be encouraged. As the time "saved" on urban journeys by driving as quickly as possible is negligible then I'll go with this. Anyway, it was in the manifesto, so further consultation is unnecessary. I speak as a two-car owner, cyclist and pedestrian, though I only drive one car at a time. Don't waste time marking this down, it's a foregone conclusion.
Given that the standard of driving in York is deplorable: grilling red lights, speeding in 30 zones, ignoring pedestrian crossings, passing parked cars and crossing white lines in the face of oncoming traffic, parking on the pavement and cutting cyclists rather than slowing down because of oncoming traffic then any move which helps to make the life of cyclists, pedestrians and other road users safer is to be encouraged. As the time "saved" on urban journeys by driving as quickly as possible is negligible then I'll go with this. Anyway, it was in the manifesto, so further consultation is unnecessary. I speak as a two-car owner, cyclist and pedestrian, though I only drive one car at a time. Don't waste time marking this down, it's a foregone conclusion. bloodaxe
  • Score: -1261

6:47pm Mon 2 Jun 14

yorkshirelad says...

Yeah right...a democratically elected council implementing a policy...borderline criminal? What would be criminal would be any sane council taking heed of rants on local newspaper comment areas.

20mph in residential side streets is council policy; the council was elected by us; it's being implemented zone by zone..get used to it! And here's another thing...

I live in one of these 20mph zones...the world doesn't end - I promise. The 20mph signs don't blight my existance. I reckon cars drive a bit slower - sure, not all of them, but maybe enough that it's noticable. The limit itself is a fine one for residential side streets - the thuggish minority will ignore it of course but I reckon most people are now keeping at or under 20.

Here's another thing.. in general, my road's a bit quieter, a bit more pleasant. It's good. Nothing to dislike or fear...

So, more of these please. Ignore the whingers. 20 is the new normal for residential side streets and there will be no going back (point-scoring opportunistic politicians please note).
Yeah right...a democratically elected council implementing a policy...borderline criminal? What would be criminal would be any sane council taking heed of rants on local newspaper comment areas. 20mph in residential side streets is council policy; the council was elected by us; it's being implemented zone by zone..get used to it! And here's another thing... I live in one of these 20mph zones...the world doesn't end - I promise. The 20mph signs don't blight my existance. I reckon cars drive a bit slower - sure, not all of them, but maybe enough that it's noticable. The limit itself is a fine one for residential side streets - the thuggish minority will ignore it of course but I reckon most people are now keeping at or under 20. Here's another thing.. in general, my road's a bit quieter, a bit more pleasant. It's good. Nothing to dislike or fear... So, more of these please. Ignore the whingers. 20 is the new normal for residential side streets and there will be no going back (point-scoring opportunistic politicians please note). yorkshirelad
  • Score: -2711

6:49pm Mon 2 Jun 14

bloodaxe says...

the original Homer wrote:
This is the classic set up like Blair/Brown did on their way out Nationally. Waste money everywhere in the knowledge that the next lot will have to spend more money putting it all right.

Puts the next council in a no-win situation.

It's time some of these councilors were investigated because some of their actions must be borderline criminal
Careful. You're in the public domain.
[quote][p][bold]the original Homer[/bold] wrote: This is the classic set up like Blair/Brown did on their way out Nationally. Waste money everywhere in the knowledge that the next lot will have to spend more money putting it all right. Puts the next council in a no-win situation. It's time some of these councilors were investigated because some of their actions must be borderline criminal[/p][/quote]Careful. You're in the public domain. bloodaxe
  • Score: -2268

6:51pm Mon 2 Jun 14

bloodaxe says...

Young the Southbanker wrote:
D'you ever get the impression the councillor on the cabinet have got their fingers in their ears and are just shouting 'LaLaLaLaLaLa".

A law or rule that is unenforceable, uneccessary, wasteful and unwanted will not be respected; demeaning what respect there is for the law.
The Bridge fiasco lessons have not been learnt.
Lendal Bridge may have been unpopular; that doesn't, per se, make it wrong.
[quote][p][bold]Young the Southbanker[/bold] wrote: D'you ever get the impression the councillor on the cabinet have got their fingers in their ears and are just shouting 'LaLaLaLaLaLa". A law or rule that is unenforceable, uneccessary, wasteful and unwanted will not be respected; demeaning what respect there is for the law. The Bridge fiasco lessons have not been learnt.[/p][/quote]Lendal Bridge may have been unpopular; that doesn't, per se, make it wrong. bloodaxe
  • Score: -2627

7:04pm Mon 2 Jun 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

Cllr David Levene, cabinet member for transport, said: "Introducing these speed limits aims to create an environment where traffic is travelling under 20mph, alongside and complementing our existing programme of targeted accident reduction measures.

Aiming to create an environment where traffic is travelling under 20mph is a pipe dream, more likely result will be at or above 20mph.

Targeted accident reduction measures, if the accident rate is already zero what is the target, yet again a pointless expense with no beneficial outcome.

People respect and support effective evidentially based actions, this falls far short of in every single aspect and devalues the effectivnes of 20mph limits where they are needed.

More costly shoddy work that has no measurable benefit beyond the demonstration that York Council are consistent in their failed project rate.
Cllr David Levene, cabinet member for transport, said: "Introducing these speed limits aims to create an environment where traffic is travelling under 20mph, alongside and complementing our existing programme of targeted accident reduction measures. Aiming to create an environment where traffic is travelling under 20mph is a pipe dream, more likely result will be at or above 20mph. Targeted accident reduction measures, if the accident rate is already zero what is the target, yet again a pointless expense with no beneficial outcome. People respect and support effective evidentially based actions, this falls far short of in every single aspect and devalues the effectivnes of 20mph limits where they are needed. More costly shoddy work that has no measurable benefit beyond the demonstration that York Council are consistent in their failed project rate. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -2093

7:21pm Mon 2 Jun 14

JasBro says...

Unlike Lendal Bridge, they did at least put this in their manifesto.

It's one of the policies they were elected on, so it's only right that they carry it through.

They have been dishonest on many occasions, but this time they're just doing what they said they would do, so no complaints from me.
Unlike Lendal Bridge, they did at least put this in their manifesto. It's one of the policies they were elected on, so it's only right that they carry it through. They have been dishonest on many occasions, but this time they're just doing what they said they would do, so no complaints from me. JasBro
  • Score: -1197

7:26pm Mon 2 Jun 14

Woody G Mellor says...

Well, I, like most others will continue to ignore the 'new' 20mph speed zones as usual, and continue driving at a respectable safe speed, regardless of this unwanted, unnecessary waste of our money.
Well, I, like most others will continue to ignore the 'new' 20mph speed zones as usual, and continue driving at a respectable safe speed, regardless of this unwanted, unnecessary waste of our money. Woody G Mellor
  • Score: -4327

7:39pm Mon 2 Jun 14

purelobo says...

even the police ignore these limits.travel through fishergate,the stronghold of the idiotic greens and you ll notice that no one slows down.
even the police ignore these limits.travel through fishergate,the stronghold of the idiotic greens and you ll notice that no one slows down. purelobo
  • Score: -2515

8:05pm Mon 2 Jun 14

greenmonkey says...

purelobo wrote:
even the police ignore these limits.travel through fishergate,the stronghold of the idiotic greens and you ll notice that no one slows down.
The limit in Fishergate was installed under the Lib Dems, following a petition from parents at the local schools. Other schools in York have 20mph limits, just because it is a main road why should children at St Georges and Fishergate be put at greater risk? Even though the limit is ignored speeds have dropped, and if you hit someone driving along there at 25mph it will be your fault - if it was still 30mph limit no doubt the driver would be let off as 'driving within the limit'
[quote][p][bold]purelobo[/bold] wrote: even the police ignore these limits.travel through fishergate,the stronghold of the idiotic greens and you ll notice that no one slows down.[/p][/quote]The limit in Fishergate was installed under the Lib Dems, following a petition from parents at the local schools. Other schools in York have 20mph limits, just because it is a main road why should children at St Georges and Fishergate be put at greater risk? Even though the limit is ignored speeds have dropped, and if you hit someone driving along there at 25mph it will be your fault - if it was still 30mph limit no doubt the driver would be let off as 'driving within the limit' greenmonkey
  • Score: -2292

8:12pm Mon 2 Jun 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

Well done York Council, ever wondered why UKIP is gaining support look no further your doing everything so they don't have to.

It was in the manifesto, well that does not make it popular and supported, what about the 70% that didn't vote for you what have you done to convince them that this is a value for money project.

Short sighted, short on benefits and short on support.

Should we ever elect UKIP councillors then your to blame.
Well done York Council, ever wondered why UKIP is gaining support look no further your doing everything so they don't have to. It was in the manifesto, well that does not make it popular and supported, what about the 70% that didn't vote for you what have you done to convince them that this is a value for money project. Short sighted, short on benefits and short on support. Should we ever elect UKIP councillors then your to blame. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -1321

8:21pm Mon 2 Jun 14

Silver says...

yorkshirelad wrote:
Yeah right...a democratically elected council implementing a policy...borderline criminal? What would be criminal would be any sane council taking heed of rants on local newspaper comment areas.

20mph in residential side streets is council policy; the council was elected by us; it's being implemented zone by zone..get used to it! And here's another thing...

I live in one of these 20mph zones...the world doesn't end - I promise. The 20mph signs don't blight my existance. I reckon cars drive a bit slower - sure, not all of them, but maybe enough that it's noticable. The limit itself is a fine one for residential side streets - the thuggish minority will ignore it of course but I reckon most people are now keeping at or under 20.

Here's another thing.. in general, my road's a bit quieter, a bit more pleasant. It's good. Nothing to dislike or fear...

So, more of these please. Ignore the whingers. 20 is the new normal for residential side streets and there will be no going back (point-scoring opportunistic politicians please note).
I agree with you in a few points such as side streets, there are a few streets near me that reaching those streets at anything higher then 20 is downright dangerous. But did you get consulted and did your neighbours? If only 7 people are supportive in a 13,000 numbered survey that doesn't sound democratic to me.
[quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: Yeah right...a democratically elected council implementing a policy...borderline criminal? What would be criminal would be any sane council taking heed of rants on local newspaper comment areas. 20mph in residential side streets is council policy; the council was elected by us; it's being implemented zone by zone..get used to it! And here's another thing... I live in one of these 20mph zones...the world doesn't end - I promise. The 20mph signs don't blight my existance. I reckon cars drive a bit slower - sure, not all of them, but maybe enough that it's noticable. The limit itself is a fine one for residential side streets - the thuggish minority will ignore it of course but I reckon most people are now keeping at or under 20. Here's another thing.. in general, my road's a bit quieter, a bit more pleasant. It's good. Nothing to dislike or fear... So, more of these please. Ignore the whingers. 20 is the new normal for residential side streets and there will be no going back (point-scoring opportunistic politicians please note).[/p][/quote]I agree with you in a few points such as side streets, there are a few streets near me that reaching those streets at anything higher then 20 is downright dangerous. But did you get consulted and did your neighbours? If only 7 people are supportive in a 13,000 numbered survey that doesn't sound democratic to me. Silver
  • Score: -916

8:49pm Mon 2 Jun 14

yorkshirelad says...

No progressive transport policy will ever be popular initially. Occasionally we need our elected representatives to take long term decisions that benefit everyone in the long run. The Footstreets? Selby Coalfield? HS2? All unpopular initially. Nothing would ever get done by any government or council if everything was subject to referendum to the n'th degree. No...their job is be to survey, consider public opinion but definitely not to slavishly follow it. We need brave politicians who lead, not mob rule.

Did I get consulted? TBH I can't remember but I'm really too busy to fill in questionnaires to help a democratically elected council do its job. One thing is certain...we quite like the 20-limit though. I do agree about main roads in general - these should be 30mph except in the vicinity of schools.

