No drivers caught breaking new 20mph speed limit

The police have yet to catch any motorists breaking the 20mph speed limit

The police have yet to catch any motorists breaking the 20mph speed limit

First published in News
Last updated
by

ALMOST two years after York started becoming a 20mph city, not a single motorist has been caught by police breaking the speed limit.

North Yorkshire Police says 'zero drivers' have been stopped at the roadside for exceeding a 20mph limit within York since its introduction, and its 'Safety Camera Team' also had 'zero data,' as it had not done any 20mph enforcement.

Independent councillor Mark Warters, who obtained the statistics through a Freedom of Information request, claimed they showed that City of York Council's spending of £600,000 on 20 mph limits across the city was a 'complete waste of money.'

He claimed it would have been better spent on other matters, such as Police Community Support Officers outside schools and repairs to the city's potholes. He also claimed the limits had been imposed to meet the demands of Labour Cllr Anna Semlyen, who was paid to work as a national campaign manager for the 20’s Plenty For Us organisation.

But Cllr Semlyen said 20mph was the collective policy of the Labour Group of councillors which had appeared in their previous election manifesto, and added: "I’m pleased to be a part of an administration implementing that policy and if Cllr Warters wants to join (Tory group leader) Cllr Chris Steward in personal attacks on me for being effective, then so be it."

Cabinet member David Levene said residential 20mph speed limits were intended to be largely self-enforcing, so actual enforcement of a well-designed scheme was likely to be limited. "The figures Cllr Warters referred to suggest this is indeed the case," he said.

"Julia Mulligan, the Conservative Police and Crime Commissioner, has publicly confirmed that 20mph can be enforced in the same way to other speed limits, and North Yorkshire Police has confirmed that it will indeed enforce them."

A council spokeswoman said the speed limits were legal and enforceable, just like all other speed limits in the city, and correctly placed signage meant police could enforce them.

"However as the Department for Transport also suggests, the new limits are most appropriately applied to streets with already low prevailing speeds, such as residential roads (which we have done in York) so would therefore be self-enforcing. Therefore, police enforcement would not be expected beyond what would have already taken place to enforce the previous 30mph limit on these streets."

North Yorkshire Police said it followed guidance by ACPO (the Association of Chief Police Officers) on this issue.

ACPO says services must not unintentionally give the impression police will not enforce the law, adding: "As with all crimes and speed limits, the police will use their discretion when to enforce and how that enforcement might take place."

Comments (206)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:40am Wed 13 Aug 14

P3TER1 says...

As I said in a previous story, speed doesn't necessarily cause accidents, lack of concentration, poor judgement and indecisiveness does. Yes, this was a complete waste of money.
As I said in a previous story, speed doesn't necessarily cause accidents, lack of concentration, poor judgement and indecisiveness does. Yes, this was a complete waste of money. P3TER1
  • Score: 1311

11:42am Wed 13 Aug 14

Yeller Belly says...

£600,000 would have been better spent enforcing the regularly flouted limits we have already.
£600,000 would have been better spent enforcing the regularly flouted limits we have already. Yeller Belly
  • Score: 1200

11:44am Wed 13 Aug 14

Fanny Free House says...

Cllr Semlyen. "if Cllr Warters wants to join (Tory group leader) Cllr Chris Steward in personal attacks on me for being effective, then so be it."

Cost benefit analysis:

Cost: £600,000
Benefit: Fanciful
Analysis: Pointless

Is that how you measure effectiveness.
Cllr Semlyen. "if Cllr Warters wants to join (Tory group leader) Cllr Chris Steward in personal attacks on me for being effective, then so be it." Cost benefit analysis: Cost: £600,000 Benefit: Fanciful Analysis: Pointless Is that how you measure effectiveness. Fanny Free House
  • Score: 1094

11:55am Wed 13 Aug 14

Ignatius Lumpopo says...

"Zero drivers"? Do they mean "No drivers"?

Another example of the pompous, self-centred gobbledegook spouted by the boys in blue. Listen to them on TV giving accounts of incidents and the way they disappear up their own fundaments by articulating the simplest of facts in the most obfuscated language.

Do they ever actually listen to what they say? Or are they desperate to avoid clarity in the misplaced belief that doing so is the surest route to self-perpetuation?
"Zero drivers"? Do they mean "No drivers"? Another example of the pompous, self-centred gobbledegook spouted by the boys in blue. Listen to them on TV giving accounts of incidents and the way they disappear up their own fundaments by articulating the simplest of facts in the most obfuscated language. Do they ever actually listen to what they say? Or are they desperate to avoid clarity in the misplaced belief that doing so is the surest route to self-perpetuation? Ignatius Lumpopo
  • Score: 1238

12:00pm Wed 13 Aug 14

inthesticks says...

That`s not true Cllr Levene. Because on a recent on line web chat with Julia Mulligan she stated that the police would not be monitoring 20 limit areas and they would not be enforcing the 20mph limit. So bend the facts to suit yourselves again why don`t you?
That`s not true Cllr Levene. Because on a recent on line web chat with Julia Mulligan she stated that the police would not be monitoring 20 limit areas and they would not be enforcing the 20mph limit. So bend the facts to suit yourselves again why don`t you? inthesticks
  • Score: 1292

12:01pm Wed 13 Aug 14

The Great Buda says...

Semlyens playing the victim. A sure sign she knows she's in the wrong.
Semlyens playing the victim. A sure sign she knows she's in the wrong. The Great Buda
  • Score: 1046

12:04pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Cheeky face says...

Not a surprise that there have been no prosecutions in York

Middlesbrough had the zones/selective streets reduced to 20mph and had no fines for the first 2 years. Average speeds were slightly down in residential streets, but not all areas were monitored before/after the introduction.

However Islington, London, spent half a million pounds of local taxpayers/business rate payers hard-earned money. After the first 6 months there had been no speeding fines! Only 2 of 158 streets/roads involved had new average speeds below 20mph. Average speeds on 100 of the 158 thoroughfares the average speeds actually increased or remained the same. All this actual research, and was extracted from Daily Telegraph last week.

If the overall average speeds in residential areas is more than 3mph down then the council, safety conscious people, and police will be happy.
The signs in York thoroughfares of less than 600 metres DID not need 20 limit signs if the council had followed the rules/guidance.

Whether the council were right or wrong we may never know. Could the transportable variable message illumination boards have been programmed to warn motorists; and what would that alternative have cost?

Noise and pollution from vehicles constantly changing gears may be an issue.
Not a surprise that there have been no prosecutions in York Middlesbrough had the zones/selective streets reduced to 20mph and had no fines for the first 2 years. Average speeds were slightly down in residential streets, but not all areas were monitored before/after the introduction. However Islington, London, spent half a million pounds of local taxpayers/business rate payers hard-earned money. After the first 6 months there had been no speeding fines! Only 2 of 158 streets/roads involved had new average speeds below 20mph. Average speeds on 100 of the 158 thoroughfares the average speeds actually increased or remained the same. All this actual research, and was extracted from Daily Telegraph last week. If the overall average speeds in residential areas is more than 3mph down then the council, safety conscious people, and police will be happy. The signs in York thoroughfares of less than 600 metres DID not need 20 limit signs if the council had followed the rules/guidance. Whether the council were right or wrong we may never know. Could the transportable variable message illumination boards have been programmed to warn motorists; and what would that alternative have cost? Noise and pollution from vehicles constantly changing gears may be an issue. Cheeky face
  • Score: 1375

12:05pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Knavesmire view says...

The Great Buda wrote:
Semlyens playing the victim. A sure sign she knows she's in the wrong.
She doesn't care anyway. She got what she wanted, is now stepping down.

It stinks, and if that isn't a clear conflict of interest I don't know what is. The whole thing should be investigated.
[quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: Semlyens playing the victim. A sure sign she knows she's in the wrong.[/p][/quote]She doesn't care anyway. She got what she wanted, is now stepping down. It stinks, and if that isn't a clear conflict of interest I don't know what is. The whole thing should be investigated. Knavesmire view
  • Score: 1381

12:07pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Cheeky face says...

inthesticks wrote:
That`s not true Cllr Levene. Because on a recent on line web chat with Julia Mulligan she stated that the police would not be monitoring 20 limit areas and they would not be enforcing the 20mph limit. So bend the facts to suit yourselves again why don`t you?
Quite right. But the people in blue contradict themselves more than the council.
[quote][p][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: That`s not true Cllr Levene. Because on a recent on line web chat with Julia Mulligan she stated that the police would not be monitoring 20 limit areas and they would not be enforcing the 20mph limit. So bend the facts to suit yourselves again why don`t you?[/p][/quote]Quite right. But the people in blue contradict themselves more than the council. Cheeky face
  • Score: 1003

12:12pm Wed 13 Aug 14

razor08 says...

'A council spokeswoman said the speed limits were legal and enforceable, just like all other speed limits in the city, and correctly placed signage meant police could enforce them.' This sounds remarkably like the same rhetoric that was used for Lendal bridge fiasco has the spokeswoman been given an old script ?
'A council spokeswoman said the speed limits were legal and enforceable, just like all other speed limits in the city, and correctly placed signage meant police could enforce them.' This sounds remarkably like the same rhetoric that was used for Lendal bridge fiasco has the spokeswoman been given an old script ? razor08
  • Score: 1389

12:17pm Wed 13 Aug 14

goatman says...

"North Yorkshire Police says 'zero drivers' have been stopped at the roadside for exceeding a 20mph limit within York since its introduction, and its 'Safety Camera Team' also had 'zero data,' as it had not done any 20mph enforcement."

And there you have it. Just like everything else, you can have as many rules as you like but without enforcement they're useless.
"North Yorkshire Police says 'zero drivers' have been stopped at the roadside for exceeding a 20mph limit within York since its introduction, and its 'Safety Camera Team' also had 'zero data,' as it had not done any 20mph enforcement." And there you have it. Just like everything else, you can have as many rules as you like but without enforcement they're useless. goatman
  • Score: 1378

12:26pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Jackanory2 says...

The reason why the police don't enforce it is because they don't pay any attention to it. Was behind a police car going through South Bank and they were doing nearer 35 than 20.
The reason why the police don't enforce it is because they don't pay any attention to it. Was behind a police car going through South Bank and they were doing nearer 35 than 20. Jackanory2
  • Score: 1287

12:28pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Digeorge says...

Apparently some Directive from the EU as to why it had to be implemented.

Sad do I really need or other residents a 20 mile per hour sign when you can't even go 10 miles per hour or zero miles per hour! Nope cost the Council a lot of money.
Apparently some Directive from the EU as to why it had to be implemented. Sad do I really need or other residents a 20 mile per hour sign when you can't even go 10 miles per hour or zero miles per hour! Nope cost the Council a lot of money. Digeorge
  • Score: 1286

12:39pm Wed 13 Aug 14

The Analyst says...

Another WASTE OF MONEY - well done Y.C.C - you are certainly good (and consistent) at something!
Another WASTE OF MONEY - well done Y.C.C - you are certainly good (and consistent) at something! The Analyst
  • Score: 1114

12:40pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

Disgraceful conduct from Anna Semlyen.
Got herself elected to push through her pet project, got it through and stood down.
Feel sorry for all those who she's supposed to be representing because what it looks like is she's only representing herself and her organisation.

Are we as a city ok with that? With people using and abusing us for their own ends?
Disgraceful conduct from Anna Semlyen. Got herself elected to push through her pet project, got it through and stood down. Feel sorry for all those who she's supposed to be representing because what it looks like is she's only representing herself and her organisation. Are we as a city ok with that? With people using and abusing us for their own ends? Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 1156

12:54pm Wed 13 Aug 14

robynd says...

The more pertinant question is - have incidents and injuries decreased in the 20 mph zones. Probably not enough time to get enough data yet. And the data needs to be analysed carefully as the zones are likely to have been built in areas where accidents are more likely.

If there have been a reduction in injuries, isn't that a good thing?
The more pertinant question is - have incidents and injuries decreased in the 20 mph zones. Probably not enough time to get enough data yet. And the data needs to be analysed carefully as the zones are likely to have been built in areas where accidents are more likely. If there have been a reduction in injuries, isn't that a good thing? robynd
  • Score: 1018

12:54pm Wed 13 Aug 14

gmc_1963 says...

This is not news, The Police have already said a 20mph limit would not be enforced and The Press knows this...

http://www.yorkpress
.co.uk/news/9285501.
New_drive_for_20mph_
limit_to_be_extended
/

"Parents of the two schools joined the campaign to get the current 20 mph speed limit implemented, which the council introduced last spring against North Yorkshire Police advice.

The force claimed it would make the road less safe and warned its officers would not enforce the 20 mph speed limit."
This is not news, The Police have already said a 20mph limit would not be enforced and The Press knows this... http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/news/9285501. New_drive_for_20mph_ limit_to_be_extended / "Parents of the two schools joined the campaign to get the current 20 mph speed limit implemented, which the council introduced last spring against North Yorkshire Police advice. The force claimed it would make the road less safe and warned its officers would not enforce the 20 mph speed limit." gmc_1963
  • Score: 1168

1:08pm Wed 13 Aug 14

yawn.. says...

What a waste of £600k. There are two reasons why they haven't caught anyone breaking the 20mph limits..

1. In town nobody can get up to 20mph before getting stuck in another queue for yet another ill phased traffic light, and

2. When they get to the outskirts there aren't enough Police to enforce the limit.!
What a waste of £600k. There are two reasons why they haven't caught anyone breaking the 20mph limits.. 1. In town nobody can get up to 20mph before getting stuck in another queue for yet another ill phased traffic light, and 2. When they get to the outskirts there aren't enough Police to enforce the limit.! yawn..
  • Score: 1275

1:36pm Wed 13 Aug 14

BethFoxhunter96 says...

This isn't a waste at all. My street is so much nicer now that cars go a bit slower. It's upsetting that the police don't give it much attention actually.

This exercise isn't about making cash form fines. It is about making streets safer. It was a manifesto pledge which the city voted for.

I do not know the councillor and she is not my ward councillor. I do not know why she is stepping down. But I am certainly not adverse to a councillor being elected to do a specific thing - fight a housing project, 20mph roads, save a hospital, whatever - and they leave when it has been accomplished. We get far too many career politicians as it is. We don't vote on whether or not we like someone. We vote for people based on their pledges. The councillor and her labour colleagues told us all what they would do and are doing it. Seems a bit of a non-story to me, other than to congratulate some politicians for actually keeping their promises!!

I wish to see a labour - green coalition in May 2015 at city level so we can look forward to even more streets being tamed for everyone, not just 4x4s or selfish car owners (you know who you are!).
This isn't a waste at all. My street is so much nicer now that cars go a bit slower. It's upsetting that the police don't give it much attention actually. This exercise isn't about making cash form fines. It is about making streets safer. It was a manifesto pledge which the city voted for. I do not know the councillor and she is not my ward councillor. I do not know why she is stepping down. But I am certainly not adverse to a councillor being elected to do a specific thing - fight a housing project, 20mph roads, save a hospital, whatever - and they leave when it has been accomplished. We get far too many career politicians as it is. We don't vote on whether or not we like someone. We vote for people based on their pledges. The councillor and her labour colleagues told us all what they would do and are doing it. Seems a bit of a non-story to me, other than to congratulate some politicians for actually keeping their promises!! I wish to see a labour - green coalition in May 2015 at city level so we can look forward to even more streets being tamed for everyone, not just 4x4s or selfish car owners (you know who you are!). BethFoxhunter96
  • Score: 1442

1:38pm Wed 13 Aug 14

archieboldthe2nd says...

Well we all pointed this out before... now nice streets have a daft speed sign at the end of them... everywhere i look there are 20 signs... So now we have all woken up to the fact that we let this women ruin the looks of all our streets can we have them removed? is it called 20isplenty as there are plenty of f@#kin 20 signs? York looks like a daft h&s poster.

I always point out that this and lendal add up to about 2m.... while the rest of the city suffer from blocked drains, collapsed sewerage pipes and general dirt they go around plonking restrictions and signs up... not to mention traffic lights.. when i close my eyes now all i see are 20signs and traffic lights... its causing me insomnia...

But in her defence it was part of the policies people voted in for… so who’s to blame her for being mad or us for voting her in?
Well we all pointed this out before... now nice streets have a daft speed sign at the end of them... everywhere i look there are 20 signs... So now we have all woken up to the fact that we let this women ruin the looks of all our streets can we have them removed? is it called 20isplenty as there are plenty of f@#kin 20 signs? York looks like a daft h&s poster. I always point out that this and lendal add up to about 2m.... while the rest of the city suffer from blocked drains, collapsed sewerage pipes and general dirt they go around plonking restrictions and signs up... not to mention traffic lights.. when i close my eyes now all i see are 20signs and traffic lights... its causing me insomnia... But in her defence it was part of the policies people voted in for… so who’s to blame her for being mad or us for voting her in? archieboldthe2nd
  • Score: 1177

1:45pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Yeller Belly says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
This isn't a waste at all. My street is so much nicer now that cars go a bit slower. It's upsetting that the police don't give it much attention actually.

This exercise isn't about making cash form fines. It is about making streets safer. It was a manifesto pledge which the city voted for.

I do not know the councillor and she is not my ward councillor. I do not know why she is stepping down. But I am certainly not adverse to a councillor being elected to do a specific thing - fight a housing project, 20mph roads, save a hospital, whatever - and they leave when it has been accomplished. We get far too many career politicians as it is. We don't vote on whether or not we like someone. We vote for people based on their pledges. The councillor and her labour colleagues told us all what they would do and are doing it. Seems a bit of a non-story to me, other than to congratulate some politicians for actually keeping their promises!!

I wish to see a labour - green coalition in May 2015 at city level so we can look forward to even more streets being tamed for everyone, not just 4x4s or selfish car owners (you know who you are!).
That's lovely. I live on a street which has unenforced 30 mph limits, and cars regularly do 50-60 down it. I know where I'd have preferred the money to be spent. The situation is compounded by the fact that the side streets are all 20 mph and the idea that you could exceed 20 down them is laughable.

It's a vanity project which has had no effect on safety whatsoever.
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: This isn't a waste at all. My street is so much nicer now that cars go a bit slower. It's upsetting that the police don't give it much attention actually. This exercise isn't about making cash form fines. It is about making streets safer. It was a manifesto pledge which the city voted for. I do not know the councillor and she is not my ward councillor. I do not know why she is stepping down. But I am certainly not adverse to a councillor being elected to do a specific thing - fight a housing project, 20mph roads, save a hospital, whatever - and they leave when it has been accomplished. We get far too many career politicians as it is. We don't vote on whether or not we like someone. We vote for people based on their pledges. The councillor and her labour colleagues told us all what they would do and are doing it. Seems a bit of a non-story to me, other than to congratulate some politicians for actually keeping their promises!! I wish to see a labour - green coalition in May 2015 at city level so we can look forward to even more streets being tamed for everyone, not just 4x4s or selfish car owners (you know who you are!).[/p][/quote]That's lovely. I live on a street which has unenforced 30 mph limits, and cars regularly do 50-60 down it. I know where I'd have preferred the money to be spent. The situation is compounded by the fact that the side streets are all 20 mph and the idea that you could exceed 20 down them is laughable. It's a vanity project which has had no effect on safety whatsoever. Yeller Belly
  • Score: 1056

1:49pm Wed 13 Aug 14

archieboldthe2nd says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
This isn't a waste at all. My street is so much nicer now that cars go a bit slower. It's upsetting that the police don't give it much attention actually. This exercise isn't about making cash form fines. It is about making streets safer. It was a manifesto pledge which the city voted for. I do not know the councillor and she is not my ward councillor. I do not know why she is stepping down. But I am certainly not adverse to a councillor being elected to do a specific thing - fight a housing project, 20mph roads, save a hospital, whatever - and they leave when it has been accomplished. We get far too many career politicians as it is. We don't vote on whether or not we like someone. We vote for people based on their pledges. The councillor and her labour colleagues told us all what they would do and are doing it. Seems a bit of a non-story to me, other than to congratulate some politicians for actually keeping their promises!! I wish to see a labour - green coalition in May 2015 at city level so we can look forward to even more streets being tamed for everyone, not just 4x4s or selfish car owners (you know who you are!).
Once again beth what a well constructed post... but i'd like to point out a few things.

Cars are not going slower.
Signs have been put down streets where you can not reach 20mph (so just wasted money and vital CO2 as I’m sure you're aware concrete foundations are not healthy!).
She is stepping down as she no has no point in being in charge. She has already littered york with pointless signs while being paid as councillor and by 20 is plenty. Not to forget the corruption charge she faced earlier in her career i suggest it is a step down before the whole thing is investigated or sacrificial lamb.
Taming streets? yes these cul de sacs that are now 20mph were like race tracks before. Indeed I once clocked a car doing 22mph. I could barely walk across the road and have a sit down before it reached me.
4x4 are actually better for the environment then most hybrids on a whole life cost basis.
She has done her day job and been paid by two parties to put signs up. if you congratulate someone who does that it shows your knowledge of the real world. I.e 600k on this then her salary for 2 years off 2 different "companies" not to mention all the other sh@t she claimed for. And what have we got for it? Signs that no one (yes including me, the police, busses, taxis) pays attention too…

Also beth i'd like to add that travelling at 20mph is not good for most cars or the polar bears. The majority of CO2 emissions happen at this speed as its usually 2nd gear at high revs.

