Roll-out of 20 mph limits across York criticised

York Press: Rollout of 20 mph limits across York criticised Rollout of 20 mph limits across York criticised

THE roll out of 20mph limits across York has been criticised by Green party councillors who say information available to residents is not clear enough and want to see more streets included in the limits.

Councillors Andy D'Agorne and Dave Taylor, who both represent the Fishergate ward, have criticised shoddy information available to people nearby.

The councillors have pointed to legal notices which have appeared on lamp posts around the city, warning people about the forthcoming changes to speed limits, which highlight only all the roads which are not A or B roads and will not be under the 20 mph limits, rather than simply listing those which will be under the 20mph limit.

Neil Ferris, assistant director of City and Environmental Services, said: “The notices follow a legal and statutory process and are written in accordance with these government guidelines. Like all authorities across the country, York has a legal duty to advertise speed limit orders / traffic regulation orders in this way."

The information was also including in timescales, maps and FAQs sent to households in the reads, and online at www.york.gov.uk/20mph

Streets in Fishergate were the site of the first 20 mph limit in York without speed bumps, introduced in 2010, but the two councillors have now raised a petition calling for the busy congested area near the shops on Heslington Rd to be included in the 20mph area, rather than being left at 30mph as proposed by the council.

The councillors say traffic often struggles to move quickly on the road which is congested with parking and buses, and making it a 20 mph would be cheaper than excluding it from the limit.

The Green councillors are also urging residents who do not want their streets to be left out of the 20 mph limits to contact the council. They believe that on roads like Hospital Fields Rd - a busy cycle route to the university and Broadway local people should be able to have their say.

Comments (52)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:11am Tue 1 Jul 14

Woody G Mellor says...

Art Baker wrote:
The only complaint there should be with 20mph limits is the apparent lack of enforcement. Random unmarked camera cars issuing fixed penalties and 3 points for every single offence is what is required.
Art Baker. A new poster? More than likely that very unpopular previous troll poster under a different name. I've sussed you out again haven't I?
[quote][p][bold]Art Baker[/bold] wrote: The only complaint there should be with 20mph limits is the apparent lack of enforcement. Random unmarked camera cars issuing fixed penalties and 3 points for every single offence is what is required.[/p][/quote]Art Baker. A new poster? More than likely that very unpopular previous troll poster under a different name. I've sussed you out again haven't I? Woody G Mellor
  • Score: 65

8:38am Tue 1 Jul 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

Art Baker wrote:
The only complaint there should be with 20mph limits is the apparent lack of enforcement. Random unmarked camera cars issuing fixed penalties and 3 points for every single offence is what is required.
Yes they should use more forces to stop people going over 20mph. After all if you are going over that it means instant death to all those pedestrians who are in road and not the path.

They should remove street patrols and officers preventing or working on serious offences to keep the minority of delusional who think that having 20mph everywhere will all of a sudden reduce all crime and solve all congestion.

Since the move to 20mph i haven't seen any reduction in accidents? for example how many cyclists have been knocked off their bikes in the last 2 weeks?

They should re assess everyone and if you can not travel at 30mph with a braking distance of 10 meters then you are banned. If you can not see a hazard from 10 meters away you have issues. Then the 90% of the population who are comfortable and vigilant enough to drive faster then cyclists can get on with our lives and this waste of money can stop.


I also find it funny that the green party agree with this rule despite 20mph meaning the majority of petrol cars will have to drive in 2nd gear at higher revs so they don’t stall... Hardly green is it.
[quote][p][bold]Art Baker[/bold] wrote: The only complaint there should be with 20mph limits is the apparent lack of enforcement. Random unmarked camera cars issuing fixed penalties and 3 points for every single offence is what is required.[/p][/quote]Yes they should use more forces to stop people going over 20mph. After all if you are going over that it means instant death to all those pedestrians who are in road and not the path. They should remove street patrols and officers preventing or working on serious offences to keep the minority of delusional who think that having 20mph everywhere will all of a sudden reduce all crime and solve all congestion. Since the move to 20mph i haven't seen any reduction in accidents? for example how many cyclists have been knocked off their bikes in the last 2 weeks? They should re assess everyone and if you can not travel at 30mph with a braking distance of 10 meters then you are banned. If you can not see a hazard from 10 meters away you have issues. Then the 90% of the population who are comfortable and vigilant enough to drive faster then cyclists can get on with our lives and this waste of money can stop. I also find it funny that the green party agree with this rule despite 20mph meaning the majority of petrol cars will have to drive in 2nd gear at higher revs so they don’t stall... Hardly green is it. Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: 43

8:45am Tue 1 Jul 14

JHardacre says...

Why don't the 'road users' get a say rather than just the residents. Roads are there for us all.
Why don't the 'road users' get a say rather than just the residents. Roads are there for us all. JHardacre
  • Score: 46

8:54am Tue 1 Jul 14

Yorkies4girls says...

If the police would like to wait on Ryecroft Avenue and Grassholme they would find many of the people who drive this route to be exceeding 30mph never mind 20mph! yesterday afternoon one came round the bend from Acorn Way into Ryecroft Avenue almost on 2 wheels. Its alright imposing 20mph but nobody is enforcing it, get a grip somebody please - there's a serious accident just waiting to happen
If the police would like to wait on Ryecroft Avenue and Grassholme they would find many of the people who drive this route to be exceeding 30mph never mind 20mph! yesterday afternoon one came round the bend from Acorn Way into Ryecroft Avenue almost on 2 wheels. Its alright imposing 20mph but nobody is enforcing it, get a grip somebody please - there's a serious accident just waiting to happen Yorkies4girls
  • Score: -15

9:05am Tue 1 Jul 14

piaggio1 says...

Yup. Art baker? Aka troll.
Another clowncil appologist.whats up? You gave in hacking the scores??
Yup. Art baker? Aka troll. Another clowncil appologist.whats up? You gave in hacking the scores?? piaggio1
  • Score: 36

9:13am Tue 1 Jul 14

Micklegate says...

Sadly it doesn't matter whether people can see the notices to give comments, there is not a chance of them being listened to.
Sadly it doesn't matter whether people can see the notices to give comments, there is not a chance of them being listened to. Micklegate
  • Score: 34

10:32am Tue 1 Jul 14

The OX says...

20mph signs have been in place in the Groves for years, never worked or been enforced, just a total waste of cash,
20mph signs have been in place in the Groves for years, never worked or been enforced, just a total waste of cash, The OX
  • Score: 30

10:35am Tue 1 Jul 14

gmc_1963 says...

Oh look the Score Fixer is at work again
Oh look the Score Fixer is at work again gmc_1963
  • Score: 20

10:47am Tue 1 Jul 14

Woody G Mellor says...

gmc_1963 wrote:
Oh look the Score Fixer is at work again
Yep. Art Baker she's called this week.
[quote][p][bold]gmc_1963[/bold] wrote: Oh look the Score Fixer is at work again[/p][/quote]Yep. Art Baker she's called this week. Woody G Mellor
  • Score: 29

11:46am Tue 1 Jul 14

strangebuttrue? says...

Complete waste of money as all this 20mph has been and will be. Even supporting reports quoted by PP say that the majority of people will continue to drive at speeds relevant to the road conditions at the time and signs make little or no difference.
You will always get the odd idiot who drives at dangerous speeds and 20mph signs will not change, this 30 mph signs never have.
Complete waste of money as all this 20mph has been and will be. Even supporting reports quoted by PP say that the majority of people will continue to drive at speeds relevant to the road conditions at the time and signs make little or no difference. You will always get the odd idiot who drives at dangerous speeds and 20mph signs will not change, this 30 mph signs never have. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 26

11:47am Tue 1 Jul 14

greenmonkey says...