Really...the 20mph thing is fine and is simply the new normal in residential streets.
No progressive transport policy will ever be popular initially. Occasionally we need our elected representatives to take long term decisions that benefit everyone in the long run. The Footstreets? Selby Coalfield? HS2? All unpopular initially. Nothing would ever get done by any government or council if everything was subject to referendum to the n'th degree. No...their job is be to survey, consider public opinion but definitely not to slavishly follow it. We need brave politicians who lead, not mob rule. Did I get consulted? TBH I can't remember but I'm really too busy to fill in questionnaires to help a democratically elected council do its job. One thing is certain...we quite like the 20-limit though. I do agree about main roads in general - these should be 30mph except in the vicinity of schools. Really...the 20mph thing is fine and is simply the new normal in residential streets. yorkshirelad
  • Score: -1612

8:55pm Mon 2 Jun 14

yorkshirelad says...

purelobo wrote:
even the police ignore these limits.travel through fishergate,the stronghold of the idiotic greens and you ll notice that no one slows down.
Actually more do slow down - just not everyone. I've never voted Green but I've been watching most of the other parties in York flip flop on principles seeing where they can get the next cheap votes from. It seems to me that the Greens are honest and stick to their principles...in the long run, that honesty may well just be a strategy that works for them.
[quote][p][bold]purelobo[/bold] wrote: even the police ignore these limits.travel through fishergate,the stronghold of the idiotic greens and you ll notice that no one slows down.[/p][/quote]Actually more do slow down - just not everyone. I've never voted Green but I've been watching most of the other parties in York flip flop on principles seeing where they can get the next cheap votes from. It seems to me that the Greens are honest and stick to their principles...in the long run, that honesty may well just be a strategy that works for them. yorkshirelad
  • Score: -2217

8:58pm Mon 2 Jun 14

Jack Ham says...

bloodaxe wrote:
Young the Southbanker wrote:
D'you ever get the impression the councillor on the cabinet have got their fingers in their ears and are just shouting 'LaLaLaLaLaLa".


A law or rule that is unenforceable, uneccessary, wasteful and unwanted will not be respected; demeaning what respect there is for the law.
The Bridge fiasco lessons have not been learnt.
Lendal Bridge may have been unpopular; that doesn't, per se, make it wrong.
Oh dear. That attitude shows the contempt cabinet members have for residents opinions and is EXACTLY why you will lose control of CYC next year.

It does seem that the closer we get to May 2015 the more deluded this administration becomes. A few of the back benchers can see what's coming but the rest of you have isolated yourselves so far from reality I do believe you think you're doing a good job!

With Anna Semlyn no longer standing for re-election surely it's now time to quietly drop this expensive and poorly supported policy. At a time when Labour a choosing to increase fees, make redundancies, cancel gritting and sell off what's left of our prize assets is this really the time for such nonsense?

And before you say it.....the cuts are NOT a direct consequence of central government cuts. They could all have been easily avoided if you had behaved more responsibly and put public service before personal vanity.
[quote][p][bold]bloodaxe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Young the Southbanker[/bold] wrote: D'you ever get the impression the councillor on the cabinet have got their fingers in their ears and are just shouting 'LaLaLaLaLaLa". A law or rule that is unenforceable, uneccessary, wasteful and unwanted will not be respected; demeaning what respect there is for the law. The Bridge fiasco lessons have not been learnt.[/p][/quote]Lendal Bridge may have been unpopular; that doesn't, per se, make it wrong.[/p][/quote]Oh dear. That attitude shows the contempt cabinet members have for residents opinions and is EXACTLY why you will lose control of CYC next year. It does seem that the closer we get to May 2015 the more deluded this administration becomes. A few of the back benchers can see what's coming but the rest of you have isolated yourselves so far from reality I do believe you think you're doing a good job! With Anna Semlyn no longer standing for re-election surely it's now time to quietly drop this expensive and poorly supported policy. At a time when Labour a choosing to increase fees, make redundancies, cancel gritting and sell off what's left of our prize assets is this really the time for such nonsense? And before you say it.....the cuts are NOT a direct consequence of central government cuts. They could all have been easily avoided if you had behaved more responsibly and put public service before personal vanity. Jack Ham
  • Score: -1997

9:09pm Mon 2 Jun 14

asd says...

I know its been said but, alot of streets like the groves, south bank etc you would struggle to get over 20mph,so waste of money in my opinion. Also I can cycle over 20 mph so, will I get a police caution for speeding? Its ill thought out plan, maybe enforce the rules already there would be better like illegal parking that restrict emergancy services getting to situation quickly. The council are not thinking clearly what so ever and I think its the last hoorah for this shambolic labour council ( i use to be labour locally, not anymore ).
I know its been said but, alot of streets like the groves, south bank etc you would struggle to get over 20mph,so waste of money in my opinion. Also I can cycle over 20 mph so, will I get a police caution for speeding? Its ill thought out plan, maybe enforce the rules already there would be better like illegal parking that restrict emergancy services getting to situation quickly. The council are not thinking clearly what so ever and I think its the last hoorah for this shambolic labour council ( i use to be labour locally, not anymore ). asd
  • Score: -1695

9:21pm Mon 2 Jun 14

piaggio1 says...

See tbe countdown mongrel is active again.and that YCC van is still at barmby ont marsh just how much is this costin york taxpayers? If I reach -65 I.ll.be well chuffed
See tbe countdown mongrel is active again.and that YCC van is still at barmby ont marsh just how much is this costin york taxpayers? If I reach -65 I.ll.be well chuffed piaggio1
  • Score: -1111

9:21pm Mon 2 Jun 14

henleazeyorkie says...

Here in Bristol, with a progressive INDEPENDENT Mayor, we've had 20mph limits for a couple of years. Yes, initially a pain in the whatsit, but actually - even though everyone drives faster than 20 - you know what? People drive at 25 rather than 35. Life still goes on!

What really drove it home to me - negating all the "how and why can and should we reduce zero accident rates" is seeing the video - albeit simulated - of a kid crossing the road and being hit (accidently) at 25mph, then watching a rerun at 35mph.

Personally, for me, even though 5 years ago I'd have done my nut over this - actually, it is a GOOD thing
Here in Bristol, with a progressive INDEPENDENT Mayor, we've had 20mph limits for a couple of years. Yes, initially a pain in the whatsit, but actually - even though everyone drives faster than 20 - you know what? People drive at 25 rather than 35. Life still goes on! What really drove it home to me - negating all the "how and why can and should we reduce zero accident rates" is seeing the video - albeit simulated - of a kid crossing the road and being hit (accidently) at 25mph, then watching a rerun at 35mph. Personally, for me, even though 5 years ago I'd have done my nut over this - actually, it is a GOOD thing henleazeyorkie
  • Score: -2180

9:22pm Mon 2 Jun 14

MorkofYork says...

They want you to crawl around everywhere at 20 incase someone runs out from no where, which will never happen to 99.99999% of you and isn't even your fault if it does.
The risk is so low and often non existent, that people see them as unnecessary.
They want you to crawl around everywhere at 20 incase someone runs out from no where, which will never happen to 99.99999% of you and isn't even your fault if it does. The risk is so low and often non existent, that people see them as unnecessary. MorkofYork
  • Score: -2264

9:24pm Mon 2 Jun 14

piaggio1 says...

Bloodaxe ????
Is this person on the council payroll???
Or just another socialist apologiser.????
Bloodaxe ???? Is this person on the council payroll??? Or just another socialist apologiser.???? piaggio1
  • Score: -2229

9:24pm Mon 2 Jun 14

henleazeyorkie says...

piaggio1 wrote:
See tbe countdown mongrel is active again.and that YCC van is still at barmby ont marsh just how much is this costin york taxpayers? If I reach -65 I.ll.be well chuffed
Yes, looking for a big minus from the scoreboard Jessie myself. Couldn't give a hoot. Message delivered.
[quote][p][bold]piaggio1[/bold] wrote: See tbe countdown mongrel is active again.and that YCC van is still at barmby ont marsh just how much is this costin york taxpayers? If I reach -65 I.ll.be well chuffed[/p][/quote]Yes, looking for a big minus from the scoreboard Jessie myself. Couldn't give a hoot. Message delivered. henleazeyorkie
  • Score: -1663

9:29pm Mon 2 Jun 14

henleazeyorkie says...

henleazeyorkie wrote:
piaggio1 wrote:
See tbe countdown mongrel is active again.and that YCC van is still at barmby ont marsh just how much is this costin york taxpayers? If I reach -65 I.ll.be well chuffed
Yes, looking for a big minus from the scoreboard Jessie myself. Couldn't give a hoot. Message delivered.
chortle :-)
[quote][p][bold]henleazeyorkie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]piaggio1[/bold] wrote: See tbe countdown mongrel is active again.and that YCC van is still at barmby ont marsh just how much is this costin york taxpayers? If I reach -65 I.ll.be well chuffed[/p][/quote]Yes, looking for a big minus from the scoreboard Jessie myself. Couldn't give a hoot. Message delivered.[/p][/quote]chortle :-) henleazeyorkie
  • Score: -1025

9:42pm Mon 2 Jun 14

MorkofYork says...

Saying people drive at 25 just shows the contempt for the scheme. I would guess they were driving around at 25 anyway.

The scores are getting insta marked down tonight. The press need to sort this out. I've seen the scores stuck at 0 before in certain threads so i think it's possible to switch them off.
It's not right that one person should be forcing their opinion over the rest of us.
Saying people drive at 25 just shows the contempt for the scheme. I would guess they were driving around at 25 anyway. The scores are getting insta marked down tonight. The press need to sort this out. I've seen the scores stuck at 0 before in certain threads so i think it's possible to switch them off. It's not right that one person should be forcing their opinion over the rest of us. MorkofYork
  • Score: -2413

9:46pm Mon 2 Jun 14

Jack Ham says...

I'm 99% certain Bloodaxe is Cllr Sonja Crisp
I'm 99% certain Bloodaxe is Cllr Sonja Crisp Jack Ham
  • Score: -2299

9:54pm Mon 2 Jun 14

Happytoliveinyork says...

Sounds like a last vanity project hurrah before York labour spends the next decade in opposition.
Sounds like a last vanity project hurrah before York labour spends the next decade in opposition. Happytoliveinyork
  • Score: -2364

9:54pm Mon 2 Jun 14

Happytoliveinyork says...

bloodaxe wrote:
Given that the standard of driving in York is deplorable: grilling red lights, speeding in 30 zones, ignoring pedestrian crossings, passing parked cars and crossing white lines in the face of oncoming traffic, parking on the pavement and cutting cyclists rather than slowing down because of oncoming traffic then any move which helps to make the life of cyclists, pedestrians and other road users safer is to be encouraged. As the time "saved" on urban journeys by driving as quickly as possible is negligible then I'll go with this. Anyway, it was in the manifesto, so further consultation is unnecessary. I speak as a two-car owner, cyclist and pedestrian, though I only drive one car at a time. Don't waste time marking this down, it's a foregone conclusion.
Thanks Cllr Crisp
[quote][p][bold]bloodaxe[/bold] wrote: Given that the standard of driving in York is deplorable: grilling red lights, speeding in 30 zones, ignoring pedestrian crossings, passing parked cars and crossing white lines in the face of oncoming traffic, parking on the pavement and cutting cyclists rather than slowing down because of oncoming traffic then any move which helps to make the life of cyclists, pedestrians and other road users safer is to be encouraged. As the time "saved" on urban journeys by driving as quickly as possible is negligible then I'll go with this. Anyway, it was in the manifesto, so further consultation is unnecessary. I speak as a two-car owner, cyclist and pedestrian, though I only drive one car at a time. Don't waste time marking this down, it's a foregone conclusion.[/p][/quote]Thanks Cllr Crisp Happytoliveinyork
  • Score: -1932

10:12pm Mon 2 Jun 14

Woody G Mellor says...

piaggio1 wrote:
See tbe countdown mongrel is active again.and that YCC van is still at barmby ont marsh just how much is this costin york taxpayers? If I reach -65 I.ll.be well chuffed
I got -147! Woo Hoo. That means that I'm really getting to her!
[quote][p][bold]piaggio1[/bold] wrote: See tbe countdown mongrel is active again.and that YCC van is still at barmby ont marsh just how much is this costin york taxpayers? If I reach -65 I.ll.be well chuffed[/p][/quote]I got -147! Woo Hoo. That means that I'm really getting to her! Woody G Mellor
  • Score: -619

10:26pm Mon 2 Jun 14

henleazeyorkie says...