Before you preach about green have a think about the whole picture not just your view. You should run for coalition with these lot.. you already sound as biased to a minority view as them.
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: This isn't a waste at all. My street is so much nicer now that cars go a bit slower. It's upsetting that the police don't give it much attention actually. This exercise isn't about making cash form fines. It is about making streets safer. It was a manifesto pledge which the city voted for. I do not know the councillor and she is not my ward councillor. I do not know why she is stepping down. But I am certainly not adverse to a councillor being elected to do a specific thing - fight a housing project, 20mph roads, save a hospital, whatever - and they leave when it has been accomplished. We get far too many career politicians as it is. We don't vote on whether or not we like someone. We vote for people based on their pledges. The councillor and her labour colleagues told us all what they would do and are doing it. Seems a bit of a non-story to me, other than to congratulate some politicians for actually keeping their promises!! I wish to see a labour - green coalition in May 2015 at city level so we can look forward to even more streets being tamed for everyone, not just 4x4s or selfish car owners (you know who you are!).[/p][/quote]Once again beth what a well constructed post... but i'd like to point out a few things. Cars are not going slower. Signs have been put down streets where you can not reach 20mph (so just wasted money and vital CO2 as I’m sure you're aware concrete foundations are not healthy!). She is stepping down as she no has no point in being in charge. She has already littered york with pointless signs while being paid as councillor and by 20 is plenty. Not to forget the corruption charge she faced earlier in her career i suggest it is a step down before the whole thing is investigated or sacrificial lamb. Taming streets? yes these cul de sacs that are now 20mph were like race tracks before. Indeed I once clocked a car doing 22mph. I could barely walk across the road and have a sit down before it reached me. 4x4 are actually better for the environment then most hybrids on a whole life cost basis. She has done her day job and been paid by two parties to put signs up. if you congratulate someone who does that it shows your knowledge of the real world. I.e 600k on this then her salary for 2 years off 2 different "companies" not to mention all the other sh@t she claimed for. And what have we got for it? Signs that no one (yes including me, the police, busses, taxis) pays attention too… Also beth i'd like to add that travelling at 20mph is not good for most cars or the polar bears. The majority of CO2 emissions happen at this speed as its usually 2nd gear at high revs. Before you preach about green have a think about the whole picture not just your view. You should run for coalition with these lot.. you already sound as biased to a minority view as them. archieboldthe2nd
  • Score: 1066

1:50pm Wed 13 Aug 14

BethFoxhunter96 says...

Yeller Belly wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
This isn't a waste at all. My street is so much nicer now that cars go a bit slower. It's upsetting that the police don't give it much attention actually.

This exercise isn't about making cash form fines. It is about making streets safer. It was a manifesto pledge which the city voted for.

I do not know the councillor and she is not my ward councillor. I do not know why she is stepping down. But I am certainly not adverse to a councillor being elected to do a specific thing - fight a housing project, 20mph roads, save a hospital, whatever - and they leave when it has been accomplished. We get far too many career politicians as it is. We don't vote on whether or not we like someone. We vote for people based on their pledges. The councillor and her labour colleagues told us all what they would do and are doing it. Seems a bit of a non-story to me, other than to congratulate some politicians for actually keeping their promises!!

I wish to see a labour - green coalition in May 2015 at city level so we can look forward to even more streets being tamed for everyone, not just 4x4s or selfish car owners (you know who you are!).
That's lovely. I live on a street which has unenforced 30 mph limits, and cars regularly do 50-60 down it. I know where I'd have preferred the money to be spent. The situation is compounded by the fact that the side streets are all 20 mph and the idea that you could exceed 20 down them is laughable.

It's a vanity project which has had no effect on safety whatsoever.
Then you need to campaign for speed bumps and traffic calming measures? What has that got to do with anything else? Beth
[quote][p][bold]Yeller Belly[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: This isn't a waste at all. My street is so much nicer now that cars go a bit slower. It's upsetting that the police don't give it much attention actually. This exercise isn't about making cash form fines. It is about making streets safer. It was a manifesto pledge which the city voted for. I do not know the councillor and she is not my ward councillor. I do not know why she is stepping down. But I am certainly not adverse to a councillor being elected to do a specific thing - fight a housing project, 20mph roads, save a hospital, whatever - and they leave when it has been accomplished. We get far too many career politicians as it is. We don't vote on whether or not we like someone. We vote for people based on their pledges. The councillor and her labour colleagues told us all what they would do and are doing it. Seems a bit of a non-story to me, other than to congratulate some politicians for actually keeping their promises!! I wish to see a labour - green coalition in May 2015 at city level so we can look forward to even more streets being tamed for everyone, not just 4x4s or selfish car owners (you know who you are!).[/p][/quote]That's lovely. I live on a street which has unenforced 30 mph limits, and cars regularly do 50-60 down it. I know where I'd have preferred the money to be spent. The situation is compounded by the fact that the side streets are all 20 mph and the idea that you could exceed 20 down them is laughable. It's a vanity project which has had no effect on safety whatsoever.[/p][/quote]Then you need to campaign for speed bumps and traffic calming measures? What has that got to do with anything else? Beth BethFoxhunter96
  • Score: 1184

1:53pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Yeller Belly says...

Who'll pay for it Beth? There's no money. The council have blown it on nonsense like this.
Who'll pay for it Beth? There's no money. The council have blown it on nonsense like this. Yeller Belly
  • Score: 1026

2:02pm Wed 13 Aug 14

BethFoxhunter96 says...

Yeller Belly wrote:
Who'll pay for it Beth? There's no money. The council have blown it on nonsense like this.
This is what manifestos are for. Maybe it'll make the next round of pledges or city development. I don't know as I obviously don't know the situation but I'm not sure we should be competing schemes against each other. 20mph was a priority this time around... hopefully your road will be next in line for some attention. Personally I would support a 100% blanket 20mph zone from once you get off the ring road (or maybe a few hundred metres of 40, 30 etc) so all these signs could be removed (ugly street furniture) and then random patrols across all roads. If that's in a manifesto next year I'd probably vote for it. I know so many people who've had really bad experiences whilst riding it's a big thing for me.
[quote][p][bold]Yeller Belly[/bold] wrote: Who'll pay for it Beth? There's no money. The council have blown it on nonsense like this.[/p][/quote]This is what manifestos are for. Maybe it'll make the next round of pledges or city development. I don't know as I obviously don't know the situation but I'm not sure we should be competing schemes against each other. 20mph was a priority this time around... hopefully your road will be next in line for some attention. Personally I would support a 100% blanket 20mph zone from once you get off the ring road (or maybe a few hundred metres of 40, 30 etc) so all these signs could be removed (ugly street furniture) and then random patrols across all roads. If that's in a manifesto next year I'd probably vote for it. I know so many people who've had really bad experiences whilst riding it's a big thing for me. BethFoxhunter96
  • Score: 1238

2:13pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Meldrew2 says...

Speed bumps? They cause untold damage to cars as well as making drivers change to a lower gear and produce more pollutants.

Get rid - like they did down Camplesdown Road for the TDF. Much better down there now with the only calming methods outside the school.

Much better to have calming measures like they have in Rufforth.
Speed bumps? They cause untold damage to cars as well as making drivers change to a lower gear and produce more pollutants. Get rid - like they did down Camplesdown Road for the TDF. Much better down there now with the only calming methods outside the school. Much better to have calming measures like they have in Rufforth. Meldrew2
  • Score: 1006

2:16pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Fanny Free House says...

20’s Plenty For Us campaigner Anna Semlyen’s consultation fears over speed restrictions

Last year, a council survey on 20mph proposals in west York, sent to 13,000 homes, drew only 97 responses, with only seven people supporting the scheme. The authority said the survey was not intended to gauge the initiative’s popularity.

Anna Semlyen. “On 20mph limits, there is little point half-heartedly sounding out general opinion and wasting resources and time when surveys consistently show more than 70 per cent support it.”

http://www.yorkpress
.co.uk/news/11027667
.Don_t_consult_the_p
ublic_any_more__says
_York_20mph_campaign
er/

A classic example of asking a question, ignoring the result and interpreting a favoured personal outcome.

As for Anna's comment about wasting resources well you are quite willing to waste resources when it suits, much to the detriment of residents and against opinion it seems.

Just to point out that 7 out of 97 responses does not equal 70% support, it does however equal 7.2%.

Anna Semlyen, who is a City of York Councillor but said she was speaking in her capacity as campaign manager of the national 20's Plenty for Us campaign.
http://www.yorkpress
.co.uk/news/11217748
.20_mph_campaigner_d
ismisses_driver_surv
ey_claims/

No conflict of interest then, campaign manager for 20's plenty is also a Councillor in a position to influence outcome of her pet project.

In summary then an, individual driven by personal experience becomes campaign manager for 20's plenty and a council position where she has ignored results of a public opinion survey in order to progress her pet project. Speaking as the campaign manager for 20's plenty she supports it's implementation, speaking as a councillor she supports it's implementation regardless of public opinion and cost.
20’s Plenty For Us campaigner Anna Semlyen’s consultation fears over speed restrictions Last year, a council survey on 20mph proposals in west York, sent to 13,000 homes, drew only 97 responses, with only seven people supporting the scheme. The authority said the survey was not intended to gauge the initiative’s popularity. Anna Semlyen. “On 20mph limits, there is little point half-heartedly sounding out general opinion and wasting resources and time when surveys consistently show more than 70 per cent support it.” http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/news/11027667 .Don_t_consult_the_p ublic_any_more__says _York_20mph_campaign er/ A classic example of asking a question, ignoring the result and interpreting a favoured personal outcome. As for Anna's comment about wasting resources well you are quite willing to waste resources when it suits, much to the detriment of residents and against opinion it seems. Just to point out that 7 out of 97 responses does not equal 70% support, it does however equal 7.2%. Anna Semlyen, who is a City of York Councillor but said she was speaking in her capacity as campaign manager of the national 20's Plenty for Us campaign. http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/news/11217748 .20_mph_campaigner_d ismisses_driver_surv ey_claims/ No conflict of interest then, campaign manager for 20's plenty is also a Councillor in a position to influence outcome of her pet project. In summary then an, individual driven by personal experience becomes campaign manager for 20's plenty and a council position where she has ignored results of a public opinion survey in order to progress her pet project. Speaking as the campaign manager for 20's plenty she supports it's implementation, speaking as a councillor she supports it's implementation regardless of public opinion and cost. Fanny Free House
  • Score: 1003

2:19pm Wed 13 Aug 14

archieboldthe2nd says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
Yeller Belly wrote: Who'll pay for it Beth? There's no money. The council have blown it on nonsense like this.
This is what manifestos are for. Maybe it'll make the next round of pledges or city development. I don't know as I obviously don't know the situation but I'm not sure we should be competing schemes against each other. 20mph was a priority this time around... hopefully your road will be next in line for some attention. Personally I would support a 100% blanket 20mph zone from once you get off the ring road (or maybe a few hundred metres of 40, 30 etc) so all these signs could be removed (ugly street furniture) and then random patrols across all roads. If that's in a manifesto next year I'd probably vote for it. I know so many people who've had really bad experiences whilst riding it's a big thing for me.
But Beth if you are a keen cyclist will you stick to the 20mph limit? If so how? Will the police enforce and fine cyclists going over 20mph in your dream blanket zones? I’ve had cyclists pass me which am even more dangerous on your blind side. Why should cars (the reasons why roads were built) have to slow down so cyclists can enjoy their bike ride on our roads but yet they can go faster then 20mph?

Now don't get me wrong cyclists can use our roads we will let them... but for me as someone who has cycled its a lot safer if a car can overtake you going faster rather then hover around you going the same speed. The quicker a car passes the safer a cyclist is.

Ps did you know the councillor when she was knocked off her bike that caused this whole mess? You can pretty easily kill a cyclist at 20mph you know... as soon as a car goes under a car tyre the crack whatever the speed.

I want to take my skateboard on the road and it would be much more enjoyable if cars only did 10mph lets enforce that... lets change the whole speed limits that have been around for decades to keep a minority happy. After all I know a lot of cyclists and non of them are even ar@ed about how fast a car goes in york as long as they take them into consideration... Even better lets waste more police time collecting revenue from motorists rather then actually doing their job… crime prevention!
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yeller Belly[/bold] wrote: Who'll pay for it Beth? There's no money. The council have blown it on nonsense like this.[/p][/quote]This is what manifestos are for. Maybe it'll make the next round of pledges or city development. I don't know as I obviously don't know the situation but I'm not sure we should be competing schemes against each other. 20mph was a priority this time around... hopefully your road will be next in line for some attention. Personally I would support a 100% blanket 20mph zone from once you get off the ring road (or maybe a few hundred metres of 40, 30 etc) so all these signs could be removed (ugly street furniture) and then random patrols across all roads. If that's in a manifesto next year I'd probably vote for it. I know so many people who've had really bad experiences whilst riding it's a big thing for me.[/p][/quote]But Beth if you are a keen cyclist will you stick to the 20mph limit? If so how? Will the police enforce and fine cyclists going over 20mph in your dream blanket zones? I’ve had cyclists pass me which am even more dangerous on your blind side. Why should cars (the reasons why roads were built) have to slow down so cyclists can enjoy their bike ride on our roads but yet they can go faster then 20mph? Now don't get me wrong cyclists can use our roads we will let them... but for me as someone who has cycled its a lot safer if a car can overtake you going faster rather then hover around you going the same speed. The quicker a car passes the safer a cyclist is. Ps did you know the councillor when she was knocked off her bike that caused this whole mess? You can pretty easily kill a cyclist at 20mph you know... as soon as a car goes under a car tyre the crack whatever the speed. I want to take my skateboard on the road and it would be much more enjoyable if cars only did 10mph lets enforce that... lets change the whole speed limits that have been around for decades to keep a minority happy. After all I know a lot of cyclists and non of them are even ar@ed about how fast a car goes in york as long as they take them into consideration... Even better lets waste more police time collecting revenue from motorists rather then actually doing their job… crime prevention! archieboldthe2nd
  • Score: 1016

2:19pm Wed 13 Aug 14

York2000 says...

No drivers caught? So does this mean that no-one is driving above 20mph and therefore the signs have worked?!
No drivers caught? So does this mean that no-one is driving above 20mph and therefore the signs have worked?! York2000
  • Score: 1365

2:20pm Wed 13 Aug 14

greenmonkey says...

robynd wrote:
The more pertinant question is - have incidents and injuries decreased in the 20 mph zones. Probably not enough time to get enough data yet. And the data needs to be analysed carefully as the zones are likely to have been built in areas where accidents are more likely.

If there have been a reduction in injuries, isn't that a good thing?
This is a very good point. Until it is implemented across the city there will be mixed messages about what the appropriate speed should be as you drive about. Getting the police to take action on any speed limits in York is difficult - only when people get injured or killed is it deemed a priority. No doubt the fact that its traffic cops who expect to drive around at speed themselves who get to comment on the limits has something to do with their attitude to 20mph. It would only take a few random speed traps to get the message over that the limit is there to be obeyed. However the bottom line for me is that if a driver hits someone when driving exceeding the speed limit the blame will be on them, and i would rather have most people driving down residential streets at 20 -30mph than at 35 -40mph as often happens with the present 30mph limit. Get hit by a car at 25mph and you have a good chance of surviving, at 35 -40mph you've little or no chance.
[quote][p][bold]robynd[/bold] wrote: The more pertinant question is - have incidents and injuries decreased in the 20 mph zones. Probably not enough time to get enough data yet. And the data needs to be analysed carefully as the zones are likely to have been built in areas where accidents are more likely. If there have been a reduction in injuries, isn't that a good thing?[/p][/quote]This is a very good point. Until it is implemented across the city there will be mixed messages about what the appropriate speed should be as you drive about. Getting the police to take action on any speed limits in York is difficult - only when people get injured or killed is it deemed a priority. No doubt the fact that its traffic cops who expect to drive around at speed themselves who get to comment on the limits has something to do with their attitude to 20mph. It would only take a few random speed traps to get the message over that the limit is there to be obeyed. However the bottom line for me is that if a driver hits someone when driving exceeding the speed limit the blame will be on them, and i would rather have most people driving down residential streets at 20 -30mph than at 35 -40mph as often happens with the present 30mph limit. Get hit by a car at 25mph and you have a good chance of surviving, at 35 -40mph you've little or no chance. greenmonkey
  • Score: 1281

2:21pm Wed 13 Aug 14

archieboldthe2nd says...

Fanny Free House wrote:
20’s Plenty For Us campaigner Anna Semlyen’s consultation fears over speed restrictions Last year, a council survey on 20mph proposals in west York, sent to 13,000 homes, drew only 97 responses, with only seven people supporting the scheme. The authority said the survey was not intended to gauge the initiative’s popularity. Anna Semlyen. “On 20mph limits, there is little point half-heartedly sounding out general opinion and wasting resources and time when surveys consistently show more than 70 per cent support it.” http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/news/11027667 .Don_t_consult_the_p ublic_any_more__says _York_20mph_campaign er/ A classic example of asking a question, ignoring the result and interpreting a favoured personal outcome. As for Anna's comment about wasting resources well you are quite willing to waste resources when it suits, much to the detriment of residents and against opinion it seems. Just to point out that 7 out of 97 responses does not equal 70% support, it does however equal 7.2%. Anna Semlyen, who is a City of York Councillor but said she was speaking in her capacity as campaign manager of the national 20's Plenty for Us campaign. http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/news/11217748 .20_mph_campaigner_d ismisses_driver_surv ey_claims/ No conflict of interest then, campaign manager for 20's plenty is also a Councillor in a position to influence outcome of her pet project. In summary then an, individual driven by personal experience becomes campaign manager for 20's plenty and a council position where she has ignored results of a public opinion survey in order to progress her pet project. Speaking as the campaign manager for 20's plenty she supports it's implementation, speaking as a councillor she supports it's implementation regardless of public opinion and cost.
Bravo every time i read about that survey it makes me laugh! Totally forgot about it... maybe they should send a new one out saying "do you want the anna to remove the signs from your street personally" i reckon that would get a better response rate...
[quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: 20’s Plenty For Us campaigner Anna Semlyen’s consultation fears over speed restrictions Last year, a council survey on 20mph proposals in west York, sent to 13,000 homes, drew only 97 responses, with only seven people supporting the scheme. The authority said the survey was not intended to gauge the initiative’s popularity. Anna Semlyen. “On 20mph limits, there is little point half-heartedly sounding out general opinion and wasting resources and time when surveys consistently show more than 70 per cent support it.” http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/news/11027667 .Don_t_consult_the_p ublic_any_more__says _York_20mph_campaign er/ A classic example of asking a question, ignoring the result and interpreting a favoured personal outcome. As for Anna's comment about wasting resources well you are quite willing to waste resources when it suits, much to the detriment of residents and against opinion it seems. Just to point out that 7 out of 97 responses does not equal 70% support, it does however equal 7.2%. Anna Semlyen, who is a City of York Councillor but said she was speaking in her capacity as campaign manager of the national 20's Plenty for Us campaign. http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/news/11217748 .20_mph_campaigner_d ismisses_driver_surv ey_claims/ No conflict of interest then, campaign manager for 20's plenty is also a Councillor in a position to influence outcome of her pet project. In summary then an, individual driven by personal experience becomes campaign manager for 20's plenty and a council position where she has ignored results of a public opinion survey in order to progress her pet project. Speaking as the campaign manager for 20's plenty she supports it's implementation, speaking as a councillor she supports it's implementation regardless of public opinion and cost.[/p][/quote]Bravo every time i read about that survey it makes me laugh! Totally forgot about it... maybe they should send a new one out saying "do you want the anna to remove the signs from your street personally" i reckon that would get a better response rate... archieboldthe2nd
  • Score: 1120

2:24pm Wed 13 Aug 14

BethFoxhunter96 says...

Meldrew2 wrote:
Speed bumps? They cause untold damage to cars as well as making drivers change to a lower gear and produce more pollutants.

Get rid - like they did down Camplesdown Road for the TDF. Much better down there now with the only calming methods outside the school.