I also find it funny that the green party agree with this rule despite 20mph meaning the majority of petrol cars will have to drive in 2nd gear at higher revs so they don’t stall... Hardly green is it.
Actually the reduction in accelerating and braking balances out the slightly higher fuel use from low gear. Plus of course the more people drive generally at a low speed, the more parents will consider that the 'school run' can be replaced by a bike ride or walk. On Heslington Rd its not safe to do much more than 20mph because of parked cars and risk of meeting a bus in the middle of the road coming the other way.
I also find it funny that the green party agree with this rule despite 20mph meaning the majority of petrol cars will have to drive in 2nd gear at higher revs so they don’t stall... Hardly green is it. Actually the reduction in accelerating and braking balances out the slightly higher fuel use from low gear. Plus of course the more people drive generally at a low speed, the more parents will consider that the 'school run' can be replaced by a bike ride or walk. On Heslington Rd its not safe to do much more than 20mph because of parked cars and risk of meeting a bus in the middle of the road coming the other way. greenmonkey
  • Score: -26

12:12pm Tue 1 Jul 14

greenmonkey says...

"The information was also including in timescales, maps and FAQs sent to households, and online at www.york.gov.uk/20mp
h" Actually the information to households was purely a promotional leaflet about the benefits of 20mph with no information about the streets affected or left out.
"The information was also including in timescales, maps and FAQs sent to households, and online at www.york.gov.uk/20mp h" Actually the information to households was purely a promotional leaflet about the benefits of 20mph with no information about the streets affected or left out. greenmonkey
  • Score: -14

12:23pm Tue 1 Jul 14

MorkofYork says...

Yea my speed is still decided by the condition of the road. I'm not driving around at 20 when there's no chance of anyone being hit, just because a minority of greens say i should.

Go away, stop wasting money. Stop trying to force your ideals onto people who don't want them. Can you imagine living in a country where this is actually enforced ? sickening.

Greens are some of the worst of the worst.
Yea my speed is still decided by the condition of the road. I'm not driving around at 20 when there's no chance of anyone being hit, just because a minority of greens say i should. Go away, stop wasting money. Stop trying to force your ideals onto people who don't want them. Can you imagine living in a country where this is actually enforced ? sickening. Greens are some of the worst of the worst. MorkofYork
  • Score: 28

12:47pm Tue 1 Jul 14

nearlyman says...

...... Its often the police, council vehicles and taxis who appear to fail to observe these limits from what i have seen................
.
...... Its often the police, council vehicles and taxis who appear to fail to observe these limits from what i have seen................ . nearlyman
  • Score: 21

12:54pm Tue 1 Jul 14

york_chap says...

greenmonkey wrote:
I also find it funny that the green party agree with this rule despite 20mph meaning the majority of petrol cars will have to drive in 2nd gear at higher revs so they don’t stall... Hardly green is it. Actually the reduction in accelerating and braking balances out the slightly higher fuel use from low gear. Plus of course the more people drive generally at a low speed, the more parents will consider that the 'school run' can be replaced by a bike ride or walk. On Heslington Rd its not safe to do much more than 20mph because of parked cars and risk of meeting a bus in the middle of the road coming the other way.
"the two councillors have now raised a petition calling for the busy congested area near the shops on Heslington Rd to be included in the 20mph area, rather than being left at 30mph as proposed by the council.

The councillors say traffic often struggles to move quickly on the road which is congested with parking and buses".

This excerpt sums up the sheer pointlessness of the whole blanket scheme really. If traffic "often struggles to move quickly on the road" what on Earth point/benefit is there in lowering the speed limit further? In a nutshell; let's spend lots of taxpayers' money on 20mph signs for roads where 30mph is rarely/never achievable anyway.

How about some signs banning road vehicles from flying over York Minster - they'd be just as useful and might look more interesting than the ugly 20mph signs.
[quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: I also find it funny that the green party agree with this rule despite 20mph meaning the majority of petrol cars will have to drive in 2nd gear at higher revs so they don’t stall... Hardly green is it. Actually the reduction in accelerating and braking balances out the slightly higher fuel use from low gear. Plus of course the more people drive generally at a low speed, the more parents will consider that the 'school run' can be replaced by a bike ride or walk. On Heslington Rd its not safe to do much more than 20mph because of parked cars and risk of meeting a bus in the middle of the road coming the other way.[/p][/quote]"the two councillors have now raised a petition calling for the busy congested area near the shops on Heslington Rd to be included in the 20mph area, rather than being left at 30mph as proposed by the council. The councillors say traffic often struggles to move quickly on the road which is congested with parking and buses". This excerpt sums up the sheer pointlessness of the whole blanket scheme really. If traffic "often struggles to move quickly on the road" what on Earth point/benefit is there in lowering the speed limit further? In a nutshell; let's spend lots of taxpayers' money on 20mph signs for roads where 30mph is rarely/never achievable anyway. How about some signs banning road vehicles from flying over York Minster - they'd be just as useful and might look more interesting than the ugly 20mph signs. york_chap
  • Score: 29

1:04pm Tue 1 Jul 14

york_chap says...

From the council's 20mph information page:

"the vast majority of streets affected are residential in nature and already experience low average speeds".

At least they acknowledge and are happy to point out that spending hundreds of thousands of pounds reducing the speed limit on these roads is completely unjustified - that's something I suppose. Keep up the good work CoYC!
From the council's 20mph information page: "the vast majority of streets affected are residential in nature and already experience low average speeds". At least they acknowledge and are happy to point out that spending hundreds of thousands of pounds reducing the speed limit on these roads is completely unjustified - that's something I suppose. Keep up the good work CoYC! york_chap
  • Score: 23

1:11pm Tue 1 Jul 14

BioLogic says...

Art Baker wrote:
The only complaint there should be with 20mph limits is the apparent lack of enforcement. Random unmarked camera cars issuing fixed penalties and 3 points for every single offence is what is required.
How many times does it have to be said. These are 20mph speed limit ZONES. A ZONE only requires signage on entry and exit to the zone and does not require repeater signs every few yards. A LIMIT requires more signage and repeater signs. By law a ZONE can only be enforced through the use of traffic calming measures. A LIMIT can be enforced by police using a speed camera, but in order to do so would have to meet the requirements for an area where enfacement would be considered of a suitable evidential standard. That means normally a clear view of at least 200m up the street. How many of these residential streets fulfil that requirement?
[quote][p][bold]Art Baker[/bold] wrote: The only complaint there should be with 20mph limits is the apparent lack of enforcement. Random unmarked camera cars issuing fixed penalties and 3 points for every single offence is what is required.[/p][/quote]How many times does it have to be said. These are 20mph speed limit ZONES. A ZONE only requires signage on entry and exit to the zone and does not require repeater signs every few yards. A LIMIT requires more signage and repeater signs. By law a ZONE can only be enforced through the use of traffic calming measures. A LIMIT can be enforced by police using a speed camera, but in order to do so would have to meet the requirements for an area where enfacement would be considered of a suitable evidential standard. That means normally a clear view of at least 200m up the street. How many of these residential streets fulfil that requirement? BioLogic
  • Score: 19

1:14pm Tue 1 Jul 14

Dave Ruddock says...