MorkofYork wrote:
Saying people drive at 25 just shows the contempt for the scheme. I would guess they were driving around at 25 anyway.

The scores are getting insta marked down tonight. The press need to sort this out. I've seen the scores stuck at 0 before in certain threads so i think it's possible to switch them off.
It's not right that one person should be forcing their opinion over the rest of us.
It's a fair point, but trust me the majority have slowed down. Sounds daft, both the proposal and what has become an obvious outcome, but actually it is better.
[quote][p][bold]MorkofYork[/bold] wrote: Saying people drive at 25 just shows the contempt for the scheme. I would guess they were driving around at 25 anyway. The scores are getting insta marked down tonight. The press need to sort this out. I've seen the scores stuck at 0 before in certain threads so i think it's possible to switch them off. It's not right that one person should be forcing their opinion over the rest of us.[/p][/quote]It's a fair point, but trust me the majority have slowed down. Sounds daft, both the proposal and what has become an obvious outcome, but actually it is better. henleazeyorkie
  • Score: -1967

10:31pm Mon 2 Jun 14

EleRogers says...

York's a busy, twisting and winding city to drive in, and not a very large area in the city centre so 20 vs 30 doesn't mean much of a time penalty. I'm very to hear the 20 zone is expanding, I support it because it means safer roads for more people, whether they are drivers or cyclists or pedestrians. Being each of the three at one time or another, I can easily live with driving across town at 20, offset by the benefits when I'm not in the car. I think that's a safe speed to be going at on a lot of our narrow roads and I'm glad to be sharing them with others. Hopefully this will mean more streets where we're happy to walk and cycle, and more opportunities for kids to play outside. Lovely.
York's a busy, twisting and winding city to drive in, and not a very large area in the city centre so 20 vs 30 doesn't mean much of a time penalty. I'm very to hear the 20 zone is expanding, I support it because it means safer roads for more people, whether they are drivers or cyclists or pedestrians. Being each of the three at one time or another, I can easily live with driving across town at 20, offset by the benefits when I'm not in the car. I think that's a safe speed to be going at on a lot of our narrow roads and I'm glad to be sharing them with others. Hopefully this will mean more streets where we're happy to walk and cycle, and more opportunities for kids to play outside. Lovely. EleRogers
  • Score: -3394

11:26pm Mon 2 Jun 14

jay, york says...

EleRogers wrote:
York's a busy, twisting and winding city to drive in, and not a very large area in the city centre so 20 vs 30 doesn't mean much of a time penalty. I'm very to hear the 20 zone is expanding, I support it because it means safer roads for more people, whether they are drivers or cyclists or pedestrians. Being each of the three at one time or another, I can easily live with driving across town at 20, offset by the benefits when I'm not in the car. I think that's a safe speed to be going at on a lot of our narrow roads and I'm glad to be sharing them with others. Hopefully this will mean more streets where we're happy to walk and cycle, and more opportunities for kids to play outside. Lovely.
But the 20 mph is NOT just restricted to narrow roads - if it was, it would be understandable and this scheme would get a lot of support. It is going to be across the WHOLE of York AND outlying villages with wide roads.

It has been introduced by someone who works for 20 is plenty. And although semlyen insists that she does not get paid for her work in York, it is quite clearly a conflict of interest with her council work - and no doubt why she will be standing down at the next elections - she shouldnt be doing it!.
[quote][p][bold]EleRogers[/bold] wrote: York's a busy, twisting and winding city to drive in, and not a very large area in the city centre so 20 vs 30 doesn't mean much of a time penalty. I'm very to hear the 20 zone is expanding, I support it because it means safer roads for more people, whether they are drivers or cyclists or pedestrians. Being each of the three at one time or another, I can easily live with driving across town at 20, offset by the benefits when I'm not in the car. I think that's a safe speed to be going at on a lot of our narrow roads and I'm glad to be sharing them with others. Hopefully this will mean more streets where we're happy to walk and cycle, and more opportunities for kids to play outside. Lovely.[/p][/quote]But the 20 mph is NOT just restricted to narrow roads - if it was, it would be understandable and this scheme would get a lot of support. It is going to be across the WHOLE of York AND outlying villages with wide roads. It has been introduced by someone who works for 20 is plenty. And although semlyen insists that she does not get paid for her work in York, it is quite clearly a conflict of interest with her council work - and no doubt why she will be standing down at the next elections - she shouldnt be doing it!. jay, york
  • Score: -715

11:41pm Mon 2 Jun 14

jay, york says...

bloodaxe wrote:
Given that the standard of driving in York is deplorable: grilling red lights, speeding in 30 zones, ignoring pedestrian crossings, passing parked cars and crossing white lines in the face of oncoming traffic, parking on the pavement and cutting cyclists rather than slowing down because of oncoming traffic then any move which helps to make the life of cyclists, pedestrians and other road users safer is to be encouraged. As the time "saved" on urban journeys by driving as quickly as possible is negligible then I'll go with this. Anyway, it was in the manifesto, so further consultation is unnecessary. I speak as a two-car owner, cyclist and pedestrian, though I only drive one car at a time. Don't waste time marking this down, it's a foregone conclusion.
Well done councillor - good to see your arrogance is still as strong as ever. Great election tactics of yours to insult the majority of people who use Yorks roads!
This is clear council discrimination against motorists - otherwise why not have a go at everyone else who uses the road network? including all the stupid, dangerous and illegal things that both cyclists cyclists and pedestrians do?
[quote][p][bold]bloodaxe[/bold] wrote: Given that the standard of driving in York is deplorable: grilling red lights, speeding in 30 zones, ignoring pedestrian crossings, passing parked cars and crossing white lines in the face of oncoming traffic, parking on the pavement and cutting cyclists rather than slowing down because of oncoming traffic then any move which helps to make the life of cyclists, pedestrians and other road users safer is to be encouraged. As the time "saved" on urban journeys by driving as quickly as possible is negligible then I'll go with this. Anyway, it was in the manifesto, so further consultation is unnecessary. I speak as a two-car owner, cyclist and pedestrian, though I only drive one car at a time. Don't waste time marking this down, it's a foregone conclusion.[/p][/quote]Well done councillor - good to see your arrogance is still as strong as ever. Great election tactics of yours to insult the majority of people who use Yorks roads! This is clear council discrimination against motorists - otherwise why not have a go at everyone else who uses the road network? including all the stupid, dangerous and illegal things that both cyclists cyclists and pedestrians do? jay, york
  • Score: -480

11:49pm Mon 2 Jun 14

strangebuttrue? says...

A complete waste of money. The average speed achievable in York is well under 20mph due to the anti car measures put in place causing vehicles to be either slowing down or accelerating and using 400% more fuel than they would otherwise. "Reducing accidents" what about the pollution the council are creating, to which this farce will add, which they also say kills far more residents in a year than accidents cause in a decade?
A complete waste of money. The average speed achievable in York is well under 20mph due to the anti car measures put in place causing vehicles to be either slowing down or accelerating and using 400% more fuel than they would otherwise. "Reducing accidents" what about the pollution the council are creating, to which this farce will add, which they also say kills far more residents in a year than accidents cause in a decade? strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -266

12:07am Tue 3 Jun 14

Jalymo says...

If this Council gets the Local Plan through, the 22000 houses (mostly on Greenbelt Land), plus the ones conveniently kept out of the figures, that are in the pipeline, will mean at least 44,000 more people will be using the roads in or on some form of transport in York. Twenty miles an hour, dream on, it will be standstill, everywhere!!
If this Council gets the Local Plan through, the 22000 houses (mostly on Greenbelt Land), plus the ones conveniently kept out of the figures, that are in the pipeline, will mean at least 44,000 more people will be using the roads in or on some form of transport in York. Twenty miles an hour, dream on, it will be standstill, everywhere!! Jalymo
  • Score: -134

12:13am Tue 3 Jun 14

greenmonkey says...

Happytoliveinyork wrote:
Sounds like a last vanity project hurrah before York labour spends the next decade in opposition.
No doubt after 6 months you'll be saying the same about the next administration - remember Steve Galloway/ Andrew Waller? Respark charges, Barbican pool closure, HQ and Arclight farce.... Its about time York residents realised that while some of the decisions have undoubtedly been wasteful, a lot is down to government cuts in funding and the low tax base. And what about the millions already spent on the incinerator, that still hasn't got enough funding (since the PFI money was withdrawn) and will drain council coffers for 25 years?
[quote][p][bold]Happytoliveinyork[/bold] wrote: Sounds like a last vanity project hurrah before York labour spends the next decade in opposition.[/p][/quote]No doubt after 6 months you'll be saying the same about the next administration - remember Steve Galloway/ Andrew Waller? Respark charges, Barbican pool closure, HQ and Arclight farce.... Its about time York residents realised that while some of the decisions have undoubtedly been wasteful, a lot is down to government cuts in funding and the low tax base. And what about the millions already spent on the incinerator, that still hasn't got enough funding (since the PFI money was withdrawn) and will drain council coffers for 25 years? greenmonkey
  • Score: -87

12:19am Tue 3 Jun 14

greenmonkey says...

Jalymo wrote:
If this Council gets the Local Plan through, the 22000 houses (mostly on Greenbelt Land), plus the ones conveniently kept out of the figures, that are in the pipeline, will mean at least 44,000 more people will be using the roads in or on some form of transport in York. Twenty miles an hour, dream on, it will be standstill, everywhere!!
Very true - if Cliftongate goes ahead 4,500 houses outside the ring road doesn't bear thinking about, even if the ring road was dualled. The three main parties keep pledging to dual the ring road but at £350m there's no way that could be paid for by a developer and the Leeds City region money is going to be going into their trolley bus scheme. Traffic impact will be bad enough when Germany Beck is built and that is just 650 houses.
[quote][p][bold]Jalymo[/bold] wrote: If this Council gets the Local Plan through, the 22000 houses (mostly on Greenbelt Land), plus the ones conveniently kept out of the figures, that are in the pipeline, will mean at least 44,000 more people will be using the roads in or on some form of transport in York. Twenty miles an hour, dream on, it will be standstill, everywhere!![/p][/quote]Very true - if Cliftongate goes ahead 4,500 houses outside the ring road doesn't bear thinking about, even if the ring road was dualled. The three main parties keep pledging to dual the ring road but at £350m there's no way that could be paid for by a developer and the Leeds City region money is going to be going into their trolley bus scheme. Traffic impact will be bad enough when Germany Beck is built and that is just 650 houses. greenmonkey
  • Score: -41

12:53am Tue 3 Jun 14

oi oi savaloy says...

still not listening to us are you labour council?
roll on next year, you lot are out!
still not listening to us are you labour council? roll on next year, you lot are out! oi oi savaloy
  • Score: -1558

4:02am Tue 3 Jun 14

Magicman! says...

The council's ruling Labour group says widespread 20 mph limits will make the streets safer and more accessible for pedestrians and cyclists

There's far better uses of the money though to get the same outcome.