Much better to have calming measures like they have in Rufforth.
They only cause damage if cars go over them too quickly!! They are not great for horses either but seem to be better than the alternative.
[quote][p][bold]Meldrew2[/bold] wrote: Speed bumps? They cause untold damage to cars as well as making drivers change to a lower gear and produce more pollutants. Get rid - like they did down Camplesdown Road for the TDF. Much better down there now with the only calming methods outside the school. Much better to have calming measures like they have in Rufforth.[/p][/quote]They only cause damage if cars go over them too quickly!! They are not great for horses either but seem to be better than the alternative. BethFoxhunter96
  • Score: 1152

2:27pm Wed 13 Aug 14

archieboldthe2nd says...

greenmonkey wrote:
robynd wrote: The more pertinant question is - have incidents and injuries decreased in the 20 mph zones. Probably not enough time to get enough data yet. And the data needs to be analysed carefully as the zones are likely to have been built in areas where accidents are more likely. If there have been a reduction in injuries, isn't that a good thing?
This is a very good point. Until it is implemented across the city there will be mixed messages about what the appropriate speed should be as you drive about. Getting the police to take action on any speed limits in York is difficult - only when people get injured or killed is it deemed a priority. No doubt the fact that its traffic cops who expect to drive around at speed themselves who get to comment on the limits has something to do with their attitude to 20mph. It would only take a few random speed traps to get the message over that the limit is there to be obeyed. However the bottom line for me is that if a driver hits someone when driving exceeding the speed limit the blame will be on them, and i would rather have most people driving down residential streets at 20 -30mph than at 35 -40mph as often happens with the present 30mph limit. Get hit by a car at 25mph and you have a good chance of surviving, at 35 -40mph you've little or no chance.
what are the breaking calcs between 20mph & 35mph? I always put this bluntly. If someone walks into a road without looking if there is a car, it is not the drivers fault. Yes they might have been going over the speed limit but the breaking distrances are like 2-5m extra (so 10-15m in total usually if dry) if you run out in front of a car that is 10-15m away then fool on you.
[quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]robynd[/bold] wrote: The more pertinant question is - have incidents and injuries decreased in the 20 mph zones. Probably not enough time to get enough data yet. And the data needs to be analysed carefully as the zones are likely to have been built in areas where accidents are more likely. If there have been a reduction in injuries, isn't that a good thing?[/p][/quote]This is a very good point. Until it is implemented across the city there will be mixed messages about what the appropriate speed should be as you drive about. Getting the police to take action on any speed limits in York is difficult - only when people get injured or killed is it deemed a priority. No doubt the fact that its traffic cops who expect to drive around at speed themselves who get to comment on the limits has something to do with their attitude to 20mph. It would only take a few random speed traps to get the message over that the limit is there to be obeyed. However the bottom line for me is that if a driver hits someone when driving exceeding the speed limit the blame will be on them, and i would rather have most people driving down residential streets at 20 -30mph than at 35 -40mph as often happens with the present 30mph limit. Get hit by a car at 25mph and you have a good chance of surviving, at 35 -40mph you've little or no chance.[/p][/quote]what are the breaking calcs between 20mph & 35mph? I always put this bluntly. If someone walks into a road without looking if there is a car, it is not the drivers fault. Yes they might have been going over the speed limit but the breaking distrances are like 2-5m extra (so 10-15m in total usually if dry) if you run out in front of a car that is 10-15m away then fool on you. archieboldthe2nd
  • Score: 1132

2:29pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Haywire says...

As mentioned many times previously, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics! Whether you agree with these limits or not should not blind you to the screaming obvious. The emphasis is on 'caught' exceeding the speed limit. When the new limits were introduced, the police definitely said that they would NOT enforce the limits. In consequence, is anybody (other than those who choose not to see it) surprised that nobody has been caught breaking the law?
As mentioned by others, the most interesting, and relevant, data would would relate to before/after numbers of vehicle-related accidents and
injuries in the areas where the limits have been introduced.
As mentioned many times previously, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics! Whether you agree with these limits or not should not blind you to the screaming obvious. The emphasis is on 'caught' exceeding the speed limit. When the new limits were introduced, the police definitely said that they would NOT enforce the limits. In consequence, is anybody (other than those who choose not to see it) surprised that nobody has been caught breaking the law? As mentioned by others, the most interesting, and relevant, data would would relate to before/after numbers of vehicle-related accidents and injuries in the areas where the limits have been introduced. Haywire
  • Score: 1033

2:30pm Wed 13 Aug 14

archieboldthe2nd says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
Meldrew2 wrote: Speed bumps? They cause untold damage to cars as well as making drivers change to a lower gear and produce more pollutants. Get rid - like they did down Camplesdown Road for the TDF. Much better down there now with the only calming methods outside the school. Much better to have calming measures like they have in Rufforth.
They only cause damage if cars go over them too quickly!! They are not great for horses either but seem to be better than the alternative.
No they don't! they cause damage to cars regardless of speed! you are wearing out its suspension and bearings, not to mention the width of them is usually about right with the slope to send your tracking out.

horses???wtf?
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Meldrew2[/bold] wrote: Speed bumps? They cause untold damage to cars as well as making drivers change to a lower gear and produce more pollutants. Get rid - like they did down Camplesdown Road for the TDF. Much better down there now with the only calming methods outside the school. Much better to have calming measures like they have in Rufforth.[/p][/quote]They only cause damage if cars go over them too quickly!! They are not great for horses either but seem to be better than the alternative.[/p][/quote]No they don't! they cause damage to cars regardless of speed! you are wearing out its suspension and bearings, not to mention the width of them is usually about right with the slope to send your tracking out. horses???wtf? archieboldthe2nd
  • Score: 1183

2:30pm Wed 13 Aug 14

BethFoxhunter96 says...

But Beth if you are a keen cyclist will you stick to the 20mph limit? If so how? Will the police enforce and fine cyclists going over 20mph in your dream blanket zones? I’ve had cyclists pass me which am even more dangerous on your blind side. Why should cars (the reasons why roads were built) have to slow down so cyclists can enjoy their bike ride on our roads but yet they can go faster then 20mph?


I generally ride a horse towards the outskirts. But I do bike round town too. And I would obey any speed limit. Roads are not just for cars, nor are they the reason roads are built. We all use roads and we all pay for them and we all share them.

Now don't get me wrong cyclists can use our roads we will let them... but for me as someone who has cycled its a lot safer if a car can overtake you going faster rather then hover around you going the same speed. The quicker a car passes the safer a cyclist is.


Disagree. The more room a car gives, overtaking at safe points, the safer a cyclist is. Too many cars seem to be in such a rush to pass cycles, horses, whoever that they squeeze past so quickly. This has happened to me several times. Is traffic is slowed down to the speed of a bike as you say, hopefully there will be less incentive to try to "nip past" a cyclist and that makes the road safer.

Ps did you know the councillor when she was knocked off her bike that caused this whole mess? You can pretty easily kill a cyclist at 20mph you know... as soon as a car goes under a car tyre the crack whatever the speed.


I do not know the councillor involved and never have met any of the councillors in fact. Sorry but the statistics show that at 20mph most people survive crashes. At 30 it's evens. At 40 most die.

I want to take my skateboard on the road and it would be much more enjoyable if cars only did 10mph lets enforce that... lets change the whole speed limits that have been around for decades to keep a minority happy. After all I know a lot of cyclists and non of them are even ar@ed about how fast a car goes in york as long as they take them into consideration... Even better lets waste more police time collecting revenue from motorists rather then actually doing their job… crime prevention!


Sorry I do not really understand you. But yes I agree that speeding criminals should be sorted out with fines and bans if that's what you're saying, whether it be on a dual carriageway or in a 20 zone.

A girl down my street loves skateboarding.
[quote]But Beth if you are a keen cyclist will you stick to the 20mph limit? If so how? Will the police enforce and fine cyclists going over 20mph in your dream blanket zones? I’ve had cyclists pass me which am even more dangerous on your blind side. Why should cars (the reasons why roads were built) have to slow down so cyclists can enjoy their bike ride on our roads but yet they can go faster then 20mph?[/quote] I generally ride a horse towards the outskirts. But I do bike round town too. And I would obey any speed limit. Roads are not just for cars, nor are they the reason roads are built. We all use roads and we all pay for them and we all share them. [quote]Now don't get me wrong cyclists can use our roads we will let them... but for me as someone who has cycled its a lot safer if a car can overtake you going faster rather then hover around you going the same speed. The quicker a car passes the safer a cyclist is.[/quote] Disagree. The more room a car gives, overtaking at safe points, the safer a cyclist is. Too many cars seem to be in such a rush to pass cycles, horses, whoever that they squeeze past so quickly. This has happened to me several times. Is traffic is slowed down to the speed of a bike as you say, hopefully there will be less incentive to try to "nip past" a cyclist and that makes the road safer. [quote]Ps did you know the councillor when she was knocked off her bike that caused this whole mess? You can pretty easily kill a cyclist at 20mph you know... as soon as a car goes under a car tyre the crack whatever the speed.[/quote] I do not know the councillor involved and never have met any of the councillors in fact. Sorry but the statistics show that at 20mph most people survive crashes. At 30 it's evens. At 40 most die. [quote]I want to take my skateboard on the road and it would be much more enjoyable if cars only did 10mph lets enforce that... lets change the whole speed limits that have been around for decades to keep a minority happy. After all I know a lot of cyclists and non of them are even ar@ed about how fast a car goes in york as long as they take them into consideration... Even better lets waste more police time collecting revenue from motorists rather then actually doing their job… crime prevention![/quote] Sorry I do not really understand you. But yes I agree that speeding criminals should be sorted out with fines and bans if that's what you're saying, whether it be on a dual carriageway or in a 20 zone. A girl down my street loves skateboarding. BethFoxhunter96
  • Score: 1079

2:33pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Haywire says...

archieboldthe2nd wrote:
greenmonkey wrote:
robynd wrote: The more pertinant question is - have incidents and injuries decreased in the 20 mph zones. Probably not enough time to get enough data yet. And the data needs to be analysed carefully as the zones are likely to have been built in areas where accidents are more likely. If there have been a reduction in injuries, isn't that a good thing?
This is a very good point. Until it is implemented across the city there will be mixed messages about what the appropriate speed should be as you drive about. Getting the police to take action on any speed limits in York is difficult - only when people get injured or killed is it deemed a priority. No doubt the fact that its traffic cops who expect to drive around at speed themselves who get to comment on the limits has something to do with their attitude to 20mph. It would only take a few random speed traps to get the message over that the limit is there to be obeyed. However the bottom line for me is that if a driver hits someone when driving exceeding the speed limit the blame will be on them, and i would rather have most people driving down residential streets at 20 -30mph than at 35 -40mph as often happens with the present 30mph limit. Get hit by a car at 25mph and you have a good chance of surviving, at 35 -40mph you've little or no chance.
what are the breaking calcs between 20mph & 35mph? I always put this bluntly. If someone walks into a road without looking if there is a car, it is not the drivers fault. Yes they might have been going over the speed limit but the breaking distrances are like 2-5m extra (so 10-15m in total usually if dry) if you run out in front of a car that is 10-15m away then fool on you.
I'm not sure why you would want to break the calculations. I think that they should remain whole.

Anyway, what we are talking about here is not numbers, but breaking bodies - especially young ones.
[quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]robynd[/bold] wrote: The more pertinant question is - have incidents and injuries decreased in the 20 mph zones. Probably not enough time to get enough data yet. And the data needs to be analysed carefully as the zones are likely to have been built in areas where accidents are more likely. If there have been a reduction in injuries, isn't that a good thing?[/p][/quote]This is a very good point. Until it is implemented across the city there will be mixed messages about what the appropriate speed should be as you drive about. Getting the police to take action on any speed limits in York is difficult - only when people get injured or killed is it deemed a priority. No doubt the fact that its traffic cops who expect to drive around at speed themselves who get to comment on the limits has something to do with their attitude to 20mph. It would only take a few random speed traps to get the message over that the limit is there to be obeyed. However the bottom line for me is that if a driver hits someone when driving exceeding the speed limit the blame will be on them, and i would rather have most people driving down residential streets at 20 -30mph than at 35 -40mph as often happens with the present 30mph limit. Get hit by a car at 25mph and you have a good chance of surviving, at 35 -40mph you've little or no chance.[/p][/quote]what are the breaking calcs between 20mph & 35mph? I always put this bluntly. If someone walks into a road without looking if there is a car, it is not the drivers fault. Yes they might have been going over the speed limit but the breaking distrances are like 2-5m extra (so 10-15m in total usually if dry) if you run out in front of a car that is 10-15m away then fool on you.[/p][/quote]I'm not sure why you would want to break the calculations. I think that they should remain whole. Anyway, what we are talking about here is not numbers, but breaking bodies - especially young ones. Haywire
  • Score: 1031

2:33pm Wed 13 Aug 14

pbrowne2009@live.co.uk says...

I laugh every time I pass a pointless 20mph sign. Unless its going past a school of course.

In fact, just to flaunt the stupid idea I actually speed up. Police flaunt it, the general public flaunt it and to some extent the average fast paced cyclist flaunts it.

People don't flaunt the signs because they feel rebellious, they flaunt it because it's a complete pointless scheme and a waste of money.
I laugh every time I pass a pointless 20mph sign. Unless its going past a school of course. In fact, just to flaunt the stupid idea I actually speed up. Police flaunt it, the general public flaunt it and to some extent the average fast paced cyclist flaunts it. People don't flaunt the signs because they feel rebellious, they flaunt it because it's a complete pointless scheme and a waste of money. pbrowne2009@live.co.uk
  • Score: 1135

2:33pm Wed 13 Aug 14

BethFoxhunter96 says...

archieboldthe2nd wrote:
greenmonkey wrote:
robynd wrote: The more pertinant question is - have incidents and injuries decreased in the 20 mph zones. Probably not enough time to get enough data yet. And the data needs to be analysed carefully as the zones are likely to have been built in areas where accidents are more likely. If there have been a reduction in injuries, isn't that a good thing?
This is a very good point. Until it is implemented across the city there will be mixed messages about what the appropriate speed should be as you drive about. Getting the police to take action on any speed limits in York is difficult - only when people get injured or killed is it deemed a priority. No doubt the fact that its traffic cops who expect to drive around at speed themselves who get to comment on the limits has something to do with their attitude to 20mph. It would only take a few random speed traps to get the message over that the limit is there to be obeyed. However the bottom line for me is that if a driver hits someone when driving exceeding the speed limit the blame will be on them, and i would rather have most people driving down residential streets at 20 -30mph than at 35 -40mph as often happens with the present 30mph limit. Get hit by a car at 25mph and you have a good chance of surviving, at 35 -40mph you've little or no chance.
what are the breaking calcs between 20mph & 35mph? I always put this bluntly. If someone walks into a road without looking if there is a car, it is not the drivers fault. Yes they might have been going over the speed limit but the breaking distrances are like 2-5m extra (so 10-15m in total usually if dry) if you run out in front of a car that is 10-15m away then fool on you.
That's okay then, children always look and can judge breaking distances really well, in fact a two year old was explaining to me how stopping distances change according to weather and other conditions only last weekend. Survival of the fittest, after all, well, survival of the 4x4s against the menace of suicidal three year olds! Fool on them indeed.
[quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]robynd[/bold] wrote: The more pertinant question is - have incidents and injuries decreased in the 20 mph zones. Probably not enough time to get enough data yet. And the data needs to be analysed carefully as the zones are likely to have been built in areas where accidents are more likely. If there have been a reduction in injuries, isn't that a good thing?[/p][/quote]This is a very good point. Until it is implemented across the city there will be mixed messages about what the appropriate speed should be as you drive about. Getting the police to take action on any speed limits in York is difficult - only when people get injured or killed is it deemed a priority. No doubt the fact that its traffic cops who expect to drive around at speed themselves who get to comment on the limits has something to do with their attitude to 20mph. It would only take a few random speed traps to get the message over that the limit is there to be obeyed. However the bottom line for me is that if a driver hits someone when driving exceeding the speed limit the blame will be on them, and i would rather have most people driving down residential streets at 20 -30mph than at 35 -40mph as often happens with the present 30mph limit. Get hit by a car at 25mph and you have a good chance of surviving, at 35 -40mph you've little or no chance.[/p][/quote]what are the breaking calcs between 20mph & 35mph? I always put this bluntly. If someone walks into a road without looking if there is a car, it is not the drivers fault. Yes they might have been going over the speed limit but the breaking distrances are like 2-5m extra (so 10-15m in total usually if dry) if you run out in front of a car that is 10-15m away then fool on you.[/p][/quote]That's okay then, children always look and can judge breaking distances really well, in fact a two year old was explaining to me how stopping distances change according to weather and other conditions only last weekend. Survival of the fittest, after all, well, survival of the 4x4s against the menace of suicidal three year olds! Fool on them indeed. BethFoxhunter96
  • Score: 1315

2:37pm Wed 13 Aug 14

archieboldthe2nd says...

Haywire wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
greenmonkey wrote:
robynd wrote: The more pertinant question is - have incidents and injuries decreased in the 20 mph zones. Probably not enough time to get enough data yet. And the data needs to be analysed carefully as the zones are likely to have been built in areas where accidents are more likely. If there have been a reduction in injuries, isn't that a good thing?
This is a very good point. Until it is implemented across the city there will be mixed messages about what the appropriate speed should be as you drive about. Getting the police to take action on any speed limits in York is difficult - only when people get injured or killed is it deemed a priority. No doubt the fact that its traffic cops who expect to drive around at speed themselves who get to comment on the limits has something to do with their attitude to 20mph. It would only take a few random speed traps to get the message over that the limit is there to be obeyed. However the bottom line for me is that if a driver hits someone when driving exceeding the speed limit the blame will be on them, and i would rather have most people driving down residential streets at 20 -30mph than at 35 -40mph as often happens with the present 30mph limit. Get hit by a car at 25mph and you have a good chance of surviving, at 35 -40mph you've little or no chance.
what are the breaking calcs between 20mph & 35mph? I always put this bluntly. If someone walks into a road without looking if there is a car, it is not the drivers fault. Yes they might have been going over the speed limit but the breaking distrances are like 2-5m extra (so 10-15m in total usually if dry) if you run out in front of a car that is 10-15m away then fool on you.
I'm not sure why you would want to break the calculations. I think that they should remain whole. Anyway, what we are talking about here is not numbers, but breaking bodies - especially young ones.
Well it is numbers really isn't it? We are talking about zero (a number) drivers being caught breaking 20mph (also a number).

Then educate the young! its far safer to stop the risk at source!!!! I'm not the brightest lad but stop look listen wasn't too hard to remember and guess what??? I’ve not been run over... and that was from growing up next to moor late when it was 40mph...