More Police and police vehicles (Ops) we cant afford those, so wast of time sticking up signs, as (SOME) people treat vehicle driving as a Computer game .
More Police and police vehicles (Ops) we cant afford those, so wast of time sticking up signs, as (SOME) people treat vehicle driving as a Computer game . Dave Ruddock
  • Score: 3

1:25pm Tue 1 Jul 14

yorkie71 says...

Agree poor information provided, for example the council yellow planning permission notice, doesn't list all the streets the 20mph limit is being applied to, the Greens have had to add their own poster above it with clear maps and the full list of streets affected ...

does this mean the planning needs to be re-stated correctly ? as the public not informed correctly ?
Agree poor information provided, for example the council yellow planning permission notice, doesn't list all the streets the 20mph limit is being applied to, the Greens have had to add their own poster above it with clear maps and the full list of streets affected ... does this mean the planning needs to be re-stated correctly ? as the public not informed correctly ? yorkie71
  • Score: 10

1:38pm Tue 1 Jul 14

the original Homer says...

greenmonkey wrote:
I also find it funny that the green party agree with this rule despite 20mph meaning the majority of petrol cars will have to drive in 2nd gear at higher revs so they don’t stall... Hardly green is it.
Actually the reduction in accelerating and braking balances out the slightly higher fuel use from low gear. Plus of course the more people drive generally at a low speed, the more parents will consider that the 'school run' can be replaced by a bike ride or walk. On Heslington Rd its not safe to do much more than 20mph because of parked cars and risk of meeting a bus in the middle of the road coming the other way.
?? "The reduction in accelerating and braking"??

That's just another case of jumping on a statistic, without understanding the workings behind it.

The saving comes about because every stop-start junction is more economical in a 20 mph limit, as the re-acceleration to 20 uses less fuel than re-accelerating to 30.

However, offsetting that, any continuous stretch at 20 wastes fuel compared with driving the same stretch at 30.

How one balances against the other depends on the mix of roads where the limits apply. If the zones were carefully planned in areas with lots of stop-start junctions, then the nett result would be a fuel saving. If the zones were applied as "defaults" along main commuter routes then the nett result would be a fuel wastage.

In York's case, the zones are being applied indiscriminately, so they will affect traffic going along roads where no braking or accelerating would have been needed. That traffic will now have to slow down from 30 to 20, change down a gear, drive at 20 and finally re-accelerate to 30 and change back up a gear. That will burn more fuel and cause more pollution.

There is also a very basic fact that any journey at 20 takes longer than at 30. That means each car spends longer on the roads, so it must mean more cars are on the road at once. That creates stop-starts which wouldn't have even been there, wasting even more fuel.
[quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: I also find it funny that the green party agree with this rule despite 20mph meaning the majority of petrol cars will have to drive in 2nd gear at higher revs so they don’t stall... Hardly green is it. Actually the reduction in accelerating and braking balances out the slightly higher fuel use from low gear. Plus of course the more people drive generally at a low speed, the more parents will consider that the 'school run' can be replaced by a bike ride or walk. On Heslington Rd its not safe to do much more than 20mph because of parked cars and risk of meeting a bus in the middle of the road coming the other way.[/p][/quote]?? "The reduction in accelerating and braking"?? That's just another case of jumping on a statistic, without understanding the workings behind it. The saving comes about because every stop-start junction is more economical in a 20 mph limit, as the re-acceleration to 20 uses less fuel than re-accelerating to 30. However, offsetting that, any continuous stretch at 20 wastes fuel compared with driving the same stretch at 30. How one balances against the other depends on the mix of roads where the limits apply. If the zones were carefully planned in areas with lots of stop-start junctions, then the nett result would be a fuel saving. If the zones were applied as "defaults" along main commuter routes then the nett result would be a fuel wastage. In York's case, the zones are being applied indiscriminately, so they will affect traffic going along roads where no braking or accelerating would have been needed. That traffic will now have to slow down from 30 to 20, change down a gear, drive at 20 and finally re-accelerate to 30 and change back up a gear. That will burn more fuel and cause more pollution. There is also a very basic fact that any journey at 20 takes longer than at 30. That means each car spends longer on the roads, so it must mean more cars are on the road at once. That creates stop-starts which wouldn't have even been there, wasting even more fuel. the original Homer
  • Score: 22

1:46pm Tue 1 Jul 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

greenmonkey wrote:
I also find it funny that the green party agree with this rule despite 20mph meaning the majority of petrol cars will have to drive in 2nd gear at higher revs so they don’t stall... Hardly green is it. Actually the reduction in accelerating and braking balances out the slightly higher fuel use from low gear. Plus of course the more people drive generally at a low speed, the more parents will consider that the 'school run' can be replaced by a bike ride or walk. On Heslington Rd its not safe to do much more than 20mph because of parked cars and risk of meeting a bus in the middle of the road coming the other way.
I'm lost green monkey... why would i be braking and accelerating if it was say a 30mph area? Couldn’t I just drive normally?

So no actually travelling in high revs in 2nd gear is not green! So using your principle what do you do when you enter say a 20mph zone from a 30mph zone and then back again?

Once again you practice what you do not have an idea about. As for parents will consider cycling to school if people drive slower? Why would they? 90% do not do it for safety fears! its to save time! so by making everyone drive slower how will this help?
[quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: I also find it funny that the green party agree with this rule despite 20mph meaning the majority of petrol cars will have to drive in 2nd gear at higher revs so they don’t stall... Hardly green is it. Actually the reduction in accelerating and braking balances out the slightly higher fuel use from low gear. Plus of course the more people drive generally at a low speed, the more parents will consider that the 'school run' can be replaced by a bike ride or walk. On Heslington Rd its not safe to do much more than 20mph because of parked cars and risk of meeting a bus in the middle of the road coming the other way.[/p][/quote]I'm lost green monkey... why would i be braking and accelerating if it was say a 30mph area? Couldn’t I just drive normally? So no actually travelling in high revs in 2nd gear is not green! So using your principle what do you do when you enter say a 20mph zone from a 30mph zone and then back again? Once again you practice what you do not have an idea about. As for parents will consider cycling to school if people drive slower? Why would they? 90% do not do it for safety fears! its to save time! so by making everyone drive slower how will this help? Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: 12

3:09pm Tue 1 Jul 14

wildthing666 says...

Who actually stops and reads these messages on lamp-posts many of them put out of reach and in such small print that they are, by all accounts a waste of money. I have noticed a lot and they are out of reach of anybody only the bold type heading is available to read. Any that are where a person can stop and read it are soon vandalised
Who actually stops and reads these messages on lamp-posts many of them put out of reach and in such small print that they are, by all accounts a waste of money. I have noticed a lot and they are out of reach of anybody only the bold type heading is available to read. Any that are where a person can stop and read it are soon vandalised wildthing666
  • Score: 10

4:04pm Tue 1 Jul 14

strangebuttrue? says...

Driving out of York today and seeing the road closures I think the message from the council in York is - If you are thinking of driving a car anywhere near the city you are not welcome so stay away. Come to think of it is that not the normal message from York council?
Driving out of York today and seeing the road closures I think the message from the council in York is - If you are thinking of driving a car anywhere near the city you are not welcome so stay away. Come to think of it is that not the normal message from York council? strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 14

4:06pm Tue 1 Jul 14

strangebuttrue? says...

strangebuttrue? wrote:
Driving out of York today and seeing the road closures I think the message from the council in York is - If you are thinking of driving a car anywhere near the city you are not welcome so stay away. Come to think of it is that not the normal message from York council?
Woops wrong place for this. But I suppose the message is the same anyway.
[quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: Driving out of York today and seeing the road closures I think the message from the council in York is - If you are thinking of driving a car anywhere near the city you are not welcome so stay away. Come to think of it is that not the normal message from York council?[/p][/quote]Woops wrong place for this. But I suppose the message is the same anyway. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 11

4:17pm Tue 1 Jul 14

tinkerbell-1000 says...