For example, Stirling Road at Clifton Moor could have had the pavements moved back a bit onto what is current grassed areas which only get used for people letting their dogs poop there; then with the paement another 1m-1.5m further from the road, the original pavement could have then been turned into cycle route - or even had the paving itself removed and the bike lane put at road level but physically seperated from the road by raised kerbs... such as the city of Manchester has done along certain busy roads. Instead the council just painted on non-compliant cycle lanes on the road and made the pavement wider at the roundabout exits which now means every vehicle that comes off the roundabout swipes into the cycle lane (which will one day have catastrophic results). So the council did that and yet they say they're making things "safer for cyclists"... or what about the Minster Plazza? again, non-compliant design (not DDA compliant due to lack of tactile paving, plus pedestrian traffic levels are too high for such a mixed use design) which throwns pedestrians straight into the path of cyclists - meaning it's not really 'safer' for either group of people.

I'd rather see 20mph limits focused on ONLY where a reduced speed is needed (schools, playing fields, shop precints etc). But instead this council seems to just bumble along with random ideas as and when they get them, without actually thining if the idea is a good one and/or whether it flies in the face of other policies they have.
[quote]The council's ruling Labour group says widespread 20 mph limits will make the streets safer and more accessible for pedestrians and cyclists[/quote] There's far better uses of the money though to get the same outcome. For example, Stirling Road at Clifton Moor could have had the pavements moved back a bit onto what is current grassed areas which only get used for people letting their dogs poop there; then with the paement another 1m-1.5m further from the road, the original pavement could have then been turned into cycle route - or even had the paving itself removed and the bike lane put at road level but physically seperated from the road by raised kerbs... such as the city of Manchester has done along certain busy roads. Instead the council just painted on non-compliant cycle lanes on the road and made the pavement wider at the roundabout exits which now means every vehicle that comes off the roundabout swipes into the cycle lane (which will one day have catastrophic results). So the council did that and yet they say they're making things "safer for cyclists"... or what about the Minster Plazza? again, non-compliant design (not DDA compliant due to lack of tactile paving, plus pedestrian traffic levels are too high for such a mixed use design) which throwns pedestrians straight into the path of cyclists - meaning it's not really 'safer' for either group of people. I'd rather see 20mph limits focused on ONLY where a reduced speed is needed (schools, playing fields, shop precints etc). But instead this council seems to just bumble along with random ideas as and when they get them, without actually thining if the idea is a good one and/or whether it flies in the face of other policies they have. Magicman!
  • Score: -446

8:14am Tue 3 Jun 14

the original Homer says...

yorkshirelad wrote:
Yeah right...a democratically elected council implementing a policy...borderline criminal? What would be criminal would be any sane council taking heed of rants on local newspaper comment areas.

20mph in residential side streets is council policy; the council was elected by us; it's being implemented zone by zone..get used to it! And here's another thing...

I live in one of these 20mph zones...the world doesn't end - I promise. The 20mph signs don't blight my existance. I reckon cars drive a bit slower - sure, not all of them, but maybe enough that it's noticable. The limit itself is a fine one for residential side streets - the thuggish minority will ignore it of course but I reckon most people are now keeping at or under 20.

Here's another thing.. in general, my road's a bit quieter, a bit more pleasant. It's good. Nothing to dislike or fear...

So, more of these please. Ignore the whingers. 20 is the new normal for residential side streets and there will be no going back (point-scoring opportunistic politicians please note).
I have no objection to 20MPH limits in principle. They just need to be thought out and implemented in the right places.

What I object to is the absolute waste of money being spent on signs in cul-de-sacs where no-one has probably ever driven above 15MPH anyway. Cul-de-sacs leading off other 20MPH side roads are fine, as the signs will be on the boundary of the 20MPH zone anyway (and it would cost more to make those 30MPH). The stupid ones are where cul-de-sacs lead off from roads which are staying at 30/40MPH. We've seen the pictures of 20MPH signs on entrances to roads less than 50m long, and that is just a waste of money.

The manifesto was for 20MPH limits to improve safety, which I agree with. What we are getting though is money being wasted applying blanket/default 20MPH limits, and we didn't vote them in to do that.
[quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: Yeah right...a democratically elected council implementing a policy...borderline criminal? What would be criminal would be any sane council taking heed of rants on local newspaper comment areas. 20mph in residential side streets is council policy; the council was elected by us; it's being implemented zone by zone..get used to it! And here's another thing... I live in one of these 20mph zones...the world doesn't end - I promise. The 20mph signs don't blight my existance. I reckon cars drive a bit slower - sure, not all of them, but maybe enough that it's noticable. The limit itself is a fine one for residential side streets - the thuggish minority will ignore it of course but I reckon most people are now keeping at or under 20. Here's another thing.. in general, my road's a bit quieter, a bit more pleasant. It's good. Nothing to dislike or fear... So, more of these please. Ignore the whingers. 20 is the new normal for residential side streets and there will be no going back (point-scoring opportunistic politicians please note).[/p][/quote]I have no objection to 20MPH limits in principle. They just need to be thought out and implemented in the right places. What I object to is the absolute waste of money being spent on signs in cul-de-sacs where no-one has probably ever driven above 15MPH anyway. Cul-de-sacs leading off other 20MPH side roads are fine, as the signs will be on the boundary of the 20MPH zone anyway (and it would cost more to make those 30MPH). The stupid ones are where cul-de-sacs lead off from roads which are staying at 30/40MPH. We've seen the pictures of 20MPH signs on entrances to roads less than 50m long, and that is just a waste of money. The manifesto was for 20MPH limits to improve safety, which I agree with. What we are getting though is money being wasted applying blanket/default 20MPH limits, and we didn't vote them in to do that. the original Homer
  • Score: -35

9:28am Tue 3 Jun 14

again says...

Get the idiots out from behind the wheel and the problem will be solved.

Way to go, Google! I love your robotcar!!
Get the idiots out from behind the wheel and the problem will be solved. Way to go, Google! I love your robotcar!! again
  • Score: -57

9:38am Tue 3 Jun 14

Ignatius Lumpopo says...

Obviously it was a day for slow news...
Obviously it was a day for slow news... Ignatius Lumpopo
  • Score: -49

9:47am Tue 3 Jun 14

tobefair says...

These 20mph zones and CYC have one thing in common. No one takes any notice of them.
These 20mph zones and CYC have one thing in common. No one takes any notice of them. tobefair
  • Score: -18

10:18am Tue 3 Jun 14

rodney'sdog says...

Once again the air quality issue is ignored. The slower the traffic the more pollution.. And Yorks air continues to get poorer. Every city with extensive traffic calming is in the top ten for poor air quality. A 2 million increase from 5 to 7 million children suffering from chest and breathing complaints. Wait till York gets its first Smog cloud in this summers heat wave..you heard it here first.
Once again the air quality issue is ignored. The slower the traffic the more pollution.. And Yorks air continues to get poorer. Every city with extensive traffic calming is in the top ten for poor air quality. A 2 million increase from 5 to 7 million children suffering from chest and breathing complaints. Wait till York gets its first Smog cloud in this summers heat wave..you heard it here first. rodney'sdog
  • Score: -7

10:58am Tue 3 Jun 14

inthesticks says...

Happytoliveinyork wrote:
bloodaxe wrote:
Given that the standard of driving in York is deplorable: grilling red lights, speeding in 30 zones, ignoring pedestrian crossings, passing parked cars and crossing white lines in the face of oncoming traffic, parking on the pavement and cutting cyclists rather than slowing down because of oncoming traffic then any move which helps to make the life of cyclists, pedestrians and other road users safer is to be encouraged. As the time "saved" on urban journeys by driving as quickly as possible is negligible then I'll go with this. Anyway, it was in the manifesto, so further consultation is unnecessary. I speak as a two-car owner, cyclist and pedestrian, though I only drive one car at a time. Don't waste time marking this down, it's a foregone conclusion.
Thanks Cllr Crisp
Not sure about that; have you ever seen her on a bike? Plus she`s not usually that polite.
[quote][p][bold]Happytoliveinyork[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bloodaxe[/bold] wrote: Given that the standard of driving in York is deplorable: grilling red lights, speeding in 30 zones, ignoring pedestrian crossings, passing parked cars and crossing white lines in the face of oncoming traffic, parking on the pavement and cutting cyclists rather than slowing down because of oncoming traffic then any move which helps to make the life of cyclists, pedestrians and other road users safer is to be encouraged. As the time "saved" on urban journeys by driving as quickly as possible is negligible then I'll go with this. Anyway, it was in the manifesto, so further consultation is unnecessary. I speak as a two-car owner, cyclist and pedestrian, though I only drive one car at a time. Don't waste time marking this down, it's a foregone conclusion.[/p][/quote]Thanks Cllr Crisp[/p][/quote]Not sure about that; have you ever seen her on a bike? Plus she`s not usually that polite. inthesticks
  • Score: -49

11:02am Tue 3 Jun 14

inthesticks says...

Question. Has anyone who lives in a street with a 20 limit still got a leaflet from COYC? Does it state that you can object to the implementation of the zone?
Question. Has anyone who lives in a street with a 20 limit still got a leaflet from COYC? Does it state that you can object to the implementation of the zone? inthesticks
  • Score: -43

11:27am Tue 3 Jun 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

Regardless of the merits or not of such a scheme, the most important issue for me is that we the people of York shouldn't have to do the bidding of one dogged and persistent woman.
No to Anna Semlyen!
Regardless of the merits or not of such a scheme, the most important issue for me is that we the people of York shouldn't have to do the bidding of one dogged and persistent woman. No to Anna Semlyen! Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: -29

11:44am Tue 3 Jun 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

Sick of this now... I might as well make us a laughing stock and take photos of around 30 streets that have been made an eyesore by the female version of Hitler...

Get ready for a submission to the national newspapers to show them how much money is being wasted on common sense driving! its like the health and safety pic with just signs everywhere!

Anyone visiting york must think these lot must be d@ckheads with all these 20mph signs... see if the nationals want to make a joke of it... i would with the current focus on budget savings and cuts! yet 500k wasted on this sh@te...
Sick of this now... I might as well make us a laughing stock and take photos of around 30 streets that have been made an eyesore by the female version of Hitler... Get ready for a submission to the national newspapers to show them how much money is being wasted on common sense driving! its like the health and safety pic with just signs everywhere! Anyone visiting york must think these lot must be d@ckheads with all these 20mph signs... see if the nationals want to make a joke of it... i would with the current focus on budget savings and cuts! yet 500k wasted on this sh@te... Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -11

11:47am Tue 3 Jun 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

rodney'sdog wrote:
Once again the air quality issue is ignored. The slower the traffic the more pollution.. And Yorks air continues to get poorer. Every city with extensive traffic calming is in the top ten for poor air quality. A 2 million increase from 5 to 7 million children suffering from chest and breathing complaints. Wait till York gets its first Smog cloud in this summers heat wave..you heard it here first.
fully agree! most cars have to run in 2nd gear at 20mph to avoid stalling in third... this 2nd gear approach means the car is at high revs stopping and starting over bumps which creates more emissions... Increases noise too...
[quote][p][bold]rodney'sdog[/bold] wrote: Once again the air quality issue is ignored. The slower the traffic the more pollution.. And Yorks air continues to get poorer. Every city with extensive traffic calming is in the top ten for poor air quality. A 2 million increase from 5 to 7 million children suffering from chest and breathing complaints. Wait till York gets its first Smog cloud in this summers heat wave..you heard it here first.[/p][/quote]fully agree! most cars have to run in 2nd gear at 20mph to avoid stalling in third... this 2nd gear approach means the car is at high revs stopping and starting over bumps which creates more emissions... Increases noise too... Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -19

12:52pm Tue 3 Jun 14

MorkofYork says...

henleazeyorkie wrote:
MorkofYork wrote:
Saying people drive at 25 just shows the contempt for the scheme. I would guess they were driving around at 25 anyway.

The scores are getting insta marked down tonight. The press need to sort this out. I've seen the scores stuck at 0 before in certain threads so i think it's possible to switch them off.
It's not right that one person should be forcing their opinion over the rest of us.
It's a fair point, but trust me the majority have slowed down. Sounds daft, both the proposal and what has become an obvious outcome, but actually it is better.
I don't believe it. It's too easy for them to fudge the measurments. I think the more they are use in places where they're unnecessary the more likely people are to ignore them generally.