Suppose you support the school safety car that will fine dangerous parking too?? Instead of a scheme in schools to show them the dangers and prevent the risk rather then record it! and deal with it after...
[quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]robynd[/bold] wrote: The more pertinant question is - have incidents and injuries decreased in the 20 mph zones. Probably not enough time to get enough data yet. And the data needs to be analysed carefully as the zones are likely to have been built in areas where accidents are more likely. If there have been a reduction in injuries, isn't that a good thing?[/p][/quote]This is a very good point. Until it is implemented across the city there will be mixed messages about what the appropriate speed should be as you drive about. Getting the police to take action on any speed limits in York is difficult - only when people get injured or killed is it deemed a priority. No doubt the fact that its traffic cops who expect to drive around at speed themselves who get to comment on the limits has something to do with their attitude to 20mph. It would only take a few random speed traps to get the message over that the limit is there to be obeyed. However the bottom line for me is that if a driver hits someone when driving exceeding the speed limit the blame will be on them, and i would rather have most people driving down residential streets at 20 -30mph than at 35 -40mph as often happens with the present 30mph limit. Get hit by a car at 25mph and you have a good chance of surviving, at 35 -40mph you've little or no chance.[/p][/quote]what are the breaking calcs between 20mph & 35mph? I always put this bluntly. If someone walks into a road without looking if there is a car, it is not the drivers fault. Yes they might have been going over the speed limit but the breaking distrances are like 2-5m extra (so 10-15m in total usually if dry) if you run out in front of a car that is 10-15m away then fool on you.[/p][/quote]I'm not sure why you would want to break the calculations. I think that they should remain whole. Anyway, what we are talking about here is not numbers, but breaking bodies - especially young ones.[/p][/quote]Well it is numbers really isn't it? We are talking about zero (a number) drivers being caught breaking 20mph (also a number). Then educate the young! its far safer to stop the risk at source!!!! I'm not the brightest lad but stop look listen wasn't too hard to remember and guess what??? I’ve not been run over... and that was from growing up next to moor late when it was 40mph... Suppose you support the school safety car that will fine dangerous parking too?? Instead of a scheme in schools to show them the dangers and prevent the risk rather then record it! and deal with it after... archieboldthe2nd
  • Score: 1205

2:40pm Wed 13 Aug 14

archieboldthe2nd says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
greenmonkey wrote:
robynd wrote: The more pertinant question is - have incidents and injuries decreased in the 20 mph zones. Probably not enough time to get enough data yet. And the data needs to be analysed carefully as the zones are likely to have been built in areas where accidents are more likely. If there have been a reduction in injuries, isn't that a good thing?
This is a very good point. Until it is implemented across the city there will be mixed messages about what the appropriate speed should be as you drive about. Getting the police to take action on any speed limits in York is difficult - only when people get injured or killed is it deemed a priority. No doubt the fact that its traffic cops who expect to drive around at speed themselves who get to comment on the limits has something to do with their attitude to 20mph. It would only take a few random speed traps to get the message over that the limit is there to be obeyed. However the bottom line for me is that if a driver hits someone when driving exceeding the speed limit the blame will be on them, and i would rather have most people driving down residential streets at 20 -30mph than at 35 -40mph as often happens with the present 30mph limit. Get hit by a car at 25mph and you have a good chance of surviving, at 35 -40mph you've little or no chance.
what are the breaking calcs between 20mph & 35mph? I always put this bluntly. If someone walks into a road without looking if there is a car, it is not the drivers fault. Yes they might have been going over the speed limit but the breaking distrances are like 2-5m extra (so 10-15m in total usually if dry) if you run out in front of a car that is 10-15m away then fool on you.
That's okay then, children always look and can judge breaking distances really well, in fact a two year old was explaining to me how stopping distances change according to weather and other conditions only last weekend. Survival of the fittest, after all, well, survival of the 4x4s against the menace of suicidal three year olds! Fool on them indeed.
Yes beth... maybe while you were having such an in-depth chat with this child who was two years old you should have asked it where its parents were. Or maybe they were too busy riding horses over speed bumps in a 20mph fantasy world? Also I’d like to say why was the child on about breaking calcs? does it think ah i'll run out into the road the car is doing 25mph and i'm 20m away so it can stop?
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]robynd[/bold] wrote: The more pertinant question is - have incidents and injuries decreased in the 20 mph zones. Probably not enough time to get enough data yet. And the data needs to be analysed carefully as the zones are likely to have been built in areas where accidents are more likely. If there have been a reduction in injuries, isn't that a good thing?[/p][/quote]This is a very good point. Until it is implemented across the city there will be mixed messages about what the appropriate speed should be as you drive about. Getting the police to take action on any speed limits in York is difficult - only when people get injured or killed is it deemed a priority. No doubt the fact that its traffic cops who expect to drive around at speed themselves who get to comment on the limits has something to do with their attitude to 20mph. It would only take a few random speed traps to get the message over that the limit is there to be obeyed. However the bottom line for me is that if a driver hits someone when driving exceeding the speed limit the blame will be on them, and i would rather have most people driving down residential streets at 20 -30mph than at 35 -40mph as often happens with the present 30mph limit. Get hit by a car at 25mph and you have a good chance of surviving, at 35 -40mph you've little or no chance.[/p][/quote]what are the breaking calcs between 20mph & 35mph? I always put this bluntly. If someone walks into a road without looking if there is a car, it is not the drivers fault. Yes they might have been going over the speed limit but the breaking distrances are like 2-5m extra (so 10-15m in total usually if dry) if you run out in front of a car that is 10-15m away then fool on you.[/p][/quote]That's okay then, children always look and can judge breaking distances really well, in fact a two year old was explaining to me how stopping distances change according to weather and other conditions only last weekend. Survival of the fittest, after all, well, survival of the 4x4s against the menace of suicidal three year olds! Fool on them indeed.[/p][/quote]Yes beth... maybe while you were having such an in-depth chat with this child who was two years old you should have asked it where its parents were. Or maybe they were too busy riding horses over speed bumps in a 20mph fantasy world? Also I’d like to say why was the child on about breaking calcs? does it think ah i'll run out into the road the car is doing 25mph and i'm 20m away so it can stop? archieboldthe2nd
  • Score: 1284

2:42pm Wed 13 Aug 14

BethFoxhunter96 says...

archieboldthe2nd wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
Meldrew2 wrote: Speed bumps? They cause untold damage to cars as well as making drivers change to a lower gear and produce more pollutants. Get rid - like they did down Camplesdown Road for the TDF. Much better down there now with the only calming methods outside the school. Much better to have calming measures like they have in Rufforth.
They only cause damage if cars go over them too quickly!! They are not great for horses either but seem to be better than the alternative.
No they don't! they cause damage to cars regardless of speed! you are wearing out its suspension and bearings, not to mention the width of them is usually about right with the slope to send your tracking out.

horses???wtf?
Nonsense. Go over them slowly and you'll find there's less damage.

Wearing out suspension? Again... slow down.

The clue is sort of in the name. Speed bumps. Speed... bumps. SPEED... bumps. I find the argument that it "wears out bearings" sort of funny. It's so trivial to the overall debate. The extra gradient and 15cms of tarmac needed to be covered also wears out tyres more... but in the scheme of things it is all virtually meaningless.

Horses can get quit disturbed by them, especially if they are so close to the kerb two legs are "down" and one or two legs are "up". I normally go over the middle of a speed bump. That's as long as they don't wear out my horse's shoes.
[quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Meldrew2[/bold] wrote: Speed bumps? They cause untold damage to cars as well as making drivers change to a lower gear and produce more pollutants. Get rid - like they did down Camplesdown Road for the TDF. Much better down there now with the only calming methods outside the school. Much better to have calming measures like they have in Rufforth.[/p][/quote]They only cause damage if cars go over them too quickly!! They are not great for horses either but seem to be better than the alternative.[/p][/quote]No they don't! they cause damage to cars regardless of speed! you are wearing out its suspension and bearings, not to mention the width of them is usually about right with the slope to send your tracking out. horses???wtf?[/p][/quote]Nonsense. Go over them slowly and you'll find there's less damage. Wearing out suspension? Again... slow down. The clue is sort of in the name. Speed bumps. Speed... bumps. SPEED... bumps. I find the argument that it "wears out bearings" sort of funny. It's so trivial to the overall debate. The extra gradient and 15cms of tarmac needed to be covered also wears out tyres more... but in the scheme of things it is all virtually meaningless. Horses can get quit disturbed by them, especially if they are so close to the kerb two legs are "down" and one or two legs are "up". I normally go over the middle of a speed bump. That's as long as they don't wear out my horse's shoes. BethFoxhunter96
  • Score: 1101

2:45pm Wed 13 Aug 14

BethFoxhunter96 says...

archieboldthe2nd wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
greenmonkey wrote:
robynd wrote: The more pertinant question is - have incidents and injuries decreased in the 20 mph zones. Probably not enough time to get enough data yet. And the data needs to be analysed carefully as the zones are likely to have been built in areas where accidents are more likely. If there have been a reduction in injuries, isn't that a good thing?
This is a very good point. Until it is implemented across the city there will be mixed messages about what the appropriate speed should be as you drive about. Getting the police to take action on any speed limits in York is difficult - only when people get injured or killed is it deemed a priority. No doubt the fact that its traffic cops who expect to drive around at speed themselves who get to comment on the limits has something to do with their attitude to 20mph. It would only take a few random speed traps to get the message over that the limit is there to be obeyed. However the bottom line for me is that if a driver hits someone when driving exceeding the speed limit the blame will be on them, and i would rather have most people driving down residential streets at 20 -30mph than at 35 -40mph as often happens with the present 30mph limit. Get hit by a car at 25mph and you have a good chance of surviving, at 35 -40mph you've little or no chance.
what are the breaking calcs between 20mph & 35mph? I always put this bluntly. If someone walks into a road without looking if there is a car, it is not the drivers fault. Yes they might have been going over the speed limit but the breaking distrances are like 2-5m extra (so 10-15m in total usually if dry) if you run out in front of a car that is 10-15m away then fool on you.
That's okay then, children always look and can judge breaking distances really well, in fact a two year old was explaining to me how stopping distances change according to weather and other conditions only last weekend. Survival of the fittest, after all, well, survival of the 4x4s against the menace of suicidal three year olds! Fool on them indeed.
Yes beth... maybe while you were having such an in-depth chat with this child who was two years old you should have asked it where its parents were. Or maybe they were too busy riding horses over speed bumps in a 20mph fantasy world? Also I’d like to say why was the child on about breaking calcs? does it think ah i'll run out into the road the car is doing 25mph and i'm 20m away so it can stop?
This is now some sort of bizarre alternative reality where parents can presumably stop a child falling into the road, tripping over, or just being a bit distracted and walking out anyway. What sort of child were you, a pudding baby who got pushed around in a pram until you were ten? Clearly not a parent nor someone who knows and youngsters or what they are like. Even an adult can fall into the road. But I guess because they fell it's their fault they died, so it's alright, speed away!

In the real world people don't want to live in GTA, and drivers don't actually get points for hitting people. Just so you know.
[quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]robynd[/bold] wrote: The more pertinant question is - have incidents and injuries decreased in the 20 mph zones. Probably not enough time to get enough data yet. And the data needs to be analysed carefully as the zones are likely to have been built in areas where accidents are more likely. If there have been a reduction in injuries, isn't that a good thing?[/p][/quote]This is a very good point. Until it is implemented across the city there will be mixed messages about what the appropriate speed should be as you drive about. Getting the police to take action on any speed limits in York is difficult - only when people get injured or killed is it deemed a priority. No doubt the fact that its traffic cops who expect to drive around at speed themselves who get to comment on the limits has something to do with their attitude to 20mph. It would only take a few random speed traps to get the message over that the limit is there to be obeyed. However the bottom line for me is that if a driver hits someone when driving exceeding the speed limit the blame will be on them, and i would rather have most people driving down residential streets at 20 -30mph than at 35 -40mph as often happens with the present 30mph limit. Get hit by a car at 25mph and you have a good chance of surviving, at 35 -40mph you've little or no chance.[/p][/quote]what are the breaking calcs between 20mph & 35mph? I always put this bluntly. If someone walks into a road without looking if there is a car, it is not the drivers fault. Yes they might have been going over the speed limit but the breaking distrances are like 2-5m extra (so 10-15m in total usually if dry) if you run out in front of a car that is 10-15m away then fool on you.[/p][/quote]That's okay then, children always look and can judge breaking distances really well, in fact a two year old was explaining to me how stopping distances change according to weather and other conditions only last weekend. Survival of the fittest, after all, well, survival of the 4x4s against the menace of suicidal three year olds! Fool on them indeed.[/p][/quote]Yes beth... maybe while you were having such an in-depth chat with this child who was two years old you should have asked it where its parents were. Or maybe they were too busy riding horses over speed bumps in a 20mph fantasy world? Also I’d like to say why was the child on about breaking calcs? does it think ah i'll run out into the road the car is doing 25mph and i'm 20m away so it can stop?[/p][/quote]This is now some sort of bizarre alternative reality where parents can presumably stop a child falling into the road, tripping over, or just being a bit distracted and walking out anyway. What sort of child were you, a pudding baby who got pushed around in a pram until you were ten? Clearly not a parent nor someone who knows and youngsters or what they are like. Even an adult can fall into the road. But I guess because they fell it's their fault they died, so it's alright, speed away! In the real world people don't want to live in GTA, and drivers don't actually get points for hitting people. Just so you know. BethFoxhunter96
  • Score: 1022

2:45pm Wed 13 Aug 14

archieboldthe2nd says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
But Beth if you are a keen cyclist will you stick to the 20mph limit? If so how? Will the police enforce and fine cyclists going over 20mph in your dream blanket zones? I’ve had cyclists pass me which am even more dangerous on your blind side. Why should cars (the reasons why roads were built) have to slow down so cyclists can enjoy their bike ride on our roads but yet they can go faster then 20mph?
I generally ride a horse towards the outskirts. But I do bike round town too. And I would obey any speed limit. Roads are not just for cars, nor are they the reason roads are built. We all use roads and we all pay for them and we all share them.
Now don't get me wrong cyclists can use our roads we will let them... but for me as someone who has cycled its a lot safer if a car can overtake you going faster rather then hover around you going the same speed. The quicker a car passes the safer a cyclist is.
Disagree. The more room a car gives, overtaking at safe points, the safer a cyclist is. Too many cars seem to be in such a rush to pass cycles, horses, whoever that they squeeze past so quickly. This has happened to me several times. Is traffic is slowed down to the speed of a bike as you say, hopefully there will be less incentive to try to "nip past" a cyclist and that makes the road safer.
Ps did you know the councillor when she was knocked off her bike that caused this whole mess? You can pretty easily kill a cyclist at 20mph you know... as soon as a car goes under a car tyre the crack whatever the speed.
I do not know the councillor involved and never have met any of the councillors in fact. Sorry but the statistics show that at 20mph most people survive crashes. At 30 it's evens. At 40 most die.
I want to take my skateboard on the road and it would be much more enjoyable if cars only did 10mph lets enforce that... lets change the whole speed limits that have been around for decades to keep a minority happy. After all I know a lot of cyclists and non of them are even ar@ed about how fast a car goes in york as long as they take them into consideration... Even better lets waste more police time collecting revenue from motorists rather then actually doing their job… crime prevention!
Sorry I do not really understand you. But yes I agree that speeding criminals should be sorted out with fines and bans if that's what you're saying, whether it be on a dual carriageway or in a 20 zone. A girl down my street loves skateboarding.
out of all you have said above none of it actually brings anything to the arguement? i like horses though.
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote]But Beth if you are a keen cyclist will you stick to the 20mph limit? If so how? Will the police enforce and fine cyclists going over 20mph in your dream blanket zones? I’ve had cyclists pass me which am even more dangerous on your blind side. Why should cars (the reasons why roads were built) have to slow down so cyclists can enjoy their bike ride on our roads but yet they can go faster then 20mph?[/quote] I generally ride a horse towards the outskirts. But I do bike round town too. And I would obey any speed limit. Roads are not just for cars, nor are they the reason roads are built. We all use roads and we all pay for them and we all share them. [quote]Now don't get me wrong cyclists can use our roads we will let them... but for me as someone who has cycled its a lot safer if a car can overtake you going faster rather then hover around you going the same speed. The quicker a car passes the safer a cyclist is.[/quote] Disagree. The more room a car gives, overtaking at safe points, the safer a cyclist is. Too many cars seem to be in such a rush to pass cycles, horses, whoever that they squeeze past so quickly. This has happened to me several times. Is traffic is slowed down to the speed of a bike as you say, hopefully there will be less incentive to try to "nip past" a cyclist and that makes the road safer. [quote]Ps did you know the councillor when she was knocked off her bike that caused this whole mess? You can pretty easily kill a cyclist at 20mph you know... as soon as a car goes under a car tyre the crack whatever the speed.[/quote] I do not know the councillor involved and never have met any of the councillors in fact. Sorry but the statistics show that at 20mph most people survive crashes. At 30 it's evens. At 40 most die. [quote]I want to take my skateboard on the road and it would be much more enjoyable if cars only did 10mph lets enforce that... lets change the whole speed limits that have been around for decades to keep a minority happy. After all I know a lot of cyclists and non of them are even ar@ed about how fast a car goes in york as long as they take them into consideration... Even better lets waste more police time collecting revenue from motorists rather then actually doing their job… crime prevention![/quote] Sorry I do not really understand you. But yes I agree that speeding criminals should be sorted out with fines and bans if that's what you're saying, whether it be on a dual carriageway or in a 20 zone. A girl down my street loves skateboarding.[/p][/quote]out of all you have said above none of it actually brings anything to the arguement? i like horses though. archieboldthe2nd
  • Score: 1142

2:47pm Wed 13 Aug 14

BethFoxhunter96 says...

out of all you have said above none of it actually brings anything to the arguement?


Apart from answering your points, I guess.

i like horses though.


Me too. How many do you have, where do you ride and what do you think about drivers who don't follow the highway code when approaching a horse?
[quote]out of all you have said above none of it actually brings anything to the arguement? [/quote] Apart from answering your points, I guess. [quote]i like horses though.[/quote] Me too. How many do you have, where do you ride and what do you think about drivers who don't follow the highway code when approaching a horse? BethFoxhunter96
  • Score: 1392

2:52pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Fanny Free House says...

I also like horses, although my experience of them has only been through Pritstick, Lasagne and burgers.
I also like horses, although my experience of them has only been through Pritstick, Lasagne and burgers. Fanny Free House
  • Score: 1317

2:52pm Wed 13 Aug 14

archieboldthe2nd says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
greenmonkey wrote:
robynd wrote: The more pertinant question is - have incidents and injuries decreased in the 20 mph zones. Probably not enough time to get enough data yet. And the data needs to be analysed carefully as the zones are likely to have been built in areas where accidents are more likely. If there have been a reduction in injuries, isn't that a good thing?
This is a very good point. Until it is implemented across the city there will be mixed messages about what the appropriate speed should be as you drive about. Getting the police to take action on any speed limits in York is difficult - only when people get injured or killed is it deemed a priority. No doubt the fact that its traffic cops who expect to drive around at speed themselves who get to comment on the limits has something to do with their attitude to 20mph. It would only take a few random speed traps to get the message over that the limit is there to be obeyed. However the bottom line for me is that if a driver hits someone when driving exceeding the speed limit the blame will be on them, and i would rather have most people driving down residential streets at 20 -30mph than at 35 -40mph as often happens with the present 30mph limit. Get hit by a car at 25mph and you have a good chance of surviving, at 35 -40mph you've little or no chance.
what are the breaking calcs between 20mph & 35mph? I always put this bluntly. If someone walks into a road without looking if there is a car, it is not the drivers fault. Yes they might have been going over the speed limit but the breaking distrances are like 2-5m extra (so 10-15m in total usually if dry) if you run out in front of a car that is 10-15m away then fool on you.
That's okay then, children always look and can judge breaking distances really well, in fact a two year old was explaining to me how stopping distances change according to weather and other conditions only last weekend. Survival of the fittest, after all, well, survival of the 4x4s against the menace of suicidal three year olds! Fool on them indeed.
Yes beth... maybe while you were having such an in-depth chat with this child who was two years old you should have asked it where its parents were. Or maybe they were too busy riding horses over speed bumps in a 20mph fantasy world? Also I’d like to say why was the child on about breaking calcs? does it think ah i'll run out into the road the car is doing 25mph and i'm 20m away so it can stop?
This is now some sort of bizarre alternative reality where parents can presumably stop a child falling into the road, tripping over, or just being a bit distracted and walking out anyway. What sort of child were you, a pudding baby who got pushed around in a pram until you were ten? Clearly not a parent nor someone who knows and youngsters or what they are like. Even an adult can fall into the road. But I guess because they fell it's their fault they died, so it's alright, speed away! In the real world people don't want to live in GTA, and drivers don't actually get points for hitting people. Just so you know.
Who the hell lets their child near a road???!!!! especially close enough that if they fell they were in it! what would a reduced speed limit do to a child who fell and was run over? The same applies to adults! don't walk near a road if you might fall! look around and have an assessment!

Apparently i was intelligent child if nowadays they need cars to slow down in case they run out into the road?