Waste of time and money. No-one to enforce the limit. I live on a main road which is 30mph. Drivers everyday go 40-60...not once in 10 years have I seen a driver being stopped for exceeding the limit
Waste of time and money. No-one to enforce the limit. I live on a main road which is 30mph. Drivers everyday go 40-60...not once in 10 years have I seen a driver being stopped for exceeding the limit tinkerbell-1000
  • Score: 10

5:01pm Tue 1 Jul 14

wallman says...

I live in a cul de sac very narrow cant do 10mph never mind been restricted to 20mph waste of time and money
I live in a cul de sac very narrow cant do 10mph never mind been restricted to 20mph waste of time and money wallman
  • Score: 10

5:24pm Tue 1 Jul 14

KevinWard59 says...

Art Baker wrote:
The only complaint there should be with 20mph limits is the apparent lack of enforcement. Random unmarked camera cars issuing fixed penalties and 3 points for every single offence is what is required.
When the consultation took place CYC were informed that they would not be enforced - I took this to mean, in diplomatic terms, that some of the 20mph limits were not agreed with by law enforcement.

In DfT guidelines this means that on several counts the inposition of a 20mph does not follow the guidance and so therefore the guidance says increasing the speed limit should be considered - especially on A or B roads and other main roads especially those with motorised vehicles being the greater proportion user.

Refer Department for Transport Guidance "Setting local speed limits" and "Speed Limit Appraisal Tool" circular and publication of January 2013.

Councillor Andy D'A should've spent a little more time "Grappling with an Alien Dropbox" before interfering and getting it ALL WRONG.
[quote][p][bold]Art Baker[/bold] wrote: The only complaint there should be with 20mph limits is the apparent lack of enforcement. Random unmarked camera cars issuing fixed penalties and 3 points for every single offence is what is required.[/p][/quote]When the consultation took place CYC were informed that they would not be enforced - I took this to mean, in diplomatic terms, that some of the 20mph limits were not agreed with by law enforcement. In DfT guidelines this means that on several counts the inposition of a 20mph does not follow the guidance and so therefore the guidance says increasing the speed limit should be considered - especially on A or B roads and other main roads especially those with motorised vehicles being the greater proportion user. Refer Department for Transport Guidance "Setting local speed limits" and "Speed Limit Appraisal Tool" circular and publication of January 2013. Councillor Andy D'A should've spent a little more time "Grappling with an Alien Dropbox" before interfering and getting it ALL WRONG. KevinWard59
  • Score: 9

5:28pm Tue 1 Jul 14

yorkshirelad says...

Relative to the amount of speeding that goes on all roads, the vast majority of limits are never enforced, so it's hard to see what all the huff and puff about enforcement is about. Limits mainly rely on people doing the decent thing and driving within the limit. The 20mph zones are great...pleasant to live in, less noisy, safer for children, pedestrians and cyclists. They are becoming the new normal for residential streets...time for the moaning and whinging to stop.
Relative to the amount of speeding that goes on all roads, the vast majority of limits are never enforced, so it's hard to see what all the huff and puff about enforcement is about. Limits mainly rely on people doing the decent thing and driving within the limit. The 20mph zones are great...pleasant to live in, less noisy, safer for children, pedestrians and cyclists. They are becoming the new normal for residential streets...time for the moaning and whinging to stop. yorkshirelad
  • Score: -6

5:33pm Tue 1 Jul 14

KevinWard59 says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
Art Baker wrote:
The only complaint there should be with 20mph limits is the apparent lack of enforcement. Random unmarked camera cars issuing fixed penalties and 3 points for every single offence is what is required.
Yes they should use more forces to stop people going over 20mph. After all if you are going over that it means instant death to all those pedestrians who are in road and not the path.

They should remove street patrols and officers preventing or working on serious offences to keep the minority of delusional who think that having 20mph everywhere will all of a sudden reduce all crime and solve all congestion.

Since the move to 20mph i haven't seen any reduction in accidents? for example how many cyclists have been knocked off their bikes in the last 2 weeks?

They should re assess everyone and if you can not travel at 30mph with a braking distance of 10 meters then you are banned. If you can not see a hazard from 10 meters away you have issues. Then the 90% of the population who are comfortable and vigilant enough to drive faster then cyclists can get on with our lives and this waste of money can stop.


I also find it funny that the green party agree with this rule despite 20mph meaning the majority of petrol cars will have to drive in 2nd gear at higher revs so they don’t stall... Hardly green is it.
2nd gear ensures more efficient burning of otherwise carcergenic fumes especially from unleaded fuelled cars.

USA 50 years of research also shows that the first 2 to 3 miles at 20mph will cause 5 times more pollutants.

Don't get me wrong 20's great for residential streets and I wholheartedly approve of that; but i'd rather see the newer Dutch 'Play zone' approach with all parking on the outskirts of residential areas in purpose built car parking with no cars being brought within 200 metres or so of the housing.

It'll get people fitter carrying their shopping a few hundred metres. A Perfect trial scheme could be stipulated for the new Germany Beck Development.
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Art Baker[/bold] wrote: The only complaint there should be with 20mph limits is the apparent lack of enforcement. Random unmarked camera cars issuing fixed penalties and 3 points for every single offence is what is required.[/p][/quote]Yes they should use more forces to stop people going over 20mph. After all if you are going over that it means instant death to all those pedestrians who are in road and not the path. They should remove street patrols and officers preventing or working on serious offences to keep the minority of delusional who think that having 20mph everywhere will all of a sudden reduce all crime and solve all congestion. Since the move to 20mph i haven't seen any reduction in accidents? for example how many cyclists have been knocked off their bikes in the last 2 weeks? They should re assess everyone and if you can not travel at 30mph with a braking distance of 10 meters then you are banned. If you can not see a hazard from 10 meters away you have issues. Then the 90% of the population who are comfortable and vigilant enough to drive faster then cyclists can get on with our lives and this waste of money can stop. I also find it funny that the green party agree with this rule despite 20mph meaning the majority of petrol cars will have to drive in 2nd gear at higher revs so they don’t stall... Hardly green is it.[/p][/quote]2nd gear ensures more efficient burning of otherwise carcergenic fumes especially from unleaded fuelled cars. USA 50 years of research also shows that the first 2 to 3 miles at 20mph will cause 5 times more pollutants. Don't get me wrong 20's great for residential streets and I wholheartedly approve of that; but i'd rather see the newer Dutch 'Play zone' approach with all parking on the outskirts of residential areas in purpose built car parking with no cars being brought within 200 metres or so of the housing. It'll get people fitter carrying their shopping a few hundred metres. A Perfect trial scheme could be stipulated for the new Germany Beck Development. KevinWard59
  • Score: -8

5:37pm Tue 1 Jul 14

KevinWard59 says...

JHardacre wrote:
Why don't the 'road users' get a say rather than just the residents. Roads are there for us all.
All the DFT guidance, Speed Limit Appraisal Tool and Statute from the Secretary of State back up fully you comment.