25mph is a very common speed on our roads.

Your first post reads like it was scripted by Semlyen herself, i assume you're associated with 20's plenty or someone who's been "mobilized" ?
[quote][p][bold]henleazeyorkie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MorkofYork[/bold] wrote: Saying people drive at 25 just shows the contempt for the scheme. I would guess they were driving around at 25 anyway. The scores are getting insta marked down tonight. The press need to sort this out. I've seen the scores stuck at 0 before in certain threads so i think it's possible to switch them off. It's not right that one person should be forcing their opinion over the rest of us.[/p][/quote]It's a fair point, but trust me the majority have slowed down. Sounds daft, both the proposal and what has become an obvious outcome, but actually it is better.[/p][/quote]I don't believe it. It's too easy for them to fudge the measurments. I think the more they are use in places where they're unnecessary the more likely people are to ignore them generally. 25mph is a very common speed on our roads. Your first post reads like it was scripted by Semlyen herself, i assume you're associated with 20's plenty or someone who's been "mobilized" ? MorkofYork
  • Score: -48

1:17pm Tue 3 Jun 14

Dave Taylor says...

The proposal for 20mph zones in Fishergate were hugely well-supported when a proper consultation was undertaken there. The section on the main road is slower now, outside the two primary schools. Councils of all political colours up and down the country are adopting 20mph as the standard in residential areas and in Europe the 30kmh limit (roughly 20mph) is commonplace. I'm sure we'll all get used to it, as we have got used to wearing seatbelts, despite the clamour against them when they were first introduced.
The proposal for 20mph zones in Fishergate were hugely well-supported when a proper consultation was undertaken there. The section on the main road is slower now, outside the two primary schools. Councils of all political colours up and down the country are adopting 20mph as the standard in residential areas and in Europe the 30kmh limit (roughly 20mph) is commonplace. I'm sure we'll all get used to it, as we have got used to wearing seatbelts, despite the clamour against them when they were first introduced. Dave Taylor
  • Score: -117

2:42pm Tue 3 Jun 14

greenmonkey says...

rodney'sdog wrote:
Once again the air quality issue is ignored. The slower the traffic the more pollution.. And Yorks air continues to get poorer. Every city with extensive traffic calming is in the top ten for poor air quality. A 2 million increase from 5 to 7 million children suffering from chest and breathing complaints. Wait till York gets its first Smog cloud in this summers heat wave..you heard it here first.
Not true actually - more pollution and CO2 created by traffic speeding up to 30mph then braking sharply and waiting at traffic lights than travelling smoothly at 20mph and spending less time waiting at the lights. Also, even more pollution cut if the slower speeds encourage more people to get on their bikes or walk to the local shops rather than jump in the car.
[quote][p][bold]rodney'sdog[/bold] wrote: Once again the air quality issue is ignored. The slower the traffic the more pollution.. And Yorks air continues to get poorer. Every city with extensive traffic calming is in the top ten for poor air quality. A 2 million increase from 5 to 7 million children suffering from chest and breathing complaints. Wait till York gets its first Smog cloud in this summers heat wave..you heard it here first.[/p][/quote]Not true actually - more pollution and CO2 created by traffic speeding up to 30mph then braking sharply and waiting at traffic lights than travelling smoothly at 20mph and spending less time waiting at the lights. Also, even more pollution cut if the slower speeds encourage more people to get on their bikes or walk to the local shops rather than jump in the car. greenmonkey
  • Score: -118

4:35pm Tue 3 Jun 14

notpedallingpaul says...

bloodaxe wrote:
Given that the standard of driving in York is deplorable: grilling red lights, speeding in 30 zones, ignoring pedestrian crossings, passing parked cars and crossing white lines in the face of oncoming traffic, parking on the pavement and cutting cyclists rather than slowing down because of oncoming traffic then any move which helps to make the life of cyclists, pedestrians and other road users safer is to be encouraged. As the time "saved" on urban journeys by driving as quickly as possible is negligible then I'll go with this. Anyway, it was in the manifesto, so further consultation is unnecessary. I speak as a two-car owner, cyclist and pedestrian, though I only drive one car at a time. Don't waste time marking this down, it's a foregone conclusion.
What parts of york do you drive in?, I certainly don't recognise it and I drive most days, do you think you are over egging the pudding some what?, as for the 20's plenty I will not even bother to comment!
[quote][p][bold]bloodaxe[/bold] wrote: Given that the standard of driving in York is deplorable: grilling red lights, speeding in 30 zones, ignoring pedestrian crossings, passing parked cars and crossing white lines in the face of oncoming traffic, parking on the pavement and cutting cyclists rather than slowing down because of oncoming traffic then any move which helps to make the life of cyclists, pedestrians and other road users safer is to be encouraged. As the time "saved" on urban journeys by driving as quickly as possible is negligible then I'll go with this. Anyway, it was in the manifesto, so further consultation is unnecessary. I speak as a two-car owner, cyclist and pedestrian, though I only drive one car at a time. Don't waste time marking this down, it's a foregone conclusion.[/p][/quote]What parts of york do you drive in?, I certainly don't recognise it and I drive most days, do you think you are over egging the pudding some what?, as for the 20's plenty I will not even bother to comment! notpedallingpaul
  • Score: -138

4:46pm Tue 3 Jun 14

notpedallingpaul says...

Jack Ham wrote:
bloodaxe wrote:
Young the Southbanker wrote:
D'you ever get the impression the councillor on the cabinet have got their fingers in their ears and are just shouting 'LaLaLaLaLaLa".



A law or rule that is unenforceable, uneccessary, wasteful and unwanted will not be respected; demeaning what respect there is for the law.
The Bridge fiasco lessons have not been learnt.
Lendal Bridge may have been unpopular; that doesn't, per se, make it wrong.
Oh dear. That attitude shows the contempt cabinet members have for residents opinions and is EXACTLY why you will lose control of CYC next year.

It does seem that the closer we get to May 2015 the more deluded this administration becomes. A few of the back benchers can see what's coming but the rest of you have isolated yourselves so far from reality I do believe you think you're doing a good job!

With Anna Semlyn no longer standing for re-election surely it's now time to quietly drop this expensive and poorly supported policy. At a time when Labour a choosing to increase fees, make redundancies, cancel gritting and sell off what's left of our prize assets is this really the time for such nonsense?

And before you say it.....the cuts are NOT a direct consequence of central government cuts. They could all have been easily avoided if you had behaved more responsibly and put public service before personal vanity.
What! Anna the '20's plenty' queen not standing for re-election, must be too busy with her property portfolio and yoga business just like a good little socialist.
[quote][p][bold]Jack Ham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bloodaxe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Young the Southbanker[/bold] wrote: D'you ever get the impression the councillor on the cabinet have got their fingers in their ears and are just shouting 'LaLaLaLaLaLa". A law or rule that is unenforceable, uneccessary, wasteful and unwanted will not be respected; demeaning what respect there is for the law. The Bridge fiasco lessons have not been learnt.[/p][/quote]Lendal Bridge may have been unpopular; that doesn't, per se, make it wrong.[/p][/quote]Oh dear. That attitude shows the contempt cabinet members have for residents opinions and is EXACTLY why you will lose control of CYC next year. It does seem that the closer we get to May 2015 the more deluded this administration becomes. A few of the back benchers can see what's coming but the rest of you have isolated yourselves so far from reality I do believe you think you're doing a good job! With Anna Semlyn no longer standing for re-election surely it's now time to quietly drop this expensive and poorly supported policy. At a time when Labour a choosing to increase fees, make redundancies, cancel gritting and sell off what's left of our prize assets is this really the time for such nonsense? And before you say it.....the cuts are NOT a direct consequence of central government cuts. They could all have been easily avoided if you had behaved more responsibly and put public service before personal vanity.[/p][/quote]What! Anna the '20's plenty' queen not standing for re-election, must be too busy with her property portfolio and yoga business just like a good little socialist. notpedallingpaul
  • Score: -134

5:24pm Tue 3 Jun 14

Caecilius says...

notpedallingpaul wrote:
bloodaxe wrote:
Given that the standard of driving in York is deplorable: grilling red lights, speeding in 30 zones, ignoring pedestrian crossings, passing parked cars and crossing white lines in the face of oncoming traffic, parking on the pavement and cutting cyclists rather than slowing down because of oncoming traffic then any move which helps to make the life of cyclists, pedestrians and other road users safer is to be encouraged. As the time "saved" on urban journeys by driving as quickly as possible is negligible then I'll go with this. Anyway, it was in the manifesto, so further consultation is unnecessary. I speak as a two-car owner, cyclist and pedestrian, though I only drive one car at a time. Don't waste time marking this down, it's a foregone conclusion.
What parts of york do you drive in?, I certainly don't recognise it and I drive most days, do you think you are over egging the pudding some what?, as for the 20's plenty I will not even bother to comment!
I suggest you don't recognise it because you don't want to. I see the behaviour that bloodaxe is describing on a daily basis. Nearly every day, there's a report in the Press of one or more RTAs in this area - why do you think the majority of them happen?
[quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bloodaxe[/bold] wrote: Given that the standard of driving in York is deplorable: grilling red lights, speeding in 30 zones, ignoring pedestrian crossings, passing parked cars and crossing white lines in the face of oncoming traffic, parking on the pavement and cutting cyclists rather than slowing down because of oncoming traffic then any move which helps to make the life of cyclists, pedestrians and other road users safer is to be encouraged. As the time "saved" on urban journeys by driving as quickly as possible is negligible then I'll go with this. Anyway, it was in the manifesto, so further consultation is unnecessary. I speak as a two-car owner, cyclist and pedestrian, though I only drive one car at a time. Don't waste time marking this down, it's a foregone conclusion.[/p][/quote]What parts of york do you drive in?, I certainly don't recognise it and I drive most days, do you think you are over egging the pudding some what?, as for the 20's plenty I will not even bother to comment![/p][/quote]I suggest you don't recognise it because you don't want to. I see the behaviour that bloodaxe is describing on a daily basis. Nearly every day, there's a report in the Press of one or more RTAs in this area - why do you think the majority of them happen? Caecilius
  • Score: -220

6:00pm Tue 3 Jun 14

WhyEver says...

greenmonkey wrote:
rodney'sdog wrote:
Once again the air quality issue is ignored. The slower the traffic the more pollution.. And Yorks air continues to get poorer. Every city with extensive traffic calming is in the top ten for poor air quality. A 2 million increase from 5 to 7 million children suffering from chest and breathing complaints. Wait till York gets its first Smog cloud in this summers heat wave..you heard it here first.
Not true actually - more pollution and CO2 created by traffic speeding up to 30mph then braking sharply and waiting at traffic lights than travelling smoothly at 20mph and spending less time waiting at the lights. Also, even more pollution cut if the slower speeds encourage more people to get on their bikes or walk to the local shops rather than jump in the car.
How does reducing the speed limit change the traffic light timings? I agree with your accelerating/braking point, but not the rest.
[quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rodney'sdog[/bold] wrote: Once again the air quality issue is ignored. The slower the traffic the more pollution.. And Yorks air continues to get poorer. Every city with extensive traffic calming is in the top ten for poor air quality. A 2 million increase from 5 to 7 million children suffering from chest and breathing complaints. Wait till York gets its first Smog cloud in this summers heat wave..you heard it here first.[/p][/quote]Not true actually - more pollution and CO2 created by traffic speeding up to 30mph then braking sharply and waiting at traffic lights than travelling smoothly at 20mph and spending less time waiting at the lights. Also, even more pollution cut if the slower speeds encourage more people to get on their bikes or walk to the local shops rather than jump in the car.[/p][/quote]How does reducing the speed limit change the traffic light timings? I agree with your accelerating/braking point, but not the rest. WhyEver
  • Score: -141

6:36pm Tue 3 Jun 14

notpedallingpaul says...