No beth this isn't gta... but neither is it downton abbey where everyone rides around on horses and grows their own plants in wooden houses.. get in the real world and take your head out.
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]robynd[/bold] wrote: The more pertinant question is - have incidents and injuries decreased in the 20 mph zones. Probably not enough time to get enough data yet. And the data needs to be analysed carefully as the zones are likely to have been built in areas where accidents are more likely. If there have been a reduction in injuries, isn't that a good thing?[/p][/quote]This is a very good point. Until it is implemented across the city there will be mixed messages about what the appropriate speed should be as you drive about. Getting the police to take action on any speed limits in York is difficult - only when people get injured or killed is it deemed a priority. No doubt the fact that its traffic cops who expect to drive around at speed themselves who get to comment on the limits has something to do with their attitude to 20mph. It would only take a few random speed traps to get the message over that the limit is there to be obeyed. However the bottom line for me is that if a driver hits someone when driving exceeding the speed limit the blame will be on them, and i would rather have most people driving down residential streets at 20 -30mph than at 35 -40mph as often happens with the present 30mph limit. Get hit by a car at 25mph and you have a good chance of surviving, at 35 -40mph you've little or no chance.[/p][/quote]what are the breaking calcs between 20mph & 35mph? I always put this bluntly. If someone walks into a road without looking if there is a car, it is not the drivers fault. Yes they might have been going over the speed limit but the breaking distrances are like 2-5m extra (so 10-15m in total usually if dry) if you run out in front of a car that is 10-15m away then fool on you.[/p][/quote]That's okay then, children always look and can judge breaking distances really well, in fact a two year old was explaining to me how stopping distances change according to weather and other conditions only last weekend. Survival of the fittest, after all, well, survival of the 4x4s against the menace of suicidal three year olds! Fool on them indeed.[/p][/quote]Yes beth... maybe while you were having such an in-depth chat with this child who was two years old you should have asked it where its parents were. Or maybe they were too busy riding horses over speed bumps in a 20mph fantasy world? Also I’d like to say why was the child on about breaking calcs? does it think ah i'll run out into the road the car is doing 25mph and i'm 20m away so it can stop?[/p][/quote]This is now some sort of bizarre alternative reality where parents can presumably stop a child falling into the road, tripping over, or just being a bit distracted and walking out anyway. What sort of child were you, a pudding baby who got pushed around in a pram until you were ten? Clearly not a parent nor someone who knows and youngsters or what they are like. Even an adult can fall into the road. But I guess because they fell it's their fault they died, so it's alright, speed away! In the real world people don't want to live in GTA, and drivers don't actually get points for hitting people. Just so you know.[/p][/quote]Who the hell lets their child near a road???!!!! especially close enough that if they fell they were in it! what would a reduced speed limit do to a child who fell and was run over? The same applies to adults! don't walk near a road if you might fall! look around and have an assessment! Apparently i was intelligent child if nowadays they need cars to slow down in case they run out into the road? No beth this isn't gta... but neither is it downton abbey where everyone rides around on horses and grows their own plants in wooden houses.. get in the real world and take your head out. archieboldthe2nd
  • Score: 1337

2:53pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Haywire says...

archieboldthe2nd wrote:
Haywire wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
greenmonkey wrote:
robynd wrote: The more pertinant question is - have incidents and injuries decreased in the 20 mph zones. Probably not enough time to get enough data yet. And the data needs to be analysed carefully as the zones are likely to have been built in areas where accidents are more likely. If there have been a reduction in injuries, isn't that a good thing?
This is a very good point. Until it is implemented across the city there will be mixed messages about what the appropriate speed should be as you drive about. Getting the police to take action on any speed limits in York is difficult - only when people get injured or killed is it deemed a priority. No doubt the fact that its traffic cops who expect to drive around at speed themselves who get to comment on the limits has something to do with their attitude to 20mph. It would only take a few random speed traps to get the message over that the limit is there to be obeyed. However the bottom line for me is that if a driver hits someone when driving exceeding the speed limit the blame will be on them, and i would rather have most people driving down residential streets at 20 -30mph than at 35 -40mph as often happens with the present 30mph limit. Get hit by a car at 25mph and you have a good chance of surviving, at 35 -40mph you've little or no chance.
what are the breaking calcs between 20mph & 35mph? I always put this bluntly. If someone walks into a road without looking if there is a car, it is not the drivers fault. Yes they might have been going over the speed limit but the breaking distrances are like 2-5m extra (so 10-15m in total usually if dry) if you run out in front of a car that is 10-15m away then fool on you.
I'm not sure why you would want to break the calculations. I think that they should remain whole. Anyway, what we are talking about here is not numbers, but breaking bodies - especially young ones.
Well it is numbers really isn't it? We are talking about zero (a number) drivers being caught breaking 20mph (also a number).

Then educate the young! its far safer to stop the risk at source!!!! I'm not the brightest lad but stop look listen wasn't too hard to remember and guess what??? I’ve not been run over... and that was from growing up next to moor late when it was 40mph...

Suppose you support the school safety car that will fine dangerous parking too?? Instead of a scheme in schools to show them the dangers and prevent the risk rather then record it! and deal with it after...
As I have mentioned earlier, even if everybody was exceeding the limit, nobody would be caught because nobody is checking. No surprises there then! Keep up at the back!
Since you insist that we talk about numbers, what would you accept as reasonable in the way of the number of kids killed and injured by road vehicles in York each year?
[quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]robynd[/bold] wrote: The more pertinant question is - have incidents and injuries decreased in the 20 mph zones. Probably not enough time to get enough data yet. And the data needs to be analysed carefully as the zones are likely to have been built in areas where accidents are more likely. If there have been a reduction in injuries, isn't that a good thing?[/p][/quote]This is a very good point. Until it is implemented across the city there will be mixed messages about what the appropriate speed should be as you drive about. Getting the police to take action on any speed limits in York is difficult - only when people get injured or killed is it deemed a priority. No doubt the fact that its traffic cops who expect to drive around at speed themselves who get to comment on the limits has something to do with their attitude to 20mph. It would only take a few random speed traps to get the message over that the limit is there to be obeyed. However the bottom line for me is that if a driver hits someone when driving exceeding the speed limit the blame will be on them, and i would rather have most people driving down residential streets at 20 -30mph than at 35 -40mph as often happens with the present 30mph limit. Get hit by a car at 25mph and you have a good chance of surviving, at 35 -40mph you've little or no chance.[/p][/quote]what are the breaking calcs between 20mph & 35mph? I always put this bluntly. If someone walks into a road without looking if there is a car, it is not the drivers fault. Yes they might have been going over the speed limit but the breaking distrances are like 2-5m extra (so 10-15m in total usually if dry) if you run out in front of a car that is 10-15m away then fool on you.[/p][/quote]I'm not sure why you would want to break the calculations. I think that they should remain whole. Anyway, what we are talking about here is not numbers, but breaking bodies - especially young ones.[/p][/quote]Well it is numbers really isn't it? We are talking about zero (a number) drivers being caught breaking 20mph (also a number). Then educate the young! its far safer to stop the risk at source!!!! I'm not the brightest lad but stop look listen wasn't too hard to remember and guess what??? I’ve not been run over... and that was from growing up next to moor late when it was 40mph... Suppose you support the school safety car that will fine dangerous parking too?? Instead of a scheme in schools to show them the dangers and prevent the risk rather then record it! and deal with it after...[/p][/quote]As I have mentioned earlier, even if everybody was exceeding the limit, nobody would be caught because nobody is checking. No surprises there then! Keep up at the back! Since you insist that we talk about numbers, what would you accept as reasonable in the way of the number of kids killed and injured by road vehicles in York each year? Haywire
  • Score: 1053

3:03pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Wolfofwhipmawhopmagate says...

It is a very large waste of time and money! All for one persons personal agenda! 20mph is not "green" as a manual gearbox is not efficient at this speed. As for the "think of the children" argument they should be taught from a very young age that roads can be dangerous and should be crossed in the proper manner I.e. Using a proper crossing and following the green cross code like I myself and my own children were taught to! Any responsible parent will teach their child these things! Roads are for motor vehicles and cyclists and not pedestrians just like pavements are for pedestrians and not cyclists and motor vehicles if everybody adhered to the Highway Code and took responsibility for their own safety then we wouldn't have the need to waste money that could have been spent on much better things than pointless signage!
It is a very large waste of time and money! All for one persons personal agenda! 20mph is not "green" as a manual gearbox is not efficient at this speed. As for the "think of the children" argument they should be taught from a very young age that roads can be dangerous and should be crossed in the proper manner I.e. Using a proper crossing and following the green cross code like I myself and my own children were taught to! Any responsible parent will teach their child these things! Roads are for motor vehicles and cyclists and not pedestrians just like pavements are for pedestrians and not cyclists and motor vehicles if everybody adhered to the Highway Code and took responsibility for their own safety then we wouldn't have the need to waste money that could have been spent on much better things than pointless signage! Wolfofwhipmawhopmagate
  • Score: 997

3:06pm Wed 13 Aug 14

archieboldthe2nd says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
out of all you have said above none of it actually brings anything to the arguement?
Apart from answering your points, I guess.
i like horses though.
Me too. How many do you have, where do you ride and what do you think about drivers who don't follow the highway code when approaching a horse?
Well you didn’t did you? you said that everyone pays for the roads... which they don’t. You said you don’t speed you didn’t mention how this would be enforced for cyclists.

Having cycled in large groups the majority feeling is that its better for a car to pass rather then putting pressure on behind a group and getting inpatient. This causes more danger when a car accelerates past rather then driving consistanlty past.

Ah yes statistics... the next point... do i need to reply to this? each accident is individual.. if you are under a car you are under a car.. if you bounce off the top then yeh speed can count.. but where has this research come from? crash test dummies done by the government? the same as annas 70% in favour stat?
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote]out of all you have said above none of it actually brings anything to the arguement? [/quote] Apart from answering your points, I guess. [quote]i like horses though.[/quote] Me too. How many do you have, where do you ride and what do you think about drivers who don't follow the highway code when approaching a horse?[/p][/quote]Well you didn’t did you? you said that everyone pays for the roads... which they don’t. You said you don’t speed you didn’t mention how this would be enforced for cyclists. Having cycled in large groups the majority feeling is that its better for a car to pass rather then putting pressure on behind a group and getting inpatient. This causes more danger when a car accelerates past rather then driving consistanlty past. Ah yes statistics... the next point... do i need to reply to this? each accident is individual.. if you are under a car you are under a car.. if you bounce off the top then yeh speed can count.. but where has this research come from? crash test dummies done by the government? the same as annas 70% in favour stat? archieboldthe2nd
  • Score: 1030

3:09pm Wed 13 Aug 14

archieboldthe2nd says...

Haywire wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
Haywire wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
greenmonkey wrote:
robynd wrote: The more pertinant question is - have incidents and injuries decreased in the 20 mph zones. Probably not enough time to get enough data yet. And the data needs to be analysed carefully as the zones are likely to have been built in areas where accidents are more likely. If there have been a reduction in injuries, isn't that a good thing?
This is a very good point. Until it is implemented across the city there will be mixed messages about what the appropriate speed should be as you drive about. Getting the police to take action on any speed limits in York is difficult - only when people get injured or killed is it deemed a priority. No doubt the fact that its traffic cops who expect to drive around at speed themselves who get to comment on the limits has something to do with their attitude to 20mph. It would only take a few random speed traps to get the message over that the limit is there to be obeyed. However the bottom line for me is that if a driver hits someone when driving exceeding the speed limit the blame will be on them, and i would rather have most people driving down residential streets at 20 -30mph than at 35 -40mph as often happens with the present 30mph limit. Get hit by a car at 25mph and you have a good chance of surviving, at 35 -40mph you've little or no chance.
what are the breaking calcs between 20mph & 35mph? I always put this bluntly. If someone walks into a road without looking if there is a car, it is not the drivers fault. Yes they might have been going over the speed limit but the breaking distrances are like 2-5m extra (so 10-15m in total usually if dry) if you run out in front of a car that is 10-15m away then fool on you.
I'm not sure why you would want to break the calculations. I think that they should remain whole. Anyway, what we are talking about here is not numbers, but breaking bodies - especially young ones.
Well it is numbers really isn't it? We are talking about zero (a number) drivers being caught breaking 20mph (also a number). Then educate the young! its far safer to stop the risk at source!!!! I'm not the brightest lad but stop look listen wasn't too hard to remember and guess what??? I’ve not been run over... and that was from growing up next to moor late when it was 40mph... Suppose you support the school safety car that will fine dangerous parking too?? Instead of a scheme in schools to show them the dangers and prevent the risk rather then record it! and deal with it after...
As I have mentioned earlier, even if everybody was exceeding the limit, nobody would be caught because nobody is checking. No surprises there then! Keep up at the back! Since you insist that we talk about numbers, what would you accept as reasonable in the way of the number of kids killed and injured by road vehicles in York each year?
I never mention "As I have mentioned earlier, even if everybody was exceeding the limit, nobody would be caught because nobody is checking."??? i quoted the title of the article?

Not sure why don't you tell me how many have been in the last 5 years and the reasons why they were killed? you seem hot on the subject?

I can tell you my friend ran one over who ran out from in-between busses? he was doing the speed limit and got sued... so tell me what would a decrease in the speed limit do for an unavailable situation like that?! was it the drivers fault or are you yet again missing the point that kids need educating? not drivers!
[quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]robynd[/bold] wrote: The more pertinant question is - have incidents and injuries decreased in the 20 mph zones. Probably not enough time to get enough data yet. And the data needs to be analysed carefully as the zones are likely to have been built in areas where accidents are more likely. If there have been a reduction in injuries, isn't that a good thing?[/p][/quote]This is a very good point. Until it is implemented across the city there will be mixed messages about what the appropriate speed should be as you drive about. Getting the police to take action on any speed limits in York is difficult - only when people get injured or killed is it deemed a priority. No doubt the fact that its traffic cops who expect to drive around at speed themselves who get to comment on the limits has something to do with their attitude to 20mph. It would only take a few random speed traps to get the message over that the limit is there to be obeyed. However the bottom line for me is that if a driver hits someone when driving exceeding the speed limit the blame will be on them, and i would rather have most people driving down residential streets at 20 -30mph than at 35 -40mph as often happens with the present 30mph limit. Get hit by a car at 25mph and you have a good chance of surviving, at 35 -40mph you've little or no chance.[/p][/quote]what are the breaking calcs between 20mph & 35mph? I always put this bluntly. If someone walks into a road without looking if there is a car, it is not the drivers fault. Yes they might have been going over the speed limit but the breaking distrances are like 2-5m extra (so 10-15m in total usually if dry) if you run out in front of a car that is 10-15m away then fool on you.[/p][/quote]I'm not sure why you would want to break the calculations. I think that they should remain whole. Anyway, what we are talking about here is not numbers, but breaking bodies - especially young ones.[/p][/quote]Well it is numbers really isn't it? We are talking about zero (a number) drivers being caught breaking 20mph (also a number). Then educate the young! its far safer to stop the risk at source!!!! I'm not the brightest lad but stop look listen wasn't too hard to remember and guess what??? I’ve not been run over... and that was from growing up next to moor late when it was 40mph... Suppose you support the school safety car that will fine dangerous parking too?? Instead of a scheme in schools to show them the dangers and prevent the risk rather then record it! and deal with it after...[/p][/quote]As I have mentioned earlier, even if everybody was exceeding the limit, nobody would be caught because nobody is checking. No surprises there then! Keep up at the back! Since you insist that we talk about numbers, what would you accept as reasonable in the way of the number of kids killed and injured by road vehicles in York each year?[/p][/quote]I never mention "As I have mentioned earlier, even if everybody was exceeding the limit, nobody would be caught because nobody is checking."??? i quoted the title of the article? Not sure why don't you tell me how many have been in the last 5 years and the reasons why they were killed? you seem hot on the subject? I can tell you my friend ran one over who ran out from in-between busses? he was doing the speed limit and got sued... so tell me what would a decrease in the speed limit do for an unavailable situation like that?! was it the drivers fault or are you yet again missing the point that kids need educating? not drivers! archieboldthe2nd
  • Score: 865

3:12pm Wed 13 Aug 14

BethFoxhunter96 says...

Well you didn’t did you? you said that everyone pays for the roads... which they don’t. You said you don’t speed you didn’t mention how this would be enforced for cyclists.


Hopefully in the same way as for cars - police speed traps. Or are you going to suggest because cyclists don't have a number plate, you feel it's okay to kill children because "they can't be caught for speeding"?

Everyone pays for roads... oh, wait. Sorry. Children don't work so they don't pay tax. I see now why you feel it's okay to kill them. How dare the three year olds step onto the personal preserve of taxpayers? Run them down!

Having cycled in large groups the majority feeling is that its better for a car to pass rather then putting pressure on behind a group and getting inpatient. This causes more danger when a car accelerates past rather then driving consistanlty past.


I feel the opposite. When a car is behind me and not trying to come past it feels safer than when they speed or squeeze past. The problem is York's roads aren't built for cars, but so many of them squeeze into the city centre and then try to squeeze everyone else out!
[quote]Well you didn’t did you? you said that everyone pays for the roads... which they don’t. You said you don’t speed you didn’t mention how this would be enforced for cyclists.[/quote] Hopefully in the same way as for cars - police speed traps. Or are you going to suggest because cyclists don't have a number plate, you feel it's okay to kill children because "they can't be caught for speeding"? Everyone pays for roads... oh, wait. Sorry. Children don't work so they don't pay tax. I see now why you feel it's okay to kill them. How dare the three year olds step onto the personal preserve of taxpayers? Run them down! [quote]Having cycled in large groups the majority feeling is that its better for a car to pass rather then putting pressure on behind a group and getting inpatient. This causes more danger when a car accelerates past rather then driving consistanlty past. [/quote] I feel the opposite. When a car is behind me and not trying to come past it feels safer than when they speed or squeeze past. The problem is York's roads aren't built for cars, but so many of them squeeze into the city centre and then try to squeeze everyone else out! BethFoxhunter96
  • Score: 997

3:17pm Wed 13 Aug 14

BethFoxhunter96 says...

I can tell you my friend ran one over who ran out from in-between busses? he was doing the speed limit and got sued... so tell me what would a decrease in the speed limit do for an unavailable situation like that?! was it the drivers fault or are you yet again missing the point that kids need educating? not drivers!


I think using made-up stories to demonstrate tedious, tenuous points shows how desperate you are absolve the poor car hard-done by driver from any blame and shift it onto the shoulders of the dead or injured child / cyclist / horse rider / whoever else. There are so many reasons why there should be a lot of constraints against cars and not against children.

The last time a driver died as a result of a child running out into the road was when? Oh, silly me - it's cars that kill, hurt and maime, not children.
[quote]I can tell you my friend ran one over who ran out from in-between busses? he was doing the speed limit and got sued... so tell me what would a decrease in the speed limit do for an unavailable situation like that?! was it the drivers fault or are you yet again missing the point that kids need educating? not drivers![/quote] I think using made-up stories to demonstrate tedious, tenuous points shows how desperate you are absolve the poor car hard-done by driver from any blame and shift it onto the shoulders of the dead or injured child / cyclist / horse rider / whoever else. There are so many reasons why there should be a lot of constraints against cars and not against children. The last time a driver died as a result of a child running out into the road was when? Oh, silly me - it's cars that kill, hurt and maime, not children. BethFoxhunter96
  • Score: 530

3:21pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Bo Jolly says...

There is no case for blanket 20mph zones. They do not improve safety.
In Oxford and Portsmouth, the two best studied areas, accident rates *increased* when 20mph zones were introduced.
On the vast, vast majority of roads in the York 20mph scheme there has NEVER been an accident. Of those few accidents that have happened there is no evidence about whether a 20mph limit would have made any difference.

20s plenty is an ideological campaign not a safety scheme and it is not clear why taxpayers money should be spent on it.

The police presumably do not enforce it because they know it is not about safety.
There is no case for blanket 20mph zones. They do not improve safety. In Oxford and Portsmouth, the two best studied areas, accident rates *increased* when 20mph zones were introduced. On the vast, vast majority of roads in the York 20mph scheme there has NEVER been an accident. Of those few accidents that have happened there is no evidence about whether a 20mph limit would have made any difference. 20s plenty is an ideological campaign not a safety scheme and it is not clear why taxpayers money should be spent on it. The police presumably do not enforce it because they know it is not about safety. Bo Jolly
  • Score: 784

3:21pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Wolfofwhipmawhopmagate says...

Here's a money saving tip the council can have for free well unless they want to pay me £700 a day to implement it ;) instead of installing hundreds of speed humps that do cause wear and tear on cars regardless of speed why not just continue to let the road surface deteriorate like many are then we will have no choice but to slow down to avoid further damage to our cars etc then when we try to claim for such damage you can just send a letter back like you sent me saying that the road isn't our responsibility! Surely that's got to be win/win for the council slow people down and save money
Here's a money saving tip the council can have for free well unless they want to pay me £700 a day to implement it ;) instead of installing hundreds of speed humps that do cause wear and tear on cars regardless of speed why not just continue to let the road surface deteriorate like many are then we will have no choice but to slow down to avoid further damage to our cars etc then when we try to claim for such damage you can just send a letter back like you sent me saying that the road isn't our responsibility! Surely that's got to be win/win for the council slow people down and save money Wolfofwhipmawhopmagate
  • Score: 1166

3:21pm Wed 13 Aug 14

archieboldthe2nd says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
Well you didn’t did you? you said that everyone pays for the roads... which they don’t. You said you don’t speed you didn’t mention how this would be enforced for cyclists.
Hopefully in the same way as for cars - police speed traps. Or are you going to suggest because cyclists don't have a number plate, you feel it's okay to kill children because "they can't be caught for speeding"? Everyone pays for roads... oh, wait. Sorry. Children don't work so they don't pay tax. I see now why you feel it's okay to kill them. How dare the three year olds step onto the personal preserve of taxpayers? Run them down!
Having cycled in large groups the majority feeling is that its better for a car to pass rather then putting pressure on behind a group and getting inpatient. This causes more danger when a car accelerates past rather then driving consistanlty past.
I feel the opposite. When a car is behind me and not trying to come past it feels safer than when they speed or squeeze past. The problem is York's roads aren't built for cars, but so many of them squeeze into the city centre and then try to squeeze everyone else out!
Well you hit the nail on the head.. you can not catch them with traps...

Yes Beth that’s exactly what I said.. its ok to kill children.. Excellent argumentative skills... I'll retaliate with " no you are"....

Well look at where the majority of road maintenance money comes from.. but yes non tax payers do not contribute.. but is this only children? while i do love to kill children as you mention i feel others don't pay tax? can i get them too?