Guidance and regulatory power is being overread and abused in York which the main interested safety motoring groups call a SPECIAL CASE, not sure if that's being used in the Educational Stream definition.
[quote][p][bold]JHardacre[/bold] wrote: Why don't the 'road users' get a say rather than just the residents. Roads are there for us all.[/p][/quote]All the DFT guidance, Speed Limit Appraisal Tool and Statute from the Secretary of State back up fully you comment. Guidance and regulatory power is being overread and abused in York which the main interested safety motoring groups call a SPECIAL CASE, not sure if that's being used in the Educational Stream definition. KevinWard59
  • Score: 10

6:14pm Tue 1 Jul 14

KevinWard59 says...

york_chap wrote:
From the council's 20mph information page:

"the vast majority of streets affected are residential in nature and already experience low average speeds".

At least they acknowledge and are happy to point out that spending hundreds of thousands of pounds reducing the speed limit on these roads is completely unjustified - that's something I suppose. Keep up the good work CoYC!
An important extract from "Setting local speed limits" - DfT Jan 2013

Considerations in setting local speed limits
23.
A study of types of crashes, their severity, causes and frequency, together with a survey of traffic speeds, should indicate whether an existing speed limit is appropriate for the type of road and mix of use by different groups of road users, including the presence or potential presence of vulnerable road users (including people walking, cycling or riding horses, or on motorbikes), or whether it needs to be changed. Local residents may also express their concerns or desire for a lower speed limit and these comments should be considered.
24.
Where limits for air quality are in danger of being exceeded, compliance with those air quality limits could be an important factor in the choice of speed limit. But depending on the individual circumstances the imposition of a speed limit will not always be the solution. And the visible characteristics of a road affect the speed that a driver chooses: to be effective, the reasons for a limit need to be apparent.
25.
It may well be that a speed limit need not be changed if the collision rate can be improved or wider quality of life objectives can be achieved through other speed management measures, or other measures . These alternative measures should always be considered before proceeding with a new speed limit.
26.
Where there is poor compliance with an existing speed limit on a road or stretch of road the reasons for the non-compliance should be examined before a solution is sought. If the speed limit is set too low for no clear reason and the risk of collisions is low, then it may be appropriate to increase the limit. If the existing limit is in place for a good reason, solutions may include engineering measures or changes to the road environment to ensure it better matches the speed limit, or local education and publicity. Enforcement may also be appropriate, but should be considered only after the other measures and jointly with the police force
[quote][p][bold]york_chap[/bold] wrote: From the council's 20mph information page: "the vast majority of streets affected are residential in nature and already experience low average speeds". At least they acknowledge and are happy to point out that spending hundreds of thousands of pounds reducing the speed limit on these roads is completely unjustified - that's something I suppose. Keep up the good work CoYC![/p][/quote]An important extract from "Setting local speed limits" - DfT Jan 2013 Considerations in setting local speed limits 23. A study of types of crashes, their severity, causes and frequency, together with a survey of traffic speeds, should indicate whether an existing speed limit is appropriate for the type of road and mix of use by different groups of road users, including the presence or potential presence of vulnerable road users (including people walking, cycling or riding horses, or on motorbikes), or whether it needs to be changed. Local residents may also express their concerns or desire for a lower speed limit and these comments should be considered. 24. Where limits for air quality are in danger of being exceeded, compliance with those air quality limits could be an important factor in the choice of speed limit. But depending on the individual circumstances the imposition of a speed limit will not always be the solution. And the visible characteristics of a road affect the speed that a driver chooses: to be effective, the reasons for a limit need to be apparent. 25. It may well be that a speed limit need not be changed if the collision rate can be improved or wider quality of life objectives can be achieved through other speed management measures, or other measures . These alternative measures should always be considered before proceeding with a new speed limit. 26. Where there is poor compliance with an existing speed limit on a road or stretch of road the reasons for the non-compliance should be examined before a solution is sought. If the speed limit is set too low for no clear reason and the risk of collisions is low, then it may be appropriate to increase the limit. If the existing limit is in place for a good reason, solutions may include engineering measures or changes to the road environment to ensure it better matches the speed limit, or local education and publicity. Enforcement may also be appropriate, but should be considered only after the other measures and jointly with the police force KevinWard59
  • Score: -1

6:16pm Tue 1 Jul 14

KevinWard59 says...

york_chap wrote:
From the council's 20mph information page:

"the vast majority of streets affected are residential in nature and already experience low average speeds".

At least they acknowledge and are happy to point out that spending hundreds of thousands of pounds reducing the speed limit on these roads is completely unjustified - that's something I suppose. Keep up the good work CoYC!
And DfT guidance advises against lowering a speed limit if average speed is already under 24mph.
[quote][p][bold]york_chap[/bold] wrote: From the council's 20mph information page: "the vast majority of streets affected are residential in nature and already experience low average speeds". At least they acknowledge and are happy to point out that spending hundreds of thousands of pounds reducing the speed limit on these roads is completely unjustified - that's something I suppose. Keep up the good work CoYC![/p][/quote]And DfT guidance advises against lowering a speed limit if average speed is already under 24mph. KevinWard59
  • Score: 12

6:21pm Tue 1 Jul 14

KevinWard59 says...

wallman wrote:
I live in a cul de sac very narrow cant do 10mph never mind been restricted to 20mph waste of time and money
Check the guidance - lower limits not to be considered for less than 600 metres.
[quote][p][bold]wallman[/bold] wrote: I live in a cul de sac very narrow cant do 10mph never mind been restricted to 20mph waste of time and money[/p][/quote]Check the guidance - lower limits not to be considered for less than 600 metres. KevinWard59
  • Score: 7

7:27pm Tue 1 Jul 14

Stevie D says...

yorkshirelad wrote:
so it's hard to see what all the huff and puff about enforcement is about.

The main thing that the huff and puff is about is not so much about enforcement, it's about the extravagant waste of money on a project that we no will have absolutely minimal impact. At a time when the council is having to cut back on essential services left, right and centre, pouring money into 20mph speed limits like there is no tomorrow is criminal, and (hopefully) will at least ensure that for Cllr Semolina's political career, there really will be no tomorrow.
[quote][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: so it's hard to see what all the huff and puff about enforcement is about.[/quote] The main thing that the huff and puff is about is [italic]not[/italic] so much about enforcement, it's about the extravagant waste of money on a project that we no will have absolutely minimal impact. At a time when the council is having to cut back on essential services left, right and centre, pouring money into 20mph speed limits like there is no tomorrow is criminal, and (hopefully) will at least ensure that for Cllr Semolina's political career, there really will be no tomorrow. Stevie D
  • Score: 9

8:02pm Tue 1 Jul 14

strangebuttrue? says...

Looks like Mr Levine's inclusion of motorist in the decision making process is long forgotten or is it that the puppet master (Mr Merrett) is taking his time choosing his first car. Maybe he is having to save up for a further three years to buy a green one?.
Looks like Mr Levine's inclusion of motorist in the decision making process is long forgotten or is it that the puppet master (Mr Merrett) is taking his time choosing his first car. Maybe he is having to save up for a further three years to buy a green one?. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 10

8:07pm Tue 1 Jul 14

jay, york says...