Caecilius wrote:
notpedallingpaul wrote:
bloodaxe wrote:
Given that the standard of driving in York is deplorable: grilling red lights, speeding in 30 zones, ignoring pedestrian crossings, passing parked cars and crossing white lines in the face of oncoming traffic, parking on the pavement and cutting cyclists rather than slowing down because of oncoming traffic then any move which helps to make the life of cyclists, pedestrians and other road users safer is to be encouraged. As the time "saved" on urban journeys by driving as quickly as possible is negligible then I'll go with this. Anyway, it was in the manifesto, so further consultation is unnecessary. I speak as a two-car owner, cyclist and pedestrian, though I only drive one car at a time. Don't waste time marking this down, it's a foregone conclusion.
What parts of york do you drive in?, I certainly don't recognise it and I drive most days, do you think you are over egging the pudding some what?, as for the 20's plenty I will not even bother to comment!
I suggest you don't recognise it because you don't want to. I see the behaviour that bloodaxe is describing on a daily basis. Nearly every day, there's a report in the Press of one or more RTAs in this area - why do you think the majority of them happen?
Rubbish, rubbish and more rubbish, another one who over eggs the pudding, if it was as bad as you describe then most people wouldn't venture out of the house, your probably like Anna '20's plenty' who once got knocked off her bike so the storey goes, you've probably had a similar experience and now blame car drivers in the main, as I said I drive most days and I don't see the many road traffic accidents you witness, if it's as bad as you claim it to be then the majority of your time must be taken up giving statements to the police.
[quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bloodaxe[/bold] wrote: Given that the standard of driving in York is deplorable: grilling red lights, speeding in 30 zones, ignoring pedestrian crossings, passing parked cars and crossing white lines in the face of oncoming traffic, parking on the pavement and cutting cyclists rather than slowing down because of oncoming traffic then any move which helps to make the life of cyclists, pedestrians and other road users safer is to be encouraged. As the time "saved" on urban journeys by driving as quickly as possible is negligible then I'll go with this. Anyway, it was in the manifesto, so further consultation is unnecessary. I speak as a two-car owner, cyclist and pedestrian, though I only drive one car at a time. Don't waste time marking this down, it's a foregone conclusion.[/p][/quote]What parts of york do you drive in?, I certainly don't recognise it and I drive most days, do you think you are over egging the pudding some what?, as for the 20's plenty I will not even bother to comment![/p][/quote]I suggest you don't recognise it because you don't want to. I see the behaviour that bloodaxe is describing on a daily basis. Nearly every day, there's a report in the Press of one or more RTAs in this area - why do you think the majority of them happen?[/p][/quote]Rubbish, rubbish and more rubbish, another one who over eggs the pudding, if it was as bad as you describe then most people wouldn't venture out of the house, your probably like Anna '20's plenty' who once got knocked off her bike so the storey goes, you've probably had a similar experience and now blame car drivers in the main, as I said I drive most days and I don't see the many road traffic accidents you witness, if it's as bad as you claim it to be then the majority of your time must be taken up giving statements to the police. notpedallingpaul
  • Score: -60

6:40pm Tue 3 Jun 14

notpedallingpaul says...

notpedallingpaul wrote:
Caecilius wrote:
notpedallingpaul wrote:
bloodaxe wrote:
Given that the standard of driving in York is deplorable: grilling red lights, speeding in 30 zones, ignoring pedestrian crossings, passing parked cars and crossing white lines in the face of oncoming traffic, parking on the pavement and cutting cyclists rather than slowing down because of oncoming traffic then any move which helps to make the life of cyclists, pedestrians and other road users safer is to be encouraged. As the time "saved" on urban journeys by driving as quickly as possible is negligible then I'll go with this. Anyway, it was in the manifesto, so further consultation is unnecessary. I speak as a two-car owner, cyclist and pedestrian, though I only drive one car at a time. Don't waste time marking this down, it's a foregone conclusion.
What parts of york do you drive in?, I certainly don't recognise it and I drive most days, do you think you are over egging the pudding some what?, as for the 20's plenty I will not even bother to comment!
I suggest you don't recognise it because you don't want to. I see the behaviour that bloodaxe is describing on a daily basis. Nearly every day, there's a report in the Press of one or more RTAs in this area - why do you think the majority of them happen?
Rubbish, rubbish and more rubbish, another one who over eggs the pudding, if it was as bad as you describe then most people wouldn't venture out of the house, your probably like Anna '20's plenty' who once got knocked off her bike so the storey goes, you've probably had a similar experience and now blame car drivers in the main, as I said I drive most days and I don't see the many road traffic accidents you witness, if it's as bad as you claim it to be then the majority of your time must be taken up giving statements to the police.
I should have added that I have a camera mounted in my car, which records every journey that I make so I can with confidence say that your making a mountain out of a mole hill!.
[quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bloodaxe[/bold] wrote: Given that the standard of driving in York is deplorable: grilling red lights, speeding in 30 zones, ignoring pedestrian crossings, passing parked cars and crossing white lines in the face of oncoming traffic, parking on the pavement and cutting cyclists rather than slowing down because of oncoming traffic then any move which helps to make the life of cyclists, pedestrians and other road users safer is to be encouraged. As the time "saved" on urban journeys by driving as quickly as possible is negligible then I'll go with this. Anyway, it was in the manifesto, so further consultation is unnecessary. I speak as a two-car owner, cyclist and pedestrian, though I only drive one car at a time. Don't waste time marking this down, it's a foregone conclusion.[/p][/quote]What parts of york do you drive in?, I certainly don't recognise it and I drive most days, do you think you are over egging the pudding some what?, as for the 20's plenty I will not even bother to comment![/p][/quote]I suggest you don't recognise it because you don't want to. I see the behaviour that bloodaxe is describing on a daily basis. Nearly every day, there's a report in the Press of one or more RTAs in this area - why do you think the majority of them happen?[/p][/quote]Rubbish, rubbish and more rubbish, another one who over eggs the pudding, if it was as bad as you describe then most people wouldn't venture out of the house, your probably like Anna '20's plenty' who once got knocked off her bike so the storey goes, you've probably had a similar experience and now blame car drivers in the main, as I said I drive most days and I don't see the many road traffic accidents you witness, if it's as bad as you claim it to be then the majority of your time must be taken up giving statements to the police.[/p][/quote]I should have added that I have a camera mounted in my car, which records every journey that I make so I can with confidence say that your making a mountain out of a mole hill!. notpedallingpaul
  • Score: -119

7:15pm Tue 3 Jun 14

greenmonkey says...

WhyEver wrote:
greenmonkey wrote:
rodney'sdog wrote:
Once again the air quality issue is ignored. The slower the traffic the more pollution.. And Yorks air continues to get poorer. Every city with extensive traffic calming is in the top ten for poor air quality. A 2 million increase from 5 to 7 million children suffering from chest and breathing complaints. Wait till York gets its first Smog cloud in this summers heat wave..you heard it here first.
Not true actually - more pollution and CO2 created by traffic speeding up to 30mph then braking sharply and waiting at traffic lights than travelling smoothly at 20mph and spending less time waiting at the lights. Also, even more pollution cut if the slower speeds encourage more people to get on their bikes or walk to the local shops rather than jump in the car.
How does reducing the speed limit change the traffic light timings? I agree with your accelerating/braking point, but not the rest.
Doesn't change the light timing, but when on my bike Im often passed by cars that I catch up at the next lights where they have been sat for 20 secs longer, waiting for green with engine running, having accelerated to get past me 300 yards back down the road. Sure it wont happen every time, but smoother more patient driving must save fuel compared with lots of accelerating and braking.
[quote][p][bold]WhyEver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rodney'sdog[/bold] wrote: Once again the air quality issue is ignored. The slower the traffic the more pollution.. And Yorks air continues to get poorer. Every city with extensive traffic calming is in the top ten for poor air quality. A 2 million increase from 5 to 7 million children suffering from chest and breathing complaints. Wait till York gets its first Smog cloud in this summers heat wave..you heard it here first.[/p][/quote]Not true actually - more pollution and CO2 created by traffic speeding up to 30mph then braking sharply and waiting at traffic lights than travelling smoothly at 20mph and spending less time waiting at the lights. Also, even more pollution cut if the slower speeds encourage more people to get on their bikes or walk to the local shops rather than jump in the car.[/p][/quote]How does reducing the speed limit change the traffic light timings? I agree with your accelerating/braking point, but not the rest.[/p][/quote]Doesn't change the light timing, but when on my bike Im often passed by cars that I catch up at the next lights where they have been sat for 20 secs longer, waiting for green with engine running, having accelerated to get past me 300 yards back down the road. Sure it wont happen every time, but smoother more patient driving must save fuel compared with lots of accelerating and braking. greenmonkey
  • Score: 43

7:35pm Tue 3 Jun 14

greenmonkey says...

strangebuttrue? wrote:
A complete waste of money. The average speed achievable in York is well under 20mph due to the anti car measures put in place causing vehicles to be either slowing down or accelerating and using 400% more fuel than they would otherwise. "Reducing accidents" what about the pollution the council are creating, to which this farce will add, which they also say kills far more residents in a year than accidents cause in a decade?
Actually, the council doesn't create any pollution from cars - its the people driving them and leaving their engine idling in queues even though its obvious that there are already too many cars clogging up the road in front of them and nothing is moving. I don't see them as 'anti car' measures more pro walking cycling and public transport measures. If you want to save fuel and pollution change your route, time of journey or mode of travel, then you become part of the solution not part of the problem. 'Accidents' are more often than not the result of two people in whatever mode of transport not paying enough attention to where they are going or not anticipating the movements of each other. Only thing is the car driver is in charge of a lethal piece of machinery - slowing that reduces the risk of impact and reduces the severity if there is an impact. Basic physics. On open main roads out of urban areas, fine, drive faster according to the conditions because there are fewer conflicting movements, less risk of collisions. It is all a balance of convenience for the road user against safety for the more vulnerable road user, but moving towards 20mph maximum on our residential streets in an investment in future generations and a more civilised environment for those who don't have access to a car, for young and the elderly.
[quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: A complete waste of money. The average speed achievable in York is well under 20mph due to the anti car measures put in place causing vehicles to be either slowing down or accelerating and using 400% more fuel than they would otherwise. "Reducing accidents" what about the pollution the council are creating, to which this farce will add, which they also say kills far more residents in a year than accidents cause in a decade?[/p][/quote]Actually, the council doesn't create any pollution from cars - its the people driving them and leaving their engine idling in queues even though its obvious that there are already too many cars clogging up the road in front of them and nothing is moving. I don't see them as 'anti car' measures more pro walking cycling and public transport measures. If you want to save fuel and pollution change your route, time of journey or mode of travel, then you become part of the solution not part of the problem. 'Accidents' are more often than not the result of two people in whatever mode of transport not paying enough attention to where they are going or not anticipating the movements of each other. Only thing is the car driver is in charge of a lethal piece of machinery - slowing that reduces the risk of impact and reduces the severity if there is an impact. Basic physics. On open main roads out of urban areas, fine, drive faster according to the conditions because there are fewer conflicting movements, less risk of collisions. It is all a balance of convenience for the road user against safety for the more vulnerable road user, but moving towards 20mph maximum on our residential streets in an investment in future generations and a more civilised environment for those who don't have access to a car, for young and the elderly. greenmonkey
  • Score: 47

9:59pm Tue 3 Jun 14

mike.......durkin says...

20mph waist f time thay still put there foot dawn and jump over the humps .
and melrosegat at times some race or rally going about 90mph and thay get
away whith it..its to slow it will conk out
20mph waist f time thay still put there foot dawn and jump over the humps . and melrosegat at times some race or rally going about 90mph and thay get away whith it..its to slow it will conk out mike.......durkin
  • Score: -74

9:59pm Tue 3 Jun 14

mike.......durkin says...