Yes yorks roads with all those lines, traffic lights and lanes are def not build for cars... York decided just to put them there for decorative purposes.. I for one used to love walking on a road and not a footpath back in the day... you can trip on a footpath and fall into the road. Its a common thing to happen.. But now all these cars are using the road it’s a nightmare… even the pesky cycle lanes aren’t safe to walk on anymore…
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote]Well you didn’t did you? you said that everyone pays for the roads... which they don’t. You said you don’t speed you didn’t mention how this would be enforced for cyclists.[/quote] Hopefully in the same way as for cars - police speed traps. Or are you going to suggest because cyclists don't have a number plate, you feel it's okay to kill children because "they can't be caught for speeding"? Everyone pays for roads... oh, wait. Sorry. Children don't work so they don't pay tax. I see now why you feel it's okay to kill them. How dare the three year olds step onto the personal preserve of taxpayers? Run them down! [quote]Having cycled in large groups the majority feeling is that its better for a car to pass rather then putting pressure on behind a group and getting inpatient. This causes more danger when a car accelerates past rather then driving consistanlty past. [/quote] I feel the opposite. When a car is behind me and not trying to come past it feels safer than when they speed or squeeze past. The problem is York's roads aren't built for cars, but so many of them squeeze into the city centre and then try to squeeze everyone else out![/p][/quote]Well you hit the nail on the head.. you can not catch them with traps... Yes Beth that’s exactly what I said.. its ok to kill children.. Excellent argumentative skills... I'll retaliate with " no you are".... Well look at where the majority of road maintenance money comes from.. but yes non tax payers do not contribute.. but is this only children? while i do love to kill children as you mention i feel others don't pay tax? can i get them too? Yes yorks roads with all those lines, traffic lights and lanes are def not build for cars... York decided just to put them there for decorative purposes.. I for one used to love walking on a road and not a footpath back in the day... you can trip on a footpath and fall into the road. Its a common thing to happen.. But now all these cars are using the road it’s a nightmare… even the pesky cycle lanes aren’t safe to walk on anymore… archieboldthe2nd
  • Score: 940

3:22pm Wed 13 Aug 14

pbrowne2009@live.co.uk says...

slowly wading my way through comments and I can see huge debates on this. I made my point about flaunting it because its pointless.

My thoughts on speed restrictions - pointless, flaunted and won't be enforced

My thoughts on speed/stopping time - pointless calculations as every car and driver is different. Guy in old ford fiesta gets prosecuted for hitting someone - guy in audi stops in time, both have MOT. get the point?

Speed bumps - AAAHHHH, anyone who says they don't cause damage needs a head shake. Speed bumps are a pet hate of mine. Lumps of concrete plonked in the road to SLOW cars down. EVEN IN A 30MPH zone. why???? if its 30, do 30. but if you put a bump down you have to do 10mph over it. Any kind of wear on a suspension can damage it over time including tyres, your tracking, the bushes and even the drive shaft. Then you have the emissions -slowing down and speeding up, then you have excessive wear and tear on the gearbox going from 3rd to 2nd and back up to 3rd. There a good way to stop boy racers speeding but why should everyone else suffer the excessive wear and tear? And when they aren't maintained they are even worse to drive over.

THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE THIS FAIR, ENFORCEABLE AND A WAY TO GENERATE MONEY IS "SPEED CAMERA'S"
slowly wading my way through comments and I can see huge debates on this. I made my point about flaunting it because its pointless. My thoughts on speed restrictions - pointless, flaunted and won't be enforced My thoughts on speed/stopping time - pointless calculations as every car and driver is different. Guy in old ford fiesta gets prosecuted for hitting someone - guy in audi stops in time, both have MOT. get the point? Speed bumps - AAAHHHH, anyone who says they don't cause damage needs a head shake. Speed bumps are a pet hate of mine. Lumps of concrete plonked in the road to SLOW cars down. EVEN IN A 30MPH zone. why???? if its 30, do 30. but if you put a bump down you have to do 10mph over it. Any kind of wear on a suspension can damage it over time including tyres, your tracking, the bushes and even the drive shaft. Then you have the emissions -slowing down and speeding up, then you have excessive wear and tear on the gearbox going from 3rd to 2nd and back up to 3rd. There a good way to stop boy racers speeding but why should everyone else suffer the excessive wear and tear? And when they aren't maintained they are even worse to drive over. THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE THIS FAIR, ENFORCEABLE AND A WAY TO GENERATE MONEY IS "SPEED CAMERA'S" pbrowne2009@live.co.uk
  • Score: 997

3:25pm Wed 13 Aug 14

archieboldthe2nd says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
I can tell you my friend ran one over who ran out from in-between busses? he was doing the speed limit and got sued... so tell me what would a decrease in the speed limit do for an unavailable situation like that?! was it the drivers fault or are you yet again missing the point that kids need educating? not drivers!
I think using made-up stories to demonstrate tedious, tenuous points shows how desperate you are absolve the poor car hard-done by driver from any blame and shift it onto the shoulders of the dead or injured child / cyclist / horse rider / whoever else. There are so many reasons why there should be a lot of constraints against cars and not against children. The last time a driver died as a result of a child running out into the road was when? Oh, silly me - it's cars that kill, hurt and maime, not children.
Ok look up accidents next to the asda just off foss island within the past 8 years where the bus stop is/was.. The car was a silver golf j reg if that helps... nice try to rubbish something though beth.. his insurance was about 2k per year because of that daft little girl! luckily he managed to swerve a tad so she only got a broken arm. if it was full on it would have been a lot worse!!!

And no if the child as run into the road the driver hasn't killed them! the same as when someone runs onto a train track! they know the risks and they got hit! if a driver can not prevent hitting someone who has been that stupid then it is not their fault
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote]I can tell you my friend ran one over who ran out from in-between busses? he was doing the speed limit and got sued... so tell me what would a decrease in the speed limit do for an unavailable situation like that?! was it the drivers fault or are you yet again missing the point that kids need educating? not drivers![/quote] I think using made-up stories to demonstrate tedious, tenuous points shows how desperate you are absolve the poor car hard-done by driver from any blame and shift it onto the shoulders of the dead or injured child / cyclist / horse rider / whoever else. There are so many reasons why there should be a lot of constraints against cars and not against children. The last time a driver died as a result of a child running out into the road was when? Oh, silly me - it's cars that kill, hurt and maime, not children.[/p][/quote]Ok look up accidents next to the asda just off foss island within the past 8 years where the bus stop is/was.. The car was a silver golf j reg if that helps... nice try to rubbish something though beth.. his insurance was about 2k per year because of that daft little girl! luckily he managed to swerve a tad so she only got a broken arm. if it was full on it would have been a lot worse!!! And no if the child as run into the road the driver hasn't killed them! the same as when someone runs onto a train track! they know the risks and they got hit! if a driver can not prevent hitting someone who has been that stupid then it is not their fault archieboldthe2nd
  • Score: 915

3:30pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Bo Jolly says...

"The problem is York's roads aren't built for cars"

You can't mean any of the roads built after the war, that were built for, er, cars.

You must mean the medieval, Georgian, Victorian and Edwardian ones that were built primarily for horse-drawn carts? You do realise that *cars* are about the same size as *carts* don't you?
"The problem is York's roads aren't built for cars" You can't mean any of the roads built after the war, that were built for, er, cars. You must mean the medieval, Georgian, Victorian and Edwardian ones that were built primarily for horse-drawn carts? You do realise that *cars* are about the same size as *carts* don't you? Bo Jolly
  • Score: 854

3:33pm Wed 13 Aug 14

piaggio1 says...

Certain i.ve eaten horsemeat in france!
Flippin nice..too many onoins though..
Anyway . Back to semelyn.....or the landlord ..nope aint sayin out ! But they know it will all be told......and most of us won.t be amazed...
Certain i.ve eaten horsemeat in france! Flippin nice..too many onoins though.. Anyway . Back to semelyn.....or the landlord ..nope aint sayin out ! But they know it will all be told......and most of us won.t be amazed... piaggio1
  • Score: 1137

3:36pm Wed 13 Aug 14

BethFoxhunter96 says...

archieboldthe2nd wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
I can tell you my friend ran one over who ran out from in-between busses? he was doing the speed limit and got sued... so tell me what would a decrease in the speed limit do for an unavailable situation like that?! was it the drivers fault or are you yet again missing the point that kids need educating? not drivers!
I think using made-up stories to demonstrate tedious, tenuous points shows how desperate you are absolve the poor car hard-done by driver from any blame and shift it onto the shoulders of the dead or injured child / cyclist / horse rider / whoever else. There are so many reasons why there should be a lot of constraints against cars and not against children. The last time a driver died as a result of a child running out into the road was when? Oh, silly me - it's cars that kill, hurt and maime, not children.
Ok look up accidents next to the asda just off foss island within the past 8 years where the bus stop is/was.. The car was a silver golf j reg if that helps... nice try to rubbish something though beth.. his insurance was about 2k per year because of that daft little girl! luckily he managed to swerve a tad so she only got a broken arm. if it was full on it would have been a lot worse!!!

And no if the child as run into the road the driver hasn't killed them! the same as when someone runs onto a train track! they know the risks and they got hit! if a driver can not prevent hitting someone who has been that stupid then it is not their fault
And no if the child as run into the road the driver hasn't killed them! the same as when someone runs onto a train track! they know the risks and they got hit! if a driver can not prevent hitting someone who has been that stupid then it is not their fault


This is the crux of the issue. It is not about fault. It is about stopping those sorts of accidents in the first place. Hopefully cars will follow the signs so that when children do go out onto the road, whether following the green cross code or not, they are less likely to be hit, and if they are, less likely to be seriously injured. All the waffle about killing children, speed bumps, everything else aside, this is the sprungenpointen. Speed kills. Slowly down reduces accidents and reduces the impact of those accidents. The reason you feel cars are targetted is because they cause most damage to both roads, and to others when involved in crashes.
[quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote]I can tell you my friend ran one over who ran out from in-between busses? he was doing the speed limit and got sued... so tell me what would a decrease in the speed limit do for an unavailable situation like that?! was it the drivers fault or are you yet again missing the point that kids need educating? not drivers![/quote] I think using made-up stories to demonstrate tedious, tenuous points shows how desperate you are absolve the poor car hard-done by driver from any blame and shift it onto the shoulders of the dead or injured child / cyclist / horse rider / whoever else. There are so many reasons why there should be a lot of constraints against cars and not against children. The last time a driver died as a result of a child running out into the road was when? Oh, silly me - it's cars that kill, hurt and maime, not children.[/p][/quote]Ok look up accidents next to the asda just off foss island within the past 8 years where the bus stop is/was.. The car was a silver golf j reg if that helps... nice try to rubbish something though beth.. his insurance was about 2k per year because of that daft little girl! luckily he managed to swerve a tad so she only got a broken arm. if it was full on it would have been a lot worse!!! And no if the child as run into the road the driver hasn't killed them! the same as when someone runs onto a train track! they know the risks and they got hit! if a driver can not prevent hitting someone who has been that stupid then it is not their fault[/p][/quote][quote]And no if the child as run into the road the driver hasn't killed them! the same as when someone runs onto a train track! they know the risks and they got hit! if a driver can not prevent hitting someone who has been that stupid then it is not their fault[/quote] This is the crux of the issue. It is not about fault. It is about stopping those sorts of accidents in the first place. Hopefully cars will follow the signs so that when children do go out onto the road, whether following the green cross code or not, they are less likely to be hit, and if they are, less likely to be seriously injured. All the waffle about killing children, speed bumps, everything else aside, this is the sprungenpointen. Speed kills. Slowly down reduces accidents and reduces the impact of those accidents. The reason you feel cars are targetted is because they cause most damage to both roads, and to others when involved in crashes. BethFoxhunter96
  • Score: 919

3:48pm Wed 13 Aug 14

archieboldthe2nd says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
I can tell you my friend ran one over who ran out from in-between busses? he was doing the speed limit and got sued... so tell me what would a decrease in the speed limit do for an unavailable situation like that?! was it the drivers fault or are you yet again missing the point that kids need educating? not drivers!
I think using made-up stories to demonstrate tedious, tenuous points shows how desperate you are absolve the poor car hard-done by driver from any blame and shift it onto the shoulders of the dead or injured child / cyclist / horse rider / whoever else. There are so many reasons why there should be a lot of constraints against cars and not against children. The last time a driver died as a result of a child running out into the road was when? Oh, silly me - it's cars that kill, hurt and maime, not children.
Ok look up accidents next to the asda just off foss island within the past 8 years where the bus stop is/was.. The car was a silver golf j reg if that helps... nice try to rubbish something though beth.. his insurance was about 2k per year because of that daft little girl! luckily he managed to swerve a tad so she only got a broken arm. if it was full on it would have been a lot worse!!! And no if the child as run into the road the driver hasn't killed them! the same as when someone runs onto a train track! they know the risks and they got hit! if a driver can not prevent hitting someone who has been that stupid then it is not their fault
And no if the child as run into the road the driver hasn't killed them! the same as when someone runs onto a train track! they know the risks and they got hit! if a driver can not prevent hitting someone who has been that stupid then it is not their fault
This is the crux of the issue. It is not about fault. It is about stopping those sorts of accidents in the first place. Hopefully cars will follow the signs so that when children do go out onto the road, whether following the green cross code or not, they are less likely to be hit, and if they are, less likely to be seriously injured. All the waffle about killing children, speed bumps, everything else aside, this is the sprungenpointen. Speed kills. Slowly down reduces accidents and reduces the impact of those accidents. The reason you feel cars are targetted is because they cause most damage to both roads, and to others when involved in crashes.
You talk garbage. Where are the facts from your knowledge on this matter? Educate the children and there isn't a need for a reduced speed limit it really is as simple and cheap as that. No the reason why i feel cars are targeted is because the world we live in has lost common sense! its a road! cars use them! don't walk in them unless its clear! don't let your child off its lead if there is a chance it will run into said road!

Tell me why the above would not be enough? bar your balls about tripping over! parents need to take more responsibility about their Childs behaviour! it really is that simple.. Make it a blanket 20mph zone.. no one will obey it. Do you know why? because people get to an age and decide actually I’m old enough to assess the risks and dangers around me and 20mph is the same speed as Gareth bale running...

I'm bored of you now and I can't help but feel sorry for your horse... if you actually ever have something constructive and unbiased to say I’ll be here to listen... until then though you really should sit down and have a cuppa with Paul.. you can both talk pointless sh@t together.
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote]I can tell you my friend ran one over who ran out from in-between busses? he was doing the speed limit and got sued... so tell me what would a decrease in the speed limit do for an unavailable situation like that?! was it the drivers fault or are you yet again missing the point that kids need educating? not drivers![/quote] I think using made-up stories to demonstrate tedious, tenuous points shows how desperate you are absolve the poor car hard-done by driver from any blame and shift it onto the shoulders of the dead or injured child / cyclist / horse rider / whoever else. There are so many reasons why there should be a lot of constraints against cars and not against children. The last time a driver died as a result of a child running out into the road was when? Oh, silly me - it's cars that kill, hurt and maime, not children.[/p][/quote]Ok look up accidents next to the asda just off foss island within the past 8 years where the bus stop is/was.. The car was a silver golf j reg if that helps... nice try to rubbish something though beth.. his insurance was about 2k per year because of that daft little girl! luckily he managed to swerve a tad so she only got a broken arm. if it was full on it would have been a lot worse!!! And no if the child as run into the road the driver hasn't killed them! the same as when someone runs onto a train track! they know the risks and they got hit! if a driver can not prevent hitting someone who has been that stupid then it is not their fault[/p][/quote][quote]And no if the child as run into the road the driver hasn't killed them! the same as when someone runs onto a train track! they know the risks and they got hit! if a driver can not prevent hitting someone who has been that stupid then it is not their fault[/quote] This is the crux of the issue. It is not about fault. It is about stopping those sorts of accidents in the first place. Hopefully cars will follow the signs so that when children do go out onto the road, whether following the green cross code or not, they are less likely to be hit, and if they are, less likely to be seriously injured. All the waffle about killing children, speed bumps, everything else aside, this is the sprungenpointen. Speed kills. Slowly down reduces accidents and reduces the impact of those accidents. The reason you feel cars are targetted is because they cause most damage to both roads, and to others when involved in crashes.[/p][/quote]You talk garbage. Where are the facts from your knowledge on this matter? Educate the children and there isn't a need for a reduced speed limit it really is as simple and cheap as that. No the reason why i feel cars are targeted is because the world we live in has lost common sense! its a road! cars use them! don't walk in them unless its clear! don't let your child off its lead if there is a chance it will run into said road! Tell me why the above would not be enough? bar your balls about tripping over! parents need to take more responsibility about their Childs behaviour! it really is that simple.. Make it a blanket 20mph zone.. no one will obey it. Do you know why? because people get to an age and decide actually I’m old enough to assess the risks and dangers around me and 20mph is the same speed as Gareth bale running... I'm bored of you now and I can't help but feel sorry for your horse... if you actually ever have something constructive and unbiased to say I’ll be here to listen... until then though you really should sit down and have a cuppa with Paul.. you can both talk pointless sh@t together. archieboldthe2nd
  • Score: 569

3:50pm Wed 13 Aug 14

pbrowne2009@live.co.uk says...

Bo Jolly wrote:
"The problem is York's roads aren't built for cars"

You can't mean any of the roads built after the war, that were built for, er, cars.

You must mean the medieval, Georgian, Victorian and Edwardian ones that were built primarily for horse-drawn carts? You do realise that *cars* are about the same size as *carts* don't you?
"The problem is York's roads aren't built for cars"

no, i think they meant to say "The council are building roads in York NOT designed for cars".

I love your comment though.
[quote][p][bold]Bo Jolly[/bold] wrote: "The problem is York's roads aren't built for cars" You can't mean any of the roads built after the war, that were built for, er, cars. You must mean the medieval, Georgian, Victorian and Edwardian ones that were built primarily for horse-drawn carts? You do realise that *cars* are about the same size as *carts* don't you?[/p][/quote]"The problem is York's roads aren't built for cars" no, i think they meant to say "The council are building roads in York NOT designed for cars". I love your comment though. pbrowne2009@live.co.uk
  • Score: 1006

3:54pm Wed 13 Aug 14

pbrowne2009@live.co.uk says...

archieboldthe2nd wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
I can tell you my friend ran one over who ran out from in-between busses? he was doing the speed limit and got sued... so tell me what would a decrease in the speed limit do for an unavailable situation like that?! was it the drivers fault or are you yet again missing the point that kids need educating? not drivers!
I think using made-up stories to demonstrate tedious, tenuous points shows how desperate you are absolve the poor car hard-done by driver from any blame and shift it onto the shoulders of the dead or injured child / cyclist / horse rider / whoever else. There are so many reasons why there should be a lot of constraints against cars and not against children. The last time a driver died as a result of a child running out into the road was when? Oh, silly me - it's cars that kill, hurt and maime, not children.
Ok look up accidents next to the asda just off foss island within the past 8 years where the bus stop is/was.. The car was a silver golf j reg if that helps... nice try to rubbish something though beth.. his insurance was about 2k per year because of that daft little girl! luckily he managed to swerve a tad so she only got a broken arm. if it was full on it would have been a lot worse!!! And no if the child as run into the road the driver hasn't killed them! the same as when someone runs onto a train track! they know the risks and they got hit! if a driver can not prevent hitting someone who has been that stupid then it is not their fault
And no if the child as run into the road the driver hasn't killed them! the same as when someone runs onto a train track! they know the risks and they got hit! if a driver can not prevent hitting someone who has been that stupid then it is not their fault
This is the crux of the issue. It is not about fault. It is about stopping those sorts of accidents in the first place. Hopefully cars will follow the signs so that when children do go out onto the road, whether following the green cross code or not, they are less likely to be hit, and if they are, less likely to be seriously injured. All the waffle about killing children, speed bumps, everything else aside, this is the sprungenpointen. Speed kills. Slowly down reduces accidents and reduces the impact of those accidents. The reason you feel cars are targetted is because they cause most damage to both roads, and to others when involved in crashes.
You talk garbage. Where are the facts from your knowledge on this matter? Educate the children and there isn't a need for a reduced speed limit it really is as simple and cheap as that. No the reason why i feel cars are targeted is because the world we live in has lost common sense! its a road! cars use them! don't walk in them unless its clear! don't let your child off its lead if there is a chance it will run into said road!

Tell me why the above would not be enough? bar your balls about tripping over! parents need to take more responsibility about their Childs behaviour! it really is that simple.. Make it a blanket 20mph zone.. no one will obey it. Do you know why? because people get to an age and decide actually I’m old enough to assess the risks and dangers around me and 20mph is the same speed as Gareth bale running...