Stevie D wrote:
yorkshirelad wrote: so it's hard to see what all the huff and puff about enforcement is about.
The main thing that the huff and puff is about is not so much about enforcement, it's about the extravagant waste of money on a project that we no will have absolutely minimal impact. At a time when the council is having to cut back on essential services left, right and centre, pouring money into 20mph speed limits like there is no tomorrow is criminal, and (hopefully) will at least ensure that for Cllr Semolina's political career, there really will be no tomorrow.
And it is about this labour councils arrogance and greed - and adding yet another disaster to their list! 20 mile zones and then extended use of a spy car to catch out people doing more than 20 in them.
Now it appears that labour council have got the whole concept of 20 mph zones wrong.
Key observations are:-
1. cyc appear yet again to not have a clue about what they are doing
2. cyc appear to be acting outside the law again by not following correct procedures with road signs and use of lack of engineering work (eg speed humps or similar speed restricitons)
3. cyc appear to wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds of our money without a care in the world on this and many other barmy schemes they have introduced
4. cyc are now spending thousands of pounds a day on engaging "experts" to sort out the abysmal messes they have got themselves into
Get rid of them all now - plus ms england.
[quote][p][bold]Stevie D[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: so it's hard to see what all the huff and puff about enforcement is about.[/quote] The main thing that the huff and puff is about is [italic]not[/italic] so much about enforcement, it's about the extravagant waste of money on a project that we no will have absolutely minimal impact. At a time when the council is having to cut back on essential services left, right and centre, pouring money into 20mph speed limits like there is no tomorrow is criminal, and (hopefully) will at least ensure that for Cllr Semolina's political career, there really will be no tomorrow.[/p][/quote]And it is about this labour councils arrogance and greed - and adding yet another disaster to their list! 20 mile zones and then extended use of a spy car to catch out people doing more than 20 in them. Now it appears that labour council have got the whole concept of 20 mph zones wrong. Key observations are:- 1. cyc appear yet again to not have a clue about what they are doing 2. cyc appear to be acting outside the law again by not following correct procedures with road signs and use of lack of engineering work (eg speed humps or similar speed restricitons) 3. cyc appear to wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds of our money without a care in the world on this and many other barmy schemes they have introduced 4. cyc are now spending thousands of pounds a day on engaging "experts" to sort out the abysmal messes they have got themselves into Get rid of them all now - plus ms england. jay, york
  • Score: 13

8:20pm Tue 1 Jul 14

jay, york says...

Art Baker wrote:
Stevie D wrote:
yorkshirelad wrote: so it's hard to see what all the huff and puff about enforcement is about.
The main thing that the huff and puff is about is not so much about enforcement, it's about the extravagant waste of money on a project that we no will have absolutely minimal impact. At a time when the council is having to cut back on essential services left, right and centre, pouring money into 20mph speed limits like there is no tomorrow is criminal, and (hopefully) will at least ensure that for Cllr Semolina's political career, there really will be no tomorrow.
Your deliberate misspelling of a name is really good. Well done. It doesn't make you look at all stupid. Got any more gems we can all split our sides laughing at?
There are so many "gems" that we all really split our sides laughing at counciller - all the shambolic schemes, decisions and ideas of this arrrogant , secretive and deceptive labour council!. Sadly it us, the residents of York, who pay your wages who will have to stand the cost of all these disasters for many years to come.
[quote][p][bold]Art Baker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie D[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: so it's hard to see what all the huff and puff about enforcement is about.[/quote] The main thing that the huff and puff is about is [italic]not[/italic] so much about enforcement, it's about the extravagant waste of money on a project that we no will have absolutely minimal impact. At a time when the council is having to cut back on essential services left, right and centre, pouring money into 20mph speed limits like there is no tomorrow is criminal, and (hopefully) will at least ensure that for Cllr Semolina's political career, there really will be no tomorrow.[/p][/quote]Your deliberate misspelling of a name is really good. Well done. It doesn't make you look at all stupid. Got any more gems we can all split our sides laughing at?[/p][/quote]There are so many "gems" that we all really split our sides laughing at counciller - all the shambolic schemes, decisions and ideas of this arrrogant , secretive and deceptive labour council!. Sadly it us, the residents of York, who pay your wages who will have to stand the cost of all these disasters for many years to come. jay, york
  • Score: 17

8:30pm Tue 1 Jul 14

Cheeky face says...

Kevin Ward 59 has useful comments.

I understand the average speed on Bishopthorpe Rd has been reduced following the reduced limit. That appears to be all the Council and the Police expects.
The council approved, with the police and residents, to allow half on/half off parking on footpaths twixt Campleshon Rd and Butcher Terrace on that bus route! Have the mobility vehicles users/ blind complained?

30mph has a stopping distance of 75ft; whereas 20mph needs only 40 ft; as detailed in the Highway Code.

Facts/statistics show 8 times less chance of a fatality at 20mph rather than 30mph. Following on from that if we drove at 5mph in all residential streets we could avoid so many moreaccidents/fatali
ties/ near missess, but we would clog up roads and streets!

I hope the council will follow Cambridge City Council's policy of agreeing to publish speed measurements, accident stats, walking and cycling increases/decreases, on a regular basis. They should be recording that information NOW!

Biggest culprits on Bishopthorpe Rd are drivers in white vans with City of York logo on them. I have recorded a reg number of one of them!

There are some 20mph streets that are not, in my opinion, in the parameters of DfT regs and guidelines.

Who is policing the limit NOW?

Middlesbrough has had a lot of 20mph zones/streets for 2 years- no fines/prosecutions yet!

We need the Transport Research Lab to arrange another widesprea
d evaluation on the lines of the one conducted in 1996.

Lets see facts and not stats, the latter being an excuse to distort the former.
Kevin Ward 59 has useful comments. I understand the average speed on Bishopthorpe Rd has been reduced following the reduced limit. That appears to be all the Council and the Police expects. The council approved, with the police and residents, to allow half on/half off parking on footpaths twixt Campleshon Rd and Butcher Terrace on that bus route! Have the mobility vehicles users/ blind complained? 30mph has a stopping distance of 75ft; whereas 20mph needs only 40 ft; as detailed in the Highway Code. Facts/statistics show 8 times less chance of a fatality at 20mph rather than 30mph. Following on from that if we drove at 5mph in all residential streets we could avoid so many moreaccidents/fatali ties/ near missess, but we would clog up roads and streets! I hope the council will follow Cambridge City Council's policy of agreeing to publish speed measurements, accident stats, walking and cycling increases/decreases, on a regular basis. They should be recording that information NOW! Biggest culprits on Bishopthorpe Rd are drivers in white vans with City of York logo on them. I have recorded a reg number of one of them! There are some 20mph streets that are not, in my opinion, in the parameters of DfT regs and guidelines. Who is policing the limit NOW? Middlesbrough has had a lot of 20mph zones/streets for 2 years- no fines/prosecutions yet! We need the Transport Research Lab to arrange another widesprea d evaluation on the lines of the one conducted in 1996. Lets see facts and not stats, the latter being an excuse to distort the former. Cheeky face
  • Score: 0

9:16pm Tue 1 Jul 14

deckhanddave says...