20mph waist f time thay still put there foot dawn and jump over the humps .
and melrosegate at times some race or rally going about 90mph and thay get
away whith it..its to slow it will conk out
20mph waist f time thay still put there foot dawn and jump over the humps . and melrosegate at times some race or rally going about 90mph and thay get away whith it..its to slow it will conk out mike.......durkin
  • Score: -80

8:23am Wed 4 Jun 14

thinkingoutsidethebox says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
Sick of this now... I might as well make us a laughing stock and take photos of around 30 streets that have been made an eyesore by the female version of Hitler...

Get ready for a submission to the national newspapers to show them how much money is being wasted on common sense driving! its like the health and safety pic with just signs everywhere!

Anyone visiting york must think these lot must be d@ckheads with all these 20mph signs... see if the nationals want to make a joke of it... i would with the current focus on budget savings and cuts! yet 500k wasted on this sh@te...
I so agree.........a terrible waste of money!! I thought there had been a move to de-clutter us from all this unnecessary signage. And truly the idiots who drive way too fast probably don't see the signs in their hurry and are never going to take any notice of them anyway, Credit the majority of us with more common sense and stop wasting money on morons
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: Sick of this now... I might as well make us a laughing stock and take photos of around 30 streets that have been made an eyesore by the female version of Hitler... Get ready for a submission to the national newspapers to show them how much money is being wasted on common sense driving! its like the health and safety pic with just signs everywhere! Anyone visiting york must think these lot must be d@ckheads with all these 20mph signs... see if the nationals want to make a joke of it... i would with the current focus on budget savings and cuts! yet 500k wasted on this sh@te...[/p][/quote]I so agree.........a terrible waste of money!! I thought there had been a move to de-clutter us from all this unnecessary signage. And truly the idiots who drive way too fast probably don't see the signs in their hurry and are never going to take any notice of them anyway, Credit the majority of us with more common sense and stop wasting money on morons thinkingoutsidethebox
  • Score: -16

12:53pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Minguel says...

I recently visited friends and family in York having moved away a few years ago. The speed restriction situation is a joke!!! Most of the time behind the wheel is spent trying to spot randon speed signs and glancing at the speedometer to make sure you're not going to get a fine through the door. It's so much more dangerous. Whoever the clown is in charge now, kick him/her out!
I recently visited friends and family in York having moved away a few years ago. The speed restriction situation is a joke!!! Most of the time behind the wheel is spent trying to spot randon speed signs and glancing at the speedometer to make sure you're not going to get a fine through the door. It's so much more dangerous. Whoever the clown is in charge now, kick him/her out! Minguel
  • Score: -26

7:34pm Wed 4 Jun 14

notpedallingpaul says...

With regard to the '20's plenty' scheme, I have just had a leaflet pushed through my letter box this evening telling me about the scheme, as I was a bit puzzled I went outside and looked at the lighting column opposite my house and yes my eyes did not deceive me, there was already a '20' disc fixed to it, does that mean the council will now remove the old one and replace it with a new one?
With regard to the '20's plenty' scheme, I have just had a leaflet pushed through my letter box this evening telling me about the scheme, as I was a bit puzzled I went outside and looked at the lighting column opposite my house and yes my eyes did not deceive me, there was already a '20' disc fixed to it, does that mean the council will now remove the old one and replace it with a new one? notpedallingpaul
  • Score: -17

8:07pm Wed 4 Jun 14

inthesticks says...

notpedallingpaul wrote:
With regard to the '20's plenty' scheme, I have just had a leaflet pushed through my letter box this evening telling me about the scheme, as I was a bit puzzled I went outside and looked at the lighting column opposite my house and yes my eyes did not deceive me, there was already a '20' disc fixed to it, does that mean the council will now remove the old one and replace it with a new one?
npp - does the leaflet tell you that you can object, because David Lavene seemed to be saying it gave that information on COYC leaflets?
[quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: With regard to the '20's plenty' scheme, I have just had a leaflet pushed through my letter box this evening telling me about the scheme, as I was a bit puzzled I went outside and looked at the lighting column opposite my house and yes my eyes did not deceive me, there was already a '20' disc fixed to it, does that mean the council will now remove the old one and replace it with a new one?[/p][/quote]npp - does the leaflet tell you that you can object, because David Lavene seemed to be saying it gave that information on COYC leaflets? inthesticks
  • Score: -19

8:11pm Wed 4 Jun 14

inthesticks says...

PCC Julia Mulligan just said this on her live webchat. Quote "Generally, I'm supportive especially around schools however there are national enforcement guidelines that are set out which mean without combining engineering measures with the speed limits the police won't routinely enforce"
PCC Julia Mulligan just said this on her live webchat. Quote "Generally, I'm supportive especially around schools however there are national enforcement guidelines that are set out which mean without combining engineering measures with the speed limits the police won't routinely enforce" inthesticks
  • Score: -10

9:33pm Wed 4 Jun 14

notpedallingpaul says...

inthesticks wrote:
notpedallingpaul wrote:
With regard to the '20's plenty' scheme, I have just had a leaflet pushed through my letter box this evening telling me about the scheme, as I was a bit puzzled I went outside and looked at the lighting column opposite my house and yes my eyes did not deceive me, there was already a '20' disc fixed to it, does that mean the council will now remove the old one and replace it with a new one?
npp - does the leaflet tell you that you can object, because David Lavene seemed to be saying it gave that information on COYC leaflets?
It says - This is a statutory legal process for any change of speed limit. Representation can be made to the council if there are any specific issues which it is felt should modify or stop the order from being made.

Then it just tells you to refer to notices going up or at the council web site.
[quote][p][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: With regard to the '20's plenty' scheme, I have just had a leaflet pushed through my letter box this evening telling me about the scheme, as I was a bit puzzled I went outside and looked at the lighting column opposite my house and yes my eyes did not deceive me, there was already a '20' disc fixed to it, does that mean the council will now remove the old one and replace it with a new one?[/p][/quote]npp - does the leaflet tell you that you can object, because David Lavene seemed to be saying it gave that information on COYC leaflets?[/p][/quote]It says - This is a statutory legal process for any change of speed limit. Representation can be made to the council if there are any specific issues which it is felt should modify or stop the order from being made. Then it just tells you to refer to notices going up or at the council web site. notpedallingpaul
  • Score: 4

10:20pm Wed 4 Jun 14

inthesticks says...

notpedallingpaul wrote:
inthesticks wrote:
notpedallingpaul wrote:
With regard to the '20's plenty' scheme, I have just had a leaflet pushed through my letter box this evening telling me about the scheme, as I was a bit puzzled I went outside and looked at the lighting column opposite my house and yes my eyes did not deceive me, there was already a '20' disc fixed to it, does that mean the council will now remove the old one and replace it with a new one?
npp - does the leaflet tell you that you can object, because David Lavene seemed to be saying it gave that information on COYC leaflets?
It says - This is a statutory legal process for any change of speed limit. Representation can be made to the council if there are any specific issues which it is felt should modify or stop the order from being made.

Then it just tells you to refer to notices going up or at the council web site.
OK, thanks for that. It does make it sound like you shouldn`t bother even trying unless you have a really good reason. No wonder people havn`t bothered. - Over to you David Levene.
[quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: With regard to the '20's plenty' scheme, I have just had a leaflet pushed through my letter box this evening telling me about the scheme, as I was a bit puzzled I went outside and looked at the lighting column opposite my house and yes my eyes did not deceive me, there was already a '20' disc fixed to it, does that mean the council will now remove the old one and replace it with a new one?[/p][/quote]npp - does the leaflet tell you that you can object, because David Lavene seemed to be saying it gave that information on COYC leaflets?[/p][/quote]It says - This is a statutory legal process for any change of speed limit. Representation can be made to the council if there are any specific issues which it is felt should modify or stop the order from being made. Then it just tells you to refer to notices going up or at the council web site.[/p][/quote]OK, thanks for that. It does make it sound like you shouldn`t bother even trying unless you have a really good reason. No wonder people havn`t bothered. - Over to you David Levene. inthesticks
  • Score: 2

10:45pm Wed 4 Jun 14

inthesticks says...

inthesticks wrote:
notpedallingpaul wrote:
inthesticks wrote:
notpedallingpaul wrote:
With regard to the '20's plenty' scheme, I have just had a leaflet pushed through my letter box this evening telling me about the scheme, as I was a bit puzzled I went outside and looked at the lighting column opposite my house and yes my eyes did not deceive me, there was already a '20' disc fixed to it, does that mean the council will now remove the old one and replace it with a new one?
npp - does the leaflet tell you that you can object, because David Lavene seemed to be saying it gave that information on COYC leaflets?
It says - This is a statutory legal process for any change of speed limit. Representation can be made to the council if there are any specific issues which it is felt should modify or stop the order from being made.

Then it just tells you to refer to notices going up or at the council web site.
OK, thanks for that. It does make it sound like you shouldn`t bother even trying unless you have a really good reason. No wonder people havn`t bothered. - Over to you David Levene.
David said on twitter this week that they only had a few people who had objected. My point is that it hasn`t been made clear to people how to object. He said it was in press releases but having looked for articles in York Press about the 20mph limit I havn`t seen any published information about that. There is a traffic order within the pages of COYC website and it does say within that that you can object; but how many people have the time or inclination to go searching for every legal document on a hard to navigate website, especially if they don`t know it exists?
Now having had the wording spelled out on the leaflets residents have had it is clear that it is not actually a consultation, just legal wording that implies that you have to have a good reason but we have just gone ahead anyway. - As in the case of notpedallingpaul, who finds he already has a sign opposite his house.
Take a ride up from the Ainsty to Beckfield Lane end and see how untidy it looks at each street end with all the signage; and Julia Mulligan seems to be saying police wont enforce it; so any point Rod King/Anna Semlyen?
[quote][p][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: With regard to the '20's plenty' scheme, I have just had a leaflet pushed through my letter box this evening telling me about the scheme, as I was a bit puzzled I went outside and looked at the lighting column opposite my house and yes my eyes did not deceive me, there was already a '20' disc fixed to it, does that mean the council will now remove the old one and replace it with a new one?[/p][/quote]npp - does the leaflet tell you that you can object, because David Lavene seemed to be saying it gave that information on COYC leaflets?[/p][/quote]It says - This is a statutory legal process for any change of speed limit. Representation can be made to the council if there are any specific issues which it is felt should modify or stop the order from being made. Then it just tells you to refer to notices going up or at the council web site.[/p][/quote]OK, thanks for that. It does make it sound like you shouldn`t bother even trying unless you have a really good reason. No wonder people havn`t bothered. - Over to you David Levene.[/p][/quote]David said on twitter this week that they only had a few people who had objected. My point is that it hasn`t been made clear to people how to object. He said it was in press releases but having looked for articles in York Press about the 20mph limit I havn`t seen any published information about that. There is a traffic order within the pages of COYC website and it does say within that that you can object; but how many people have the time or inclination to go searching for every legal document on a hard to navigate website, especially if they don`t know it exists? Now having had the wording spelled out on the leaflets residents have had it is clear that it is not actually a consultation, just legal wording that implies that you have to have a good reason but we have just gone ahead anyway. - As in the case of notpedallingpaul, who finds he already has a sign opposite his house. Take a ride up from the Ainsty to Beckfield Lane end and see how untidy it looks at each street end with all the signage; and Julia Mulligan seems to be saying police wont enforce it; so any point Rod King/Anna Semlyen? inthesticks
  • Score: 3

7:18am Thu 5 Jun 14

notpedallingpaul says...

inthesticks

The council web page re the 20mph thing states the following - "The police are supportive of the approach the council are taking with regard to 20mph speed limits and are working closely with the council to design the scheme. 20mph speed limits are intended to be largely self-enforcing so actual enforcement of a well-designed scheme is likely to be limited. To clarify however, 20mph speed limits signed in accordance with regulations (as they are in York) are enforceable" - is it me or does that statement contradict itself?
inthesticks The council web page re the 20mph thing states the following - "The police are supportive of the approach the council are taking with regard to 20mph speed limits and are working closely with the council to design the scheme. 20mph speed limits are intended to be largely self-enforcing so actual enforcement of a well-designed scheme is likely to be limited. To clarify however, 20mph speed limits signed in accordance with regulations (as they are in York) are enforceable" - is it me or does that statement contradict itself? notpedallingpaul
  • Score: 3

9:48am Thu 5 Jun 14

the original Homer says...

notpedallingpaul wrote:
inthesticks

The council web page re the 20mph thing states the following - "The police are supportive of the approach the council are taking with regard to 20mph speed limits and are working closely with the council to design the scheme. 20mph speed limits are intended to be largely self-enforcing so actual enforcement of a well-designed scheme is likely to be limited. To clarify however, 20mph speed limits signed in accordance with regulations (as they are in York) are enforceable" - is it me or does that statement contradict itself?
It says the Council thinks the limits are legally enforceable, but the Police aren't intending to test that thinking, and they won't be out looking for drivers doing 30 in a 20.