I'm bored of you now and I can't help but feel sorry for your horse... if you actually ever have something constructive and unbiased to say I’ll be here to listen... until then though you really should sit down and have a cuppa with Paul.. you can both talk pointless sh@t together.
QUALITY COMMENT

- COMMON SENSE,
- PARENTS TAKING RESPONSIBILITY OF THEIR CHILDREN
- TEACHING KIDS HOW TO USE A ROAD (the same way drivers are taught to use the road)

Only problem is........... we live in a world that lacks all of the above and we live in a world of 'blame and claim' as a way of not taking responsibility of own's actions.
[quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote]I can tell you my friend ran one over who ran out from in-between busses? he was doing the speed limit and got sued... so tell me what would a decrease in the speed limit do for an unavailable situation like that?! was it the drivers fault or are you yet again missing the point that kids need educating? not drivers![/quote] I think using made-up stories to demonstrate tedious, tenuous points shows how desperate you are absolve the poor car hard-done by driver from any blame and shift it onto the shoulders of the dead or injured child / cyclist / horse rider / whoever else. There are so many reasons why there should be a lot of constraints against cars and not against children. The last time a driver died as a result of a child running out into the road was when? Oh, silly me - it's cars that kill, hurt and maime, not children.[/p][/quote]Ok look up accidents next to the asda just off foss island within the past 8 years where the bus stop is/was.. The car was a silver golf j reg if that helps... nice try to rubbish something though beth.. his insurance was about 2k per year because of that daft little girl! luckily he managed to swerve a tad so she only got a broken arm. if it was full on it would have been a lot worse!!! And no if the child as run into the road the driver hasn't killed them! the same as when someone runs onto a train track! they know the risks and they got hit! if a driver can not prevent hitting someone who has been that stupid then it is not their fault[/p][/quote][quote]And no if the child as run into the road the driver hasn't killed them! the same as when someone runs onto a train track! they know the risks and they got hit! if a driver can not prevent hitting someone who has been that stupid then it is not their fault[/quote] This is the crux of the issue. It is not about fault. It is about stopping those sorts of accidents in the first place. Hopefully cars will follow the signs so that when children do go out onto the road, whether following the green cross code or not, they are less likely to be hit, and if they are, less likely to be seriously injured. All the waffle about killing children, speed bumps, everything else aside, this is the sprungenpointen. Speed kills. Slowly down reduces accidents and reduces the impact of those accidents. The reason you feel cars are targetted is because they cause most damage to both roads, and to others when involved in crashes.[/p][/quote]You talk garbage. Where are the facts from your knowledge on this matter? Educate the children and there isn't a need for a reduced speed limit it really is as simple and cheap as that. No the reason why i feel cars are targeted is because the world we live in has lost common sense! its a road! cars use them! don't walk in them unless its clear! don't let your child off its lead if there is a chance it will run into said road! Tell me why the above would not be enough? bar your balls about tripping over! parents need to take more responsibility about their Childs behaviour! it really is that simple.. Make it a blanket 20mph zone.. no one will obey it. Do you know why? because people get to an age and decide actually I’m old enough to assess the risks and dangers around me and 20mph is the same speed as Gareth bale running... I'm bored of you now and I can't help but feel sorry for your horse... if you actually ever have something constructive and unbiased to say I’ll be here to listen... until then though you really should sit down and have a cuppa with Paul.. you can both talk pointless sh@t together.[/p][/quote]QUALITY COMMENT - COMMON SENSE, - PARENTS TAKING RESPONSIBILITY OF THEIR CHILDREN - TEACHING KIDS HOW TO USE A ROAD (the same way drivers are taught to use the road) Only problem is........... we live in a world that lacks all of the above and we live in a world of 'blame and claim' as a way of not taking responsibility of own's actions. pbrowne2009@live.co.uk
  • Score: 998

4:15pm Wed 13 Aug 14

notpedallingpaul says...

pbrowne2009@live.co.
uk
wrote:
I laugh every time I pass a pointless 20mph sign. Unless its going past a school of course. In fact, just to flaunt the stupid idea I actually speed up. Police flaunt it, the general public flaunt it and to some extent the average fast paced cyclist flaunts it. People don't flaunt the signs because they feel rebellious, they flaunt it because it's a complete pointless scheme and a waste of money.
You forgot to mention busses, I have yet to drive behind one sticking to 20mph on the straight section of Bishopthorpe Road going past the pub!

As for beths speed humps, I suggest she tries driving down Heslington Road past St Lawrences school with a Uni Bus stuck to her rear bumper, like I have had on occasions, they dont need to slow down as they can straddle the speed cushions due to the wider track, whilst my car cant, so I just drive even slower just to p**s them off!!
[quote][p][bold]pbrowne2009@live.co. uk[/bold] wrote: I laugh every time I pass a pointless 20mph sign. Unless its going past a school of course. In fact, just to flaunt the stupid idea I actually speed up. Police flaunt it, the general public flaunt it and to some extent the average fast paced cyclist flaunts it. People don't flaunt the signs because they feel rebellious, they flaunt it because it's a complete pointless scheme and a waste of money.[/p][/quote]You forgot to mention busses, I have yet to drive behind one sticking to 20mph on the straight section of Bishopthorpe Road going past the pub! As for beths speed humps, I suggest she tries driving down Heslington Road past St Lawrences school with a Uni Bus stuck to her rear bumper, like I have had on occasions, they dont need to slow down as they can straddle the speed cushions due to the wider track, whilst my car cant, so I just drive even slower just to p**s them off!! notpedallingpaul
  • Score: 1151

4:25pm Wed 13 Aug 14

pbrowne2009@live.co.uk says...

notpedallingpaul wrote:
pbrowne2009@live.co.

uk
wrote:
I laugh every time I pass a pointless 20mph sign. Unless its going past a school of course. In fact, just to flaunt the stupid idea I actually speed up. Police flaunt it, the general public flaunt it and to some extent the average fast paced cyclist flaunts it. People don't flaunt the signs because they feel rebellious, they flaunt it because it's a complete pointless scheme and a waste of money.
You forgot to mention busses, I have yet to drive behind one sticking to 20mph on the straight section of Bishopthorpe Road going past the pub!

As for beths speed humps, I suggest she tries driving down Heslington Road past St Lawrences school with a Uni Bus stuck to her rear bumper, like I have had on occasions, they dont need to slow down as they can straddle the speed cushions due to the wider track, whilst my car cant, so I just drive even slower just to p**s them off!!
I got so sick and tired of driving and paying for a car i invested in a decent honda 125cc 4 stroke bike. Will do 75mph, will get 200 miles to a £15 tank of fuel, costs me £16py to tax, £100 py to insure and I don't get stuck in traffic or face going over bumps.

I have access to my partners car for off-peak driving (which in York is any time between 11pm and 5am)

York is just a joke when it comes to the roads. Its a bad city for roads, yet instead of making a bad situation better, the council continue to make a bad situation worse. Pointless bumps, a traffic light system that actually causes traffic jams (ever noticed how smooth traffic flows when the lights don't work?) HUGE pointless buses too big for the roads, half empty and stop every 1/4 mile. Speed bumps that are designed to kill the car not slow it down. roundabouts that don't allow traffic to flow evenly in all directions. (traffic lights 50 yards after a roundabout so cars clog up and don't allow traffic to flow)

Pointless schemes to widen the ring road instead of just duelling the whole thing. But will still invest in a Park and Ride at every entry point going into York.

THE LIST GOES ON AND ON AND ON..............
[quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pbrowne2009@live.co. uk[/bold] wrote: I laugh every time I pass a pointless 20mph sign. Unless its going past a school of course. In fact, just to flaunt the stupid idea I actually speed up. Police flaunt it, the general public flaunt it and to some extent the average fast paced cyclist flaunts it. People don't flaunt the signs because they feel rebellious, they flaunt it because it's a complete pointless scheme and a waste of money.[/p][/quote]You forgot to mention busses, I have yet to drive behind one sticking to 20mph on the straight section of Bishopthorpe Road going past the pub! As for beths speed humps, I suggest she tries driving down Heslington Road past St Lawrences school with a Uni Bus stuck to her rear bumper, like I have had on occasions, they dont need to slow down as they can straddle the speed cushions due to the wider track, whilst my car cant, so I just drive even slower just to p**s them off!![/p][/quote]I got so sick and tired of driving and paying for a car i invested in a decent honda 125cc 4 stroke bike. Will do 75mph, will get 200 miles to a £15 tank of fuel, costs me £16py to tax, £100 py to insure and I don't get stuck in traffic or face going over bumps. I have access to my partners car for off-peak driving (which in York is any time between 11pm and 5am) York is just a joke when it comes to the roads. Its a bad city for roads, yet instead of making a bad situation better, the council continue to make a bad situation worse. Pointless bumps, a traffic light system that actually causes traffic jams (ever noticed how smooth traffic flows when the lights don't work?) HUGE pointless buses too big for the roads, half empty and stop every 1/4 mile. Speed bumps that are designed to kill the car not slow it down. roundabouts that don't allow traffic to flow evenly in all directions. (traffic lights 50 yards after a roundabout so cars clog up and don't allow traffic to flow) Pointless schemes to widen the ring road instead of just duelling the whole thing. But will still invest in a Park and Ride at every entry point going into York. THE LIST GOES ON AND ON AND ON.............. pbrowne2009@live.co.uk
  • Score: 999

4:28pm Wed 13 Aug 14

BethFoxhunter96 says...

You talk garbage. Where are the facts from your knowledge on this matter? Educate the children and there isn't a need for a reduced speed limit it really is as simple and cheap as that. No the reason why i feel cars are targeted is because the world we live in has lost common sense! its a road! cars use them! don't walk in them unless its clear! don't let your child off its lead if there is a chance it will run into said road!


Your common sense isn't my version of common sense. It is a road. And everyone uses them. Children and leads... as I said earlier, you're clearly not a parent not have responsibility to look after children.

Tell me why the above would not be enough? bar your balls about tripping over! parents need to take more responsibility about their Childs behaviour! it really is that simple.. Make it a blanket 20mph zone.. no one will obey it. Do you know why? because people get to an age and decide actually I’m old enough to assess the risks and dangers around me and 20mph is the same speed as Gareth bale running...


And it is still fast enough to kill.

It is not enough because it is not good enough to say to the parents of a dead or injured child "it's okay, it was your fault (or child's fault), I judged I could drive at x speed, so I did, have a sweetie".

We are talking about reducing accidents and their severity. And I believe 20's plenty.

I'm bored of you now and I can't help but feel sorry for your horse... if you actually ever have something constructive and unbiased to say I’ll be here to listen... until then though you really should sit down and have a cuppa with Paul.. you can both talk pointless sh@t together.


Nice.

I'm entitled to my opinion as much as you are. Thanks for coming and stop fighting the future.
[quote]You talk garbage. Where are the facts from your knowledge on this matter? Educate the children and there isn't a need for a reduced speed limit it really is as simple and cheap as that. No the reason why i feel cars are targeted is because the world we live in has lost common sense! its a road! cars use them! don't walk in them unless its clear! don't let your child off its lead if there is a chance it will run into said road![/quote] Your common sense isn't my version of common sense. It is a road. And everyone uses them. Children and leads... as I said earlier, you're clearly not a parent not have responsibility to look after children. [quote]Tell me why the above would not be enough? bar your balls about tripping over! parents need to take more responsibility about their Childs behaviour! it really is that simple.. Make it a blanket 20mph zone.. no one will obey it. Do you know why? because people get to an age and decide actually I’m old enough to assess the risks and dangers around me and 20mph is the same speed as Gareth bale running...[/quote] And it is still fast enough to kill. It is not enough because it is not good enough to say to the parents of a dead or injured child "it's okay, it was your fault (or child's fault), I judged I could drive at x speed, so I did, have a sweetie". We are talking about reducing accidents and their severity. And I believe 20's plenty. [quote]I'm bored of you now and I can't help but feel sorry for your horse... if you actually ever have something constructive and unbiased to say I’ll be here to listen... until then though you really should sit down and have a cuppa with Paul.. you can both talk pointless sh@t together.[/quote] Nice. I'm entitled to my opinion as much as you are. Thanks for coming and stop fighting the future. BethFoxhunter96
  • Score: 1249

4:36pm Wed 13 Aug 14

AGuyFromStresall says...

Stop fighting the future? Are you kidding me?
You have spent a whole page fighting the future...
Stop fighting the future? Are you kidding me? You have spent a whole page fighting the future... AGuyFromStresall
  • Score: 1036

4:43pm Wed 13 Aug 14

BethFoxhunter96 says...

AGuyFromStresall wrote:
Stop fighting the future? Are you kidding me?
You have spent a whole page fighting the future...
In the future York isn't going to be gridlocked with cars, nor ruled by the Walter Mittys of the car driving lobby. In the future people will be much more tolerant, respectful and enjoy life more than demanding they have a right to drive at thirty or another figure plucked out of the air because they think that's best. In my future not killing or injuring children, cyclists or indeed anyone on the roads will be more important than shaving twenty five seconds of a car journey.
[quote][p][bold]AGuyFromStresall[/bold] wrote: Stop fighting the future? Are you kidding me? You have spent a whole page fighting the future...[/p][/quote]In the future York isn't going to be gridlocked with cars, nor ruled by the Walter Mittys of the car driving lobby. In the future people will be much more tolerant, respectful and enjoy life more than demanding they have a right to drive at thirty or another figure plucked out of the air because they think that's best. In my future not killing or injuring children, cyclists or indeed anyone on the roads will be more important than shaving twenty five seconds of a car journey. BethFoxhunter96
  • Score: 1103

4:54pm Wed 13 Aug 14

AGuyFromStresall says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
AGuyFromStresall wrote:
Stop fighting the future? Are you kidding me?
You have spent a whole page fighting the future...
In the future York isn't going to be gridlocked with cars, nor ruled by the Walter Mittys of the car driving lobby. In the future people will be much more tolerant, respectful and enjoy life more than demanding they have a right to drive at thirty or another figure plucked out of the air because they think that's best. In my future not killing or injuring children, cyclists or indeed anyone on the roads will be more important than shaving twenty five seconds of a car journey.
That's right, in the future no one will have to go anywhere and *if* they have to go it will be next door. If in that rare rare case that it isn't, suddenly people's time won't be important anymore so we can all cycle mammoth distances or walk....

A true 21st century Luddite, you've got to give yourself props for a blinkered world view. Goodness help you if you ever get a job on the other side of the city, I wonder if your standards will all apply then....
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AGuyFromStresall[/bold] wrote: Stop fighting the future? Are you kidding me? You have spent a whole page fighting the future...[/p][/quote]In the future York isn't going to be gridlocked with cars, nor ruled by the Walter Mittys of the car driving lobby. In the future people will be much more tolerant, respectful and enjoy life more than demanding they have a right to drive at thirty or another figure plucked out of the air because they think that's best. In my future not killing or injuring children, cyclists or indeed anyone on the roads will be more important than shaving twenty five seconds of a car journey.[/p][/quote]That's right, in the future no one will have to go anywhere and *if* they have to go it will be next door. If in that rare rare case that it isn't, suddenly people's time won't be important anymore so we can all cycle mammoth distances or walk.... A true 21st century Luddite, you've got to give yourself props for a blinkered world view. Goodness help you if you ever get a job on the other side of the city, I wonder if your standards will all apply then.... AGuyFromStresall
  • Score: 865

4:55pm Wed 13 Aug 14

TheTruthHurts says...

If the limits are never enforced then it is all a bit pointless really. I see lots of cars doing more than 20 through all of these zones - admittedly not by much (with the exception of roads with speed bumps, which are very slow).

I cant really think of any scenario where I would actually have an accident on these quiet residential roads. If a child was to fall out infront of me (what are the odds?) there are such things as accidents, human nature means that they cant be completely eradicated.

I too like horses, I like bikes and cars too and you get the idiot minority not obeying the highway code (or the law for that) no matter what my choice, although it is a bit scarier on a horse especially if it is a bit bonkers :-)
If the limits are never enforced then it is all a bit pointless really. I see lots of cars doing more than 20 through all of these zones - admittedly not by much (with the exception of roads with speed bumps, which are very slow). I cant really think of any scenario where I would actually have an accident on these quiet residential roads. If a child was to fall out infront of me (what are the odds?) there are such things as accidents, human nature means that they cant be completely eradicated. I too like horses, I like bikes and cars too and you get the idiot minority not obeying the highway code (or the law for that) no matter what my choice, although it is a bit scarier on a horse especially if it is a bit bonkers :-) TheTruthHurts
  • Score: 1070

5:03pm Wed 13 Aug 14

notpedallingpaul says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
Meldrew2 wrote: Speed bumps? They cause untold damage to cars as well as making drivers change to a lower gear and produce more pollutants. Get rid - like they did down Camplesdown Road for the TDF. Much better down there now with the only calming methods outside the school. Much better to have calming measures like they have in Rufforth.
They only cause damage if cars go over them too quickly!! They are not great for horses either but seem to be better than the alternative.
No they don't! they cause damage to cars regardless of speed! you are wearing out its suspension and bearings, not to mention the width of them is usually about right with the slope to send your tracking out.

horses???wtf?
Nonsense. Go over them slowly and you'll find there's less damage.

Wearing out suspension? Again... slow down.

The clue is sort of in the name. Speed bumps. Speed... bumps. SPEED... bumps. I find the argument that it "wears out bearings" sort of funny. It's so trivial to the overall debate. The extra gradient and 15cms of tarmac needed to be covered also wears out tyres more... but in the scheme of things it is all virtually meaningless.

Horses can get quit disturbed by them, especially if they are so close to the kerb two legs are "down" and one or two legs are "up". I normally go over the middle of a speed bump. That's as long as they don't wear out my horse's shoes.
Your not very mechanically minded are you beth? If you have no choice but to constantly drive down a road that has speed humps, tables or cushions, whatever you want to call them, then it has adverse affect on the suspension units and springs, decreasing their life expectancy, also the tracking of the car can be affected and tyre wear increases particularly going over speed cushions as the width of the speed cushion is greater than a normal cars track.
As for horses on the roads I always give them respect and slow down as it's not the horses fault it's on a road mixing with traffic, it's the dim whit in the saddle, horses are for fields and open country side in my opinion, for what it's worth!
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Meldrew2[/bold] wrote: Speed bumps? They cause untold damage to cars as well as making drivers change to a lower gear and produce more pollutants. Get rid - like they did down Camplesdown Road for the TDF. Much better down there now with the only calming methods outside the school. Much better to have calming measures like they have in Rufforth.[/p][/quote]They only cause damage if cars go over them too quickly!! They are not great for horses either but seem to be better than the alternative.[/p][/quote]No they don't! they cause damage to cars regardless of speed! you are wearing out its suspension and bearings, not to mention the width of them is usually about right with the slope to send your tracking out. horses???wtf?[/p][/quote]Nonsense. Go over them slowly and you'll find there's less damage. Wearing out suspension? Again... slow down. The clue is sort of in the name. Speed bumps. Speed... bumps. SPEED... bumps. I find the argument that it "wears out bearings" sort of funny. It's so trivial to the overall debate. The extra gradient and 15cms of tarmac needed to be covered also wears out tyres more... but in the scheme of things it is all virtually meaningless. Horses can get quit disturbed by them, especially if they are so close to the kerb two legs are "down" and one or two legs are "up". I normally go over the middle of a speed bump. That's as long as they don't wear out my horse's shoes.[/p][/quote]Your not very mechanically minded are you beth? If you have no choice but to constantly drive down a road that has speed humps, tables or cushions, whatever you want to call them, then it has adverse affect on the suspension units and springs, decreasing their life expectancy, also the tracking of the car can be affected and tyre wear increases particularly going over speed cushions as the width of the speed cushion is greater than a normal cars track. As for horses on the roads I always give them respect and slow down as it's not the horses fault it's on a road mixing with traffic, it's the dim whit in the saddle, horses are for fields and open country side in my opinion, for what it's worth! notpedallingpaul
  • Score: 1103

5:09pm Wed 13 Aug 14

notpedallingpaul says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
Well you didn’t did you? you said that everyone pays for the roads... which they don’t. You said you don’t speed you didn’t mention how this would be enforced for cyclists.


Hopefully in the same way as for cars - police speed traps. Or are you going to suggest because cyclists don't have a number plate, you feel it's okay to kill children because "they can't be caught for speeding"?

Everyone pays for roads... oh, wait. Sorry. Children don't work so they don't pay tax. I see now why you feel it's okay to kill them. How dare the three year olds step onto the personal preserve of taxpayers? Run them down!

Having cycled in large groups the majority feeling is that its better for a car to pass rather then putting pressure on behind a group and getting inpatient. This causes more danger when a car accelerates past rather then driving consistanlty past.