Is it me or have other people realised the glaring Fubar in this 20mph debacle? The only people likely to bother with it are the ones that drive responsibly anyway. The uninsured, pot smoking, drunken law breaking jerks who cause most accidents don't give a fiddlers T*ss about it. All it means to them is that if they get caught they will just be going a bit more over the speed limit than before. Half of them don't even know double white lines across a junction means stop and give way. By the way, can I have a job at the council for £400 a day too? I can spell and waste money as good as any councilor. (Deliberate mistake)
Is it me or have other people realised the glaring Fubar in this 20mph debacle? The only people likely to bother with it are the ones that drive responsibly anyway. The uninsured, pot smoking, drunken law breaking jerks who cause most accidents don't give a fiddlers T*ss about it. All it means to them is that if they get caught they will just be going a bit more over the speed limit than before. Half of them don't even know double white lines across a junction means stop and give way. By the way, can I have a job at the council for £400 a day too? I can spell and waste money as good as any councilor. (Deliberate mistake) deckhanddave
  • Score: 9

11:05pm Tue 1 Jul 14

jay, york says...

nearlyman wrote:
...... Its often the police, council vehicles and taxis who appear to fail to observe these limits from what i have seen................ .
So doesnt that say it all ??? If police cannot enforce these 20 mph zones (which they cant), why should they adhere to them. Why should any of us adhere to them? Total waste of yet more council money - cloud cuckoo land - and the person that pushed this stupid scheme through is standing down next year - no doubt because of such a huge conflict of interest with her business activities for 20s plenty.
Fact is, there are motorists that speed. Lowering a speed limit will have no effect whatsover on them - they will always speed.
Fact is, the majority of motorists have the skill, knowledge, understanding and experience to know what is a safe speed to drive at in a specific area. If I had driven down Bishpthorpe Road at 20 mph when I took my driving test, I would have failed - because I didnt drive to the conditions of the road.
Words fail me.........
[quote][p][bold]nearlyman[/bold] wrote: ...... Its often the police, council vehicles and taxis who appear to fail to observe these limits from what i have seen................ .[/p][/quote]So doesnt that say it all ??? If police cannot enforce these 20 mph zones (which they cant), why should they adhere to them. Why should any of us adhere to them? Total waste of yet more council money - cloud cuckoo land - and the person that pushed this stupid scheme through is standing down next year - no doubt because of such a huge conflict of interest with her business activities for 20s plenty. Fact is, there are motorists that speed. Lowering a speed limit will have no effect whatsover on them - they will always speed. Fact is, the majority of motorists have the skill, knowledge, understanding and experience to know what is a safe speed to drive at in a specific area. If I had driven down Bishpthorpe Road at 20 mph when I took my driving test, I would have failed - because I didnt drive to the conditions of the road. Words fail me......... jay, york
  • Score: 9

11:12pm Tue 1 Jul 14

jay, york says...

Art Baker wrote:
deckhanddave wrote: Is it me or have other people realised the glaring Fubar in this 20mph debacle? The only people likely to bother with it are the ones that drive responsibly anyway. The uninsured, pot smoking, drunken law breaking jerks who cause most accidents don't give a fiddlers T*ss about it. All it means to them is that if they get caught they will just be going a bit more over the speed limit than before. Half of them don't even know double white lines across a junction means stop and give way. By the way, can I have a job at the council for £400 a day too? I can spell and waste money as good as any councilor. (Deliberate mistake)
By your logic you have no laws because people like Rolf Harris and Jimmy Savile will break them hence anyone can fiddle with whoever they want at whatever age. That's where you end up if you only have the laws that absolutely everyone obeys.
Stop trying to detract from the subject counciller - In York and outlying areas, it is the labour council that appears to be acting illegally in several areas at present.
[quote][p][bold]Art Baker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]deckhanddave[/bold] wrote: Is it me or have other people realised the glaring Fubar in this 20mph debacle? The only people likely to bother with it are the ones that drive responsibly anyway. The uninsured, pot smoking, drunken law breaking jerks who cause most accidents don't give a fiddlers T*ss about it. All it means to them is that if they get caught they will just be going a bit more over the speed limit than before. Half of them don't even know double white lines across a junction means stop and give way. By the way, can I have a job at the council for £400 a day too? I can spell and waste money as good as any councilor. (Deliberate mistake)[/p][/quote]By your logic you have no laws because people like Rolf Harris and Jimmy Savile will break them hence anyone can fiddle with whoever they want at whatever age. That's where you end up if you only have the laws that absolutely everyone obeys.[/p][/quote]Stop trying to detract from the subject counciller - In York and outlying areas, it is the labour council that appears to be acting illegally in several areas at present. jay, york
  • Score: 15

11:28pm Tue 1 Jul 14

jake777 says...

MorkofYork wrote:
Yea my speed is still decided by the condition of the road. I'm not driving around at 20 when there's no chance of anyone being hit, just because a minority of greens say i should.

Go away, stop wasting money. Stop trying to force your ideals onto people who don't want them. Can you imagine living in a country where this is actually enforced ? sickening.

Greens are some of the worst of the worst.
what a muppet.
[quote][p][bold]MorkofYork[/bold] wrote: Yea my speed is still decided by the condition of the road. I'm not driving around at 20 when there's no chance of anyone being hit, just because a minority of greens say i should. Go away, stop wasting money. Stop trying to force your ideals onto people who don't want them. Can you imagine living in a country where this is actually enforced ? sickening. Greens are some of the worst of the worst.[/p][/quote]what a muppet. jake777
  • Score: -9

11:35pm Tue 1 Jul 14

jay, york says...

jake777 wrote:
MorkofYork wrote: Yea my speed is still decided by the condition of the road. I'm not driving around at 20 when there's no chance of anyone being hit, just because a minority of greens say i should. Go away, stop wasting money. Stop trying to force your ideals onto people who don't want them. Can you imagine living in a country where this is actually enforced ? sickening. Greens are some of the worst of the worst.
what a muppet.
Crikey - she has even let little jakey out way past his bedtime - he's obviously having a bad night. give him some more of his "special" medicine and send him back to bed.
Treatment is obviously not working for little jakey.
[quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MorkofYork[/bold] wrote: Yea my speed is still decided by the condition of the road. I'm not driving around at 20 when there's no chance of anyone being hit, just because a minority of greens say i should. Go away, stop wasting money. Stop trying to force your ideals onto people who don't want them. Can you imagine living in a country where this is actually enforced ? sickening. Greens are some of the worst of the worst.[/p][/quote]what a muppet.[/p][/quote]Crikey - she has even let little jakey out way past his bedtime - he's obviously having a bad night. give him some more of his "special" medicine and send him back to bed. Treatment is obviously not working for little jakey. jay, york
  • Score: 12

11:54pm Tue 1 Jul 14

eeoodares says...

I am one of the few that agrees with a 20mph limit, however, as soon as the Police said they would not enforce it then the scheme was over.

Stop spending money on unenforceable schemes.
I am one of the few that agrees with a 20mph limit, however, as soon as the Police said they would not enforce it then the scheme was over. Stop spending money on unenforceable schemes. eeoodares
  • Score: 7

12:06am Wed 2 Jul 14

york_chap says...

Art Baker wrote:
Stevie D wrote:
yorkshirelad wrote:
so it's hard to see what all the huff and puff about enforcement is about.

The main thing that the huff and puff is about is not so much about enforcement, it's about the extravagant waste of money on a project that we no will have absolutely minimal impact. At a time when the council is having to cut back on essential services left, right and centre, pouring money into 20mph speed limits like there is no tomorrow is criminal, and (hopefully) will at least ensure that for Cllr Semolina's political career, there really will be no tomorrow.
Your deliberate misspelling of a name is really good. Well done. It doesn't make you look at all stupid. Got any more gems we can all split our sides laughing at?
You're quite right, it doesn't make the commentor look stupid; I for one I found it to be somewhat titillating. Their post simply and visibly demonstrates the fact that many of York's councillors, such as Councillor 'Semolina' are now viewed by many of the electorate as merely a comedy sideshow. These schemes are ridiculous and if it weren't for the shameful waste of public funds would indeed be laughable.
[quote][p][bold]Art Baker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie D[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: so it's hard to see what all the huff and puff about enforcement is about.[/quote] The main thing that the huff and puff is about is [italic]not[/italic] so much about enforcement, it's about the extravagant waste of money on a project that we no will have absolutely minimal impact. At a time when the council is having to cut back on essential services left, right and centre, pouring money into 20mph speed limits like there is no tomorrow is criminal, and (hopefully) will at least ensure that for Cllr Semolina's political career, there really will be no tomorrow.[/p][/quote]Your deliberate misspelling of a name is really good. Well done. It doesn't make you look at all stupid. Got any more gems we can all split our sides laughing at?[/p][/quote]You're quite right, it doesn't make the commentor look stupid; I for one I found it to be somewhat titillating. Their post simply and visibly demonstrates the fact that many of York's councillors, such as Councillor 'Semolina' are now viewed by many of the electorate as merely a comedy sideshow. These schemes are ridiculous and if it weren't for the shameful waste of public funds would indeed be laughable. york_chap
  • Score: 11

4:22am Wed 2 Jul 14

Magicman! says...