Many of us tend to now work on the basic principle that whatever this council says is usually wrong anyway. I've read a few articles which contradict their view, and they hardly have a good track record on such matters. On balance, I'd tend to think the limits weren't enforceable.

There is a get-out for the Council anyway, because the web page refers to enforcement of a "A well-designed scheme". York isn't getting a well-designed scheme, so the comments about enforcement aren't relevant.

A well-designed scheme would have 4 basic tests:
1 Is 20 MPH appropriate? (e.g. high accident area or near a School)
2 Are drivers currently doing over 20 MPH? (if not then limit is't needed)
3 Can signs be placed where drivers will see them? (if not it won't be obeyed)
4 Would drivers appreciate why the limit was there (if not it won't be obeyed)

They are calling it a "default limit" but the truth is it's a blanket limit being applied indiscriminately.
[quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: inthesticks The council web page re the 20mph thing states the following - "The police are supportive of the approach the council are taking with regard to 20mph speed limits and are working closely with the council to design the scheme. 20mph speed limits are intended to be largely self-enforcing so actual enforcement of a well-designed scheme is likely to be limited. To clarify however, 20mph speed limits signed in accordance with regulations (as they are in York) are enforceable" - is it me or does that statement contradict itself?[/p][/quote]It says the Council thinks the limits are legally enforceable, but the Police aren't intending to test that thinking, and they won't be out looking for drivers doing 30 in a 20. Many of us tend to now work on the basic principle that whatever this council says is usually wrong anyway. I've read a few articles which contradict their view, and they hardly have a good track record on such matters. On balance, I'd tend to think the limits weren't enforceable. There is a get-out for the Council anyway, because the web page refers to enforcement of a "A well-designed scheme". York isn't getting a well-designed scheme, so the comments about enforcement aren't relevant. A well-designed scheme would have 4 basic tests: 1 Is 20 MPH appropriate? (e.g. high accident area or near a School) 2 Are drivers currently doing over 20 MPH? (if not then limit is't needed) 3 Can signs be placed where drivers will see them? (if not it won't be obeyed) 4 Would drivers appreciate why the limit was there (if not it won't be obeyed) They are calling it a "default limit" but the truth is it's a blanket limit being applied indiscriminately. the original Homer
  • Score: 3

10:38am Thu 5 Jun 14

notpedallingpaul says...

the original Homer wrote:
notpedallingpaul wrote: inthesticks The council web page re the 20mph thing states the following - "The police are supportive of the approach the council are taking with regard to 20mph speed limits and are working closely with the council to design the scheme. 20mph speed limits are intended to be largely self-enforcing so actual enforcement of a well-designed scheme is likely to be limited. To clarify however, 20mph speed limits signed in accordance with regulations (as they are in York) are enforceable" - is it me or does that statement contradict itself?
It says the Council thinks the limits are legally enforceable, but the Police aren't intending to test that thinking, and they won't be out looking for drivers doing 30 in a 20. Many of us tend to now work on the basic principle that whatever this council says is usually wrong anyway. I've read a few articles which contradict their view, and they hardly have a good track record on such matters. On balance, I'd tend to think the limits weren't enforceable. There is a get-out for the Council anyway, because the web page refers to enforcement of a "A well-designed scheme". York isn't getting a well-designed scheme, so the comments about enforcement aren't relevant. A well-designed scheme would have 4 basic tests: 1 Is 20 MPH appropriate? (e.g. high accident area or near a School) 2 Are drivers currently doing over 20 MPH? (if not then limit is't needed) 3 Can signs be placed where drivers will see them? (if not it won't be obeyed) 4 Would drivers appreciate why the limit was there (if not it won't be obeyed) They are calling it a "default limit" but the truth is it's a blanket limit being applied indiscriminately.
Thanks for the info, a bit clearer now, it never ceases to amaze me just what this council will do.
[quote][p][bold]the original Homer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: inthesticks The council web page re the 20mph thing states the following - "The police are supportive of the approach the council are taking with regard to 20mph speed limits and are working closely with the council to design the scheme. 20mph speed limits are intended to be largely self-enforcing so actual enforcement of a well-designed scheme is likely to be limited. To clarify however, 20mph speed limits signed in accordance with regulations (as they are in York) are enforceable" - is it me or does that statement contradict itself?[/p][/quote]It says the Council thinks the limits are legally enforceable, but the Police aren't intending to test that thinking, and they won't be out looking for drivers doing 30 in a 20. Many of us tend to now work on the basic principle that whatever this council says is usually wrong anyway. I've read a few articles which contradict their view, and they hardly have a good track record on such matters. On balance, I'd tend to think the limits weren't enforceable. There is a get-out for the Council anyway, because the web page refers to enforcement of a "A well-designed scheme". York isn't getting a well-designed scheme, so the comments about enforcement aren't relevant. A well-designed scheme would have 4 basic tests: 1 Is 20 MPH appropriate? (e.g. high accident area or near a School) 2 Are drivers currently doing over 20 MPH? (if not then limit is't needed) 3 Can signs be placed where drivers will see them? (if not it won't be obeyed) 4 Would drivers appreciate why the limit was there (if not it won't be obeyed) They are calling it a "default limit" but the truth is it's a blanket limit being applied indiscriminately.[/p][/quote]Thanks for the info, a bit clearer now, it never ceases to amaze me just what this council will do. notpedallingpaul
  • Score: 2

5:11pm Thu 5 Jun 14

wallman says...

350 miles around York this week average speed 12mph, the only vehicles that will do less than 20mph are the open-topped tourist waste of space buses, they do about 10mph now
350 miles around York this week average speed 12mph, the only vehicles that will do less than 20mph are the open-topped tourist waste of space buses, they do about 10mph now wallman
  • Score: 4

6:58pm Sat 7 Jun 14

ouseswimmer says...

It makes no difference unless the speed is signposted every 50 yds then national speed limits apply. National speed limits are 30mph when lamp posts are every 25 yds.
It makes no difference unless the speed is signposted every 50 yds then national speed limits apply. National speed limits are 30mph when lamp posts are every 25 yds. ouseswimmer
  • Score: 3

7:33pm Sat 7 Jun 14

Happytoliveinyork says...

Keep on digging York Labour - dig, dig, dig......the loyalest of Labour voters (like me) will vote you out in less than a year
Keep on digging York Labour - dig, dig, dig......the loyalest of Labour voters (like me) will vote you out in less than a year Happytoliveinyork
  • Score: 2

9:00am Sun 8 Jun 14

browbeaten says...

So in this grid locked city how are we going to manage to get car speeds up to anywhere near 20 mph ?
Sill it keeps some jobsworth busy and off the doke with no prospect of employment in the real world..
So in this grid locked city how are we going to manage to get car speeds up to anywhere near 20 mph ? Sill it keeps some jobsworth busy and off the doke with no prospect of employment in the real world.. browbeaten
  • Score: 2

12:29am Sun 22 Jun 14

greenmonkey says...

WhyEver wrote:
greenmonkey wrote:
rodney'sdog wrote:
Once again the air quality issue is ignored. The slower the traffic the more pollution.. And Yorks air continues to get poorer. Every city with extensive traffic calming is in the top ten for poor air quality. A 2 million increase from 5 to 7 million children suffering from chest and breathing complaints. Wait till York gets its first Smog cloud in this summers heat wave..you heard it here first.
Not true actually - more pollution and CO2 created by traffic speeding up to 30mph then braking sharply and waiting at traffic lights than travelling smoothly at 20mph and spending less time waiting at the lights. Also, even more pollution cut if the slower speeds encourage more people to get on their bikes or walk to the local shops rather than jump in the car.
How does reducing the speed limit change the traffic light timings? I agree with your accelerating/braking point, but not the rest.
It doesn't necessarily change light timings, but with traffic moving more slowly there is the option to create a 'green wave' linked to the speed limit, in which case you will spend less time waiting at lights if you stick to the speed limit!
[quote][p][bold]WhyEver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rodney'sdog[/bold] wrote: Once again the air quality issue is ignored. The slower the traffic the more pollution.. And Yorks air continues to get poorer. Every city with extensive traffic calming is in the top ten for poor air quality. A 2 million increase from 5 to 7 million children suffering from chest and breathing complaints. Wait till York gets its first Smog cloud in this summers heat wave..you heard it here first.[/p][/quote]Not true actually - more pollution and CO2 created by traffic speeding up to 30mph then braking sharply and waiting at traffic lights than travelling smoothly at 20mph and spending less time waiting at the lights. Also, even more pollution cut if the slower speeds encourage more people to get on their bikes or walk to the local shops rather than jump in the car.[/p][/quote]How does reducing the speed limit change the traffic light timings? I agree with your accelerating/braking point, but not the rest.[/p][/quote]It doesn't necessarily change light timings, but with traffic moving more slowly there is the option to create a 'green wave' linked to the speed limit, in which case you will spend less time waiting at lights if you stick to the speed limit! greenmonkey
  • Score: 0

12:50am Sun 22 Jun 14

greenmonkey says...

original homer said: "What I object to is the absolute waste of money being spent on signs in cul-de-sacs where no-one has probably ever driven above 15MPH anyway. Cul-de-sacs leading off other 20MPH side roads are fine, as the signs will be on the boundary of the 20MPH zone anyway (and it would cost more to make those 30MPH). The stupid ones are where cul-de-sacs lead off from roads which are staying at 30/40MPH. We've seen the pictures of 20MPH signs on entrances to roads less than 50m long, and that is just a waste of money."

That is why it is stupid of the council to suggest Heslington Rd near the shops and bend should be 30mph, when most of the time traffic is doing 10 -20mph negotiating parked cars and buses. Make that section 20 and you wont need a forest of large 20/30mph signs for each piddling little side road, just one set as you turn off from Cemetery Rd and smaller 20mph reminder signs in the side streets.
original homer said: "What I object to is the absolute waste of money being spent on signs in cul-de-sacs where no-one has probably ever driven above 15MPH anyway. Cul-de-sacs leading off other 20MPH side roads are fine, as the signs will be on the boundary of the 20MPH zone anyway (and it would cost more to make those 30MPH). The stupid ones are where cul-de-sacs lead off from roads which are staying at 30/40MPH. We've seen the pictures of 20MPH signs on entrances to roads less than 50m long, and that is just a waste of money." That is why it is stupid of the council to suggest Heslington Rd near the shops and bend should be 30mph, when most of the time traffic is doing 10 -20mph negotiating parked cars and buses. Make that section 20 and you wont need a forest of large 20/30mph signs for each piddling little side road, just one set as you turn off from Cemetery Rd and smaller 20mph reminder signs in the side streets. greenmonkey
  • Score: 0

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