Wasting £600,000 of public money on signs... because that's all they are. The police have stated they cannot enforce these limits, so what really is the point?? stick to specific 20mph limits where THEY ARE NEEDED - such as outside schools and playing fields. And all because of Semlyn's revenge drive against the person who knocked her off her bike all those eons ago.
Wasting £600,000 of public money on signs... because that's all they are. The police have stated they cannot enforce these limits, so what really is the point?? stick to specific 20mph limits where THEY ARE NEEDED - such as outside schools and playing fields. And all because of Semlyn's revenge drive against the person who knocked her off her bike all those eons ago. Magicman!
  • Score: 11

7:31am Wed 2 Jul 14

mortandindi says...

Typical green party rubbish. They aren't a political party, just a bunch of old 1960's idealistic hippies with silly ideas. Ignore them and they will probably go away.
Its only a matter of time until the whole city is covered in a blanket 20mph making it impossible to move around. I for one totally ignore the 20 mph limits and still drive at 30 mph. I urge everyone to do the same.
Typical green party rubbish. They aren't a political party, just a bunch of old 1960's idealistic hippies with silly ideas. Ignore them and they will probably go away. Its only a matter of time until the whole city is covered in a blanket 20mph making it impossible to move around. I for one totally ignore the 20 mph limits and still drive at 30 mph. I urge everyone to do the same. mortandindi
  • Score: 12

10:43am Wed 2 Jul 14

Ichabod76 says...

Art Baker wrote:
Stevie D wrote:
yorkshirelad wrote:
so it's hard to see what all the huff and puff about enforcement is about.

The main thing that the huff and puff is about is not so much about enforcement, it's about the extravagant waste of money on a project that we no will have absolutely minimal impact. At a time when the council is having to cut back on essential services left, right and centre, pouring money into 20mph speed limits like there is no tomorrow is criminal, and (hopefully) will at least ensure that for Cllr Semolina's political career, there really will be no tomorrow.
Your deliberate misspelling of a name is really good. Well done. It doesn't make you look at all stupid. Got any more gems we can all split our sides laughing at?
Funny you react to this deliberate misspelling of Cllr slimylina's name

Ive heard nobody wants to be her friend, thats why she has to advertise on the internet (meetme.com)
never mentions she's a councillor or works for 20s plenty though.
I wonder why ?
[quote][p][bold]Art Baker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie D[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: so it's hard to see what all the huff and puff about enforcement is about.[/quote] The main thing that the huff and puff is about is [italic]not[/italic] so much about enforcement, it's about the extravagant waste of money on a project that we no will have absolutely minimal impact. At a time when the council is having to cut back on essential services left, right and centre, pouring money into 20mph speed limits like there is no tomorrow is criminal, and (hopefully) will at least ensure that for Cllr Semolina's political career, there really will be no tomorrow.[/p][/quote]Your deliberate misspelling of a name is really good. Well done. It doesn't make you look at all stupid. Got any more gems we can all split our sides laughing at?[/p][/quote]Funny you react to this deliberate misspelling of Cllr slimylina's name Ive heard nobody wants to be her friend, thats why she has to advertise on the internet (meetme.com) never mentions she's a councillor or works for 20s plenty though. I wonder why ? Ichabod76
  • Score: 11

10:04pm Wed 2 Jul 14

jake777 says...

jay, york wrote:
jake777 wrote:
MorkofYork wrote: Yea my speed is still decided by the condition of the road. I'm not driving around at 20 when there's no chance of anyone being hit, just because a minority of greens say i should. Go away, stop wasting money. Stop trying to force your ideals onto people who don't want them. Can you imagine living in a country where this is actually enforced ? sickening. Greens are some of the worst of the worst.
what a muppet.
Crikey - she has even let little jakey out way past his bedtime - he's obviously having a bad night. give him some more of his "special" medicine and send him back to bed.
Treatment is obviously not working for little jakey.
yer well they cant find a medicine for a freak like you.
[quote][p][bold]jay, york[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MorkofYork[/bold] wrote: Yea my speed is still decided by the condition of the road. I'm not driving around at 20 when there's no chance of anyone being hit, just because a minority of greens say i should. Go away, stop wasting money. Stop trying to force your ideals onto people who don't want them. Can you imagine living in a country where this is actually enforced ? sickening. Greens are some of the worst of the worst.[/p][/quote]what a muppet.[/p][/quote]Crikey - she has even let little jakey out way past his bedtime - he's obviously having a bad night. give him some more of his "special" medicine and send him back to bed. Treatment is obviously not working for little jakey.[/p][/quote]yer well they cant find a medicine for a freak like you. jake777
  • Score: -5

3:51pm Thu 3 Jul 14

BethFoxhunter96 says...

20 miles an hour seems very sensible for narrow side roads and indeed most roads in town. People will claim different rights are being taken away but ultimately it's about who has what right in our shared spaces. As a walker, cycler and driver (and sometimes rollerskater!) it would seem only right that the users which can cause most damage and are the biggest and pollute are restrained a bit. I don't really see what the big "inconvenience" actually is. As if you can go quicker than average 20 through lovely York anyway. More likely 5mph through Mickelgate to say Fulford so reducing top speed just a fraction is hardly going to bother most people. The biggest problem seems to be forgetting to slow down, I am so used to some speeds of 30 in some areas it just seems "natural" to carry on! Ooops!
20 miles an hour seems very sensible for narrow side roads and indeed most roads in town. People will claim different rights are being taken away but ultimately it's about who has what right in our shared spaces. As a walker, cycler and driver (and sometimes rollerskater!) it would seem only right that the users which can cause most damage and are the biggest and pollute are restrained a bit. I don't really see what the big "inconvenience" actually is. As if you can go quicker than average 20 through lovely York anyway. More likely 5mph through Mickelgate to say Fulford so reducing top speed just a fraction is hardly going to bother most people. The biggest problem seems to be forgetting to slow down, I am so used to some speeds of 30 in some areas it just seems "natural" to carry on! Ooops! BethFoxhunter96
  • Score: -2

10:13am Fri 4 Jul 14

The Great Buda says...

More 20mph area, more accidents.


http://news.sky.com/
story/1294728/20mph-
zone-road-crash-casu
alties-rise-by-26-pe
rcent
More 20mph area, more accidents. http://news.sky.com/ story/1294728/20mph- zone-road-crash-casu alties-rise-by-26-pe rcent The Great Buda
  • Score: 2

5:56pm Mon 7 Jul 14

Cheeky face says...

You need to see exact comparisons on each road to see if facts are real facts.

The sky news story is very interesting; from both sides.
You need to see exact comparisons on each road to see if facts are real facts. The sky news story is very interesting; from both sides. Cheeky face
  • Score: 0
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

click2find

About cookies

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

I agree