I feel the opposite. When a car is behind me and not trying to come past it feels safer than when they speed or squeeze past. The problem is York's roads aren't built for cars, but so many of them squeeze into the city centre and then try to squeeze everyone else out!
What! York roads aren't built for cars? That's a good one beth?
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote]Well you didn’t did you? you said that everyone pays for the roads... which they don’t. You said you don’t speed you didn’t mention how this would be enforced for cyclists.[/quote] Hopefully in the same way as for cars - police speed traps. Or are you going to suggest because cyclists don't have a number plate, you feel it's okay to kill children because "they can't be caught for speeding"? Everyone pays for roads... oh, wait. Sorry. Children don't work so they don't pay tax. I see now why you feel it's okay to kill them. How dare the three year olds step onto the personal preserve of taxpayers? Run them down! [quote]Having cycled in large groups the majority feeling is that its better for a car to pass rather then putting pressure on behind a group and getting inpatient. This causes more danger when a car accelerates past rather then driving consistanlty past. [/quote] I feel the opposite. When a car is behind me and not trying to come past it feels safer than when they speed or squeeze past. The problem is York's roads aren't built for cars, but so many of them squeeze into the city centre and then try to squeeze everyone else out![/p][/quote]What! York roads aren't built for cars? That's a good one beth? notpedallingpaul
  • Score: 998

5:35pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Caecilius says...

archieboldthe2nd wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
Yeller Belly wrote: Who'll pay for it Beth? There's no money. The council have blown it on nonsense like this.
This is what manifestos are for. Maybe it'll make the next round of pledges or city development. I don't know as I obviously don't know the situation but I'm not sure we should be competing schemes against each other. 20mph was a priority this time around... hopefully your road will be next in line for some attention. Personally I would support a 100% blanket 20mph zone from once you get off the ring road (or maybe a few hundred metres of 40, 30 etc) so all these signs could be removed (ugly street furniture) and then random patrols across all roads. If that's in a manifesto next year I'd probably vote for it. I know so many people who've had really bad experiences whilst riding it's a big thing for me.
But Beth if you are a keen cyclist will you stick to the 20mph limit? If so how? Will the police enforce and fine cyclists going over 20mph in your dream blanket zones? I’ve had cyclists pass me which am even more dangerous on your blind side. Why should cars (the reasons why roads were built) have to slow down so cyclists can enjoy their bike ride on our roads but yet they can go faster then 20mph?

Now don't get me wrong cyclists can use our roads we will let them... but for me as someone who has cycled its a lot safer if a car can overtake you going faster rather then hover around you going the same speed. The quicker a car passes the safer a cyclist is.

Ps did you know the councillor when she was knocked off her bike that caused this whole mess? You can pretty easily kill a cyclist at 20mph you know... as soon as a car goes under a car tyre the crack whatever the speed.

I want to take my skateboard on the road and it would be much more enjoyable if cars only did 10mph lets enforce that... lets change the whole speed limits that have been around for decades to keep a minority happy. After all I know a lot of cyclists and non of them are even ar@ed about how fast a car goes in york as long as they take them into consideration... Even better lets waste more police time collecting revenue from motorists rather then actually doing their job… crime prevention!
You think roads didn't exist before 1895, when the first car ran on one in England? Really? Try reading this:

http://www.theguardi
an.com/environment/b
ike-blog/2011/aug/15
/cyclists-paved-way-
for-roads

And the roads in York aren't "our roads": they're maintained by CoYC and their maintenance is therefore funded by council tax payers. All council tax payers, including the ones who cycle on them and the ones who need to cross them on foot. Once again, a motorist - without any sense of irony - is accusing other road users of demanding that their interests should take priority, when in reality it's the motorist himself who's the one doing precisely that.

I'ld be more than happy to see the police dealing with motorists who are breaking the law, even if the motorists refuse to acknowledge that's what they're doing. Let's see speed limits, parking restrictions and road traffic legislation actually enforced, and people who flout them prosecuted.
[quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yeller Belly[/bold] wrote: Who'll pay for it Beth? There's no money. The council have blown it on nonsense like this.[/p][/quote]This is what manifestos are for. Maybe it'll make the next round of pledges or city development. I don't know as I obviously don't know the situation but I'm not sure we should be competing schemes against each other. 20mph was a priority this time around... hopefully your road will be next in line for some attention. Personally I would support a 100% blanket 20mph zone from once you get off the ring road (or maybe a few hundred metres of 40, 30 etc) so all these signs could be removed (ugly street furniture) and then random patrols across all roads. If that's in a manifesto next year I'd probably vote for it. I know so many people who've had really bad experiences whilst riding it's a big thing for me.[/p][/quote]But Beth if you are a keen cyclist will you stick to the 20mph limit? If so how? Will the police enforce and fine cyclists going over 20mph in your dream blanket zones? I’ve had cyclists pass me which am even more dangerous on your blind side. Why should cars (the reasons why roads were built) have to slow down so cyclists can enjoy their bike ride on our roads but yet they can go faster then 20mph? Now don't get me wrong cyclists can use our roads we will let them... but for me as someone who has cycled its a lot safer if a car can overtake you going faster rather then hover around you going the same speed. The quicker a car passes the safer a cyclist is. Ps did you know the councillor when she was knocked off her bike that caused this whole mess? You can pretty easily kill a cyclist at 20mph you know... as soon as a car goes under a car tyre the crack whatever the speed. I want to take my skateboard on the road and it would be much more enjoyable if cars only did 10mph lets enforce that... lets change the whole speed limits that have been around for decades to keep a minority happy. After all I know a lot of cyclists and non of them are even ar@ed about how fast a car goes in york as long as they take them into consideration... Even better lets waste more police time collecting revenue from motorists rather then actually doing their job… crime prevention![/p][/quote]You think roads didn't exist before 1895, when the first car ran on one in England? Really? Try reading this: http://www.theguardi an.com/environment/b ike-blog/2011/aug/15 /cyclists-paved-way- for-roads And the roads in York aren't "our [motorists'] roads": they're maintained by CoYC and their maintenance is therefore funded by council tax payers. All council tax payers, including the ones who cycle on them and the ones who need to cross them on foot. Once again, a motorist - without any sense of irony - is accusing other road users of demanding that their interests should take priority, when in reality it's the motorist himself who's the one doing precisely that. I'ld be more than happy to see the police dealing with motorists who are breaking the law, even if the motorists refuse to acknowledge that's what they're doing. Let's see speed limits, parking restrictions and road traffic legislation actually enforced, and people who flout them prosecuted. Caecilius
  • Score: 1198

5:40pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Cheeky face says...

Yeller Belly wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
This isn't a waste at all. My street is so much nicer now that cars go a bit slower. It's upsetting that the police don't give it much attention actually.

This exercise isn't about making cash form fines. It is about making streets safer. It was a manifesto pledge which the city voted for.

I do not know the councillor and she is not my ward councillor. I do not know why she is stepping down. But I am certainly not adverse to a councillor being elected to do a specific thing - fight a housing project, 20mph roads, save a hospital, whatever - and they leave when it has been accomplished. We get far too many career politicians as it is. We don't vote on whether or not we like someone. We vote for people based on their pledges. The councillor and her labour colleagues told us all what they would do and are doing it. Seems a bit of a non-story to me, other than to congratulate some politicians for actually keeping their promises!!

I wish to see a labour - green coalition in May 2015 at city level so we can look forward to even more streets being tamed for everyone, not just 4x4s or selfish car owners (you know who you are!).
That's lovely. I live on a street which has unenforced 30 mph limits, and cars regularly do 50-60 down it. I know where I'd have preferred the money to be spent. The situation is compounded by the fact that the side streets are all 20 mph and the idea that you could exceed 20 down them is laughable.

It's a vanity project which has had no effect on safety whatsoever.
Side streets under 6oometres SHOULD NOT HAVE 20LIMIT SIGNS.
[quote][p][bold]Yeller Belly[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: This isn't a waste at all. My street is so much nicer now that cars go a bit slower. It's upsetting that the police don't give it much attention actually. This exercise isn't about making cash form fines. It is about making streets safer. It was a manifesto pledge which the city voted for. I do not know the councillor and she is not my ward councillor. I do not know why she is stepping down. But I am certainly not adverse to a councillor being elected to do a specific thing - fight a housing project, 20mph roads, save a hospital, whatever - and they leave when it has been accomplished. We get far too many career politicians as it is. We don't vote on whether or not we like someone. We vote for people based on their pledges. The councillor and her labour colleagues told us all what they would do and are doing it. Seems a bit of a non-story to me, other than to congratulate some politicians for actually keeping their promises!! I wish to see a labour - green coalition in May 2015 at city level so we can look forward to even more streets being tamed for everyone, not just 4x4s or selfish car owners (you know who you are!).[/p][/quote]That's lovely. I live on a street which has unenforced 30 mph limits, and cars regularly do 50-60 down it. I know where I'd have preferred the money to be spent. The situation is compounded by the fact that the side streets are all 20 mph and the idea that you could exceed 20 down them is laughable. It's a vanity project which has had no effect on safety whatsoever.[/p][/quote]Side streets under 6oometres SHOULD NOT HAVE 20LIMIT SIGNS. Cheeky face
  • Score: 1134

5:49pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Cheeky face says...

Meldrew2 wrote:
Speed bumps? They cause untold damage to cars as well as making drivers change to a lower gear and produce more pollutants.

Get rid - like they did down Camplesdown Road for the TDF. Much better down there now with the only calming methods outside the school.

Much better to have calming measures like they have in Rufforth.
Quite right. Speed humps are due to return on Campleshon Rd. Lots of red tape before that gets achieved.

Scarborough has chicanes as an alternative to humps in some streets.
[quote][p][bold]Meldrew2[/bold] wrote: Speed bumps? They cause untold damage to cars as well as making drivers change to a lower gear and produce more pollutants. Get rid - like they did down Camplesdown Road for the TDF. Much better down there now with the only calming methods outside the school. Much better to have calming measures like they have in Rufforth.[/p][/quote]Quite right. Speed humps are due to return on Campleshon Rd. Lots of red tape before that gets achieved. Scarborough has chicanes as an alternative to humps in some streets. Cheeky face
  • Score: 1603

5:57pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Cheeky face says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
Meldrew2 wrote:
Speed bumps? They cause untold damage to cars as well as making drivers change to a lower gear and produce more pollutants.

Get rid - like they did down Camplesdown Road for the TDF. Much better down there now with the only calming methods outside the school.

Much better to have calming measures like they have in Rufforth.
They only cause damage if cars go over them too quickly!! They are not great for horses either but seem to be better than the alternative.
Are you a qualified vehicle examiner? If not please get some facts first.

All humps and uneven road surfaces wear out suspension and tyres more quickly; with careful speeds not attracting a lot less wear than you think.

15 mph over humps in some cars creates 10% more tyre wear.
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Meldrew2[/bold] wrote: Speed bumps? They cause untold damage to cars as well as making drivers change to a lower gear and produce more pollutants. Get rid - like they did down Camplesdown Road for the TDF. Much better down there now with the only calming methods outside the school. Much better to have calming measures like they have in Rufforth.[/p][/quote]They only cause damage if cars go over them too quickly!! They are not great for horses either but seem to be better than the alternative.[/p][/quote]Are you a qualified vehicle examiner? If not please get some facts first. All humps and uneven road surfaces wear out suspension and tyres more quickly; with careful speeds not attracting a lot less wear than you think. 15 mph over humps in some cars creates 10% more tyre wear. Cheeky face
  • Score: 1277

6:09pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Ichabod76 says...

BethFoxhunter96 says...

You talk garbage. Where are the facts from your knowledge on this matter? Educate the children and there isn't a need for a reduced speed limit it really is as simple and cheap as that. No the reason why i feel cars are targeted is because the world we live in has lost common sense! its a road! cars use them! don't walk in them unless its clear! don't let your child off its lead if there is a chance it will run into said road!


Your common sense isn't my version of common sense. It is a road. And everyone uses them. Children and leads... as I said earlier, you're clearly not a parent not have responsibility to look after children.

Your common sense is that of a 16 year old girl

And as for children, I have them and I don't think I'd be happy for you to be responsible for looking after them.
Roads even ones with 20 MPH zones are not places for children to play about.
If one child is killed on a road that has been changed to a 20 zone because Anna Semlyen said it's a safer place for children, then she should be held personally responsible.
[/quote]BethFoxhunter96 says... You talk garbage. Where are the facts from your knowledge on this matter? Educate the children and there isn't a need for a reduced speed limit it really is as simple and cheap as that. No the reason why i feel cars are targeted is because the world we live in has lost common sense! its a road! cars use them! don't walk in them unless its clear! don't let your child off its lead if there is a chance it will run into said road! Your common sense isn't my version of common sense. It is a road. And everyone uses them. Children and leads... as I said earlier, you're clearly not a parent not have responsibility to look after children.[/p][/quote] Your common sense is that of a 16 year old girl And as for children, I have them and I don't think I'd be happy for you to be responsible for looking after them. Roads even ones with 20 MPH zones are not places for children to play about. If one child is killed on a road that has been changed to a 20 zone because Anna Semlyen said it's a safer place for children, then she should be held personally responsible. Ichabod76
  • Score: 1001

6:12pm Wed 13 Aug 14

HoofHearteds says...

Wading through the treacle, the topic appears to have stirred the blocked toilet with a whinging stick again.

Maybe one life was saved for this venture. Maybe two! No one will ever know.. What price do we put on a life? £@~'#!? Figures and amounts are flying all over the place here. But life's much more than that. When you drop into the cesspit of monetary mania, you end up being poked by that whinging stick ;))
Wading through the treacle, the topic appears to have stirred the blocked toilet with a whinging stick again. Maybe one life was saved for this venture. Maybe two! No one will ever know.. What price do we put on a life? £@~'#!? Figures and amounts are flying all over the place here. But life's much more than that. When you drop into the cesspit of monetary mania, you end up being poked by that whinging stick ;)) HoofHearteds
  • Score: 1009

6:13pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Cheeky face says...

notpedallingpaul wrote:
pbrowne2009@live.co.

uk
wrote:
I laugh every time I pass a pointless 20mph sign. Unless its going past a school of course. In fact, just to flaunt the stupid idea I actually speed up. Police flaunt it, the general public flaunt it and to some extent the average fast paced cyclist flaunts it. People don't flaunt the signs because they feel rebellious, they flaunt it because it's a complete pointless scheme and a waste of money.
You forgot to mention busses, I have yet to drive behind one sticking to 20mph on the straight section of Bishopthorpe Road going past the pub!

As for beths speed humps, I suggest she tries driving down Heslington Road past St Lawrences school with a Uni Bus stuck to her rear bumper, like I have had on occasions, they dont need to slow down as they can straddle the speed cushions due to the wider track, whilst my car cant, so I just drive even slower just to p**s them off!!
Bishy Rd is 20mph limit til Bustardthorpe, and was an early 20mph pilot.

Speeds marginally down on thisd road , but buses, police cars, and council vans do well over 20mph. Near the Winning Post there are two bus stops, neither well marked with yellow paint. In fact the one called Cameron Gr is sited in a position which is dangerous and contradicts the highway code. Will the council sort it? No is the answer!
[quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pbrowne2009@live.co. uk[/bold] wrote: I laugh every time I pass a pointless 20mph sign. Unless its going past a school of course. In fact, just to flaunt the stupid idea I actually speed up. Police flaunt it, the general public flaunt it and to some extent the average fast paced cyclist flaunts it. People don't flaunt the signs because they feel rebellious, they flaunt it because it's a complete pointless scheme and a waste of money.[/p][/quote]You forgot to mention busses, I have yet to drive behind one sticking to 20mph on the straight section of Bishopthorpe Road going past the pub! As for beths speed humps, I suggest she tries driving down Heslington Road past St Lawrences school with a Uni Bus stuck to her rear bumper, like I have had on occasions, they dont need to slow down as they can straddle the speed cushions due to the wider track, whilst my car cant, so I just drive even slower just to p**s them off!![/p][/quote]Bishy Rd is 20mph limit til Bustardthorpe, and was an early 20mph pilot. Speeds marginally down on thisd road , but buses, police cars, and council vans do well over 20mph. Near the Winning Post there are two bus stops, neither well marked with yellow paint. In fact the one called Cameron Gr is sited in a position which is dangerous and contradicts the highway code. Will the council sort it? No is the answer! Cheeky face
  • Score: 1036

6:30pm Wed 13 Aug 14

bill bailey says...

ITS because if they go faster drivers break the car in half with the humps in the road,
ITS because if they go faster drivers break the car in half with the humps in the road, bill bailey
  • Score: 1076

6:31pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Haywire says...

archieboldthe2nd wrote:
Haywire wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
Haywire wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
greenmonkey wrote:
robynd wrote: The more pertinant question is - have incidents and injuries decreased in the 20 mph zones. Probably not enough time to get enough data yet. And the data needs to be analysed carefully as the zones are likely to have been built in areas where accidents are more likely. If there have been a reduction in injuries, isn't that a good thing?
This is a very good point. Until it is implemented across the city there will be mixed messages about what the appropriate speed should be as you drive about. Getting the police to take action on any speed limits in York is difficult - only when people get injured or killed is it deemed a priority. No doubt the fact that its traffic cops who expect to drive around at speed themselves who get to comment on the limits has something to do with their attitude to 20mph. It would only take a few random speed traps to get the message over that the limit is there to be obeyed. However the bottom line for me is that if a driver hits someone when driving exceeding the speed limit the blame will be on them, and i would rather have most people driving down residential streets at 20 -30mph than at 35 -40mph as often happens with the present 30mph limit. Get hit by a car at 25mph and you have a good chance of surviving, at 35 -40mph you've little or no chance.
what are the breaking calcs between 20mph & 35mph? I always put this bluntly. If someone walks into a road without looking if there is a car, it is not the drivers fault. Yes they might have been going over the speed limit but the breaking distrances are like 2-5m extra (so 10-15m in total usually if dry) if you run out in front of a car that is 10-15m away then fool on you.
I'm not sure why you would want to break the calculations. I think that they should remain whole. Anyway, what we are talking about here is not numbers, but breaking bodies - especially young ones.
Well it is numbers really isn't it? We are talking about zero (a number) drivers being caught breaking 20mph (also a number). Then educate the young! its far safer to stop the risk at source!!!! I'm not the brightest lad but stop look listen wasn't too hard to remember and guess what??? I’ve not been run over... and that was from growing up next to moor late when it was 40mph... Suppose you support the school safety car that will fine dangerous parking too?? Instead of a scheme in schools to show them the dangers and prevent the risk rather then record it! and deal with it after...
As I have mentioned earlier, even if everybody was exceeding the limit, nobody would be caught because nobody is checking. No surprises there then! Keep up at the back! Since you insist that we talk about numbers, what would you accept as reasonable in the way of the number of kids killed and injured by road vehicles in York each year?
I never mention "As I have mentioned earlier, even if everybody was exceeding the limit, nobody would be caught because nobody is checking."??? i quoted the title of the article?

Not sure why don't you tell me how many have been in the last 5 years and the reasons why they were killed? you seem hot on the subject?

I can tell you my friend ran one over who ran out from in-between busses? he was doing the speed limit and got sued... so tell me what would a decrease in the speed limit do for an unavailable situation like that?! was it the drivers fault or are you yet again missing the point that kids need educating? not drivers!
Please define:
1) Breaking calcs ?!
2) an unavailable situation?!
[quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]robynd[/bold] wrote: The more pertinant question is - have incidents and injuries decreased in the 20 mph zones. Probably not enough time to get enough data yet. And the data needs to be analysed carefully as the zones are likely to have been built in areas where accidents are more likely. If there have been a reduction in injuries, isn't that a good thing?[/p][/quote]This is a very good point. Until it is implemented across the city there will be mixed messages about what the appropriate speed should be as you drive about. Getting the police to take action on any speed limits in York is difficult - only when people get injured or killed is it deemed a priority. No doubt the fact that its traffic cops who expect to drive around at speed themselves who get to comment on the limits has something to do with their attitude to 20mph. It would only take a few random speed traps to get the message over that the limit is there to be obeyed. However the bottom line for me is that if a driver hits someone when driving exceeding the speed limit the blame will be on them, and i would rather have most people driving down residential streets at 20 -30mph than at 35 -40mph as often happens with the present 30mph limit. Get hit by a car at 25mph and you have a good chance of surviving, at 35 -40mph you've little or no chance.[/p][/quote]what are the breaking calcs between 20mph & 35mph? I always put this bluntly. If someone walks into a road without looking if there is a car, it is not the drivers fault. Yes they might have been going over the speed limit but the breaking distrances are like 2-5m extra (so 10-15m in total usually if dry) if you run out in front of a car that is 10-15m away then fool on you.[/p][/quote]I'm not sure why you would want to break the calculations. I think that they should remain whole. Anyway, what we are talking about here is not numbers, but breaking bodies - especially young ones.[/p][/quote]Well it is numbers really isn't it? We are talking about zero (a number) drivers being caught breaking 20mph (also a number). Then educate the young! its far safer to stop the risk at source!!!! I'm not the brightest lad but stop look listen wasn't too hard to remember and guess what??? I’ve not been run over... and that was from growing up next to moor late when it was 40mph... Suppose you support the school safety car that will fine dangerous parking too?? Instead of a scheme in schools to show them the dangers and prevent the risk rather then record it! and deal with it after...[/p][/quote]As I have mentioned earlier, even if everybody was exceeding the limit, nobody would be caught because nobody is checking. No surprises there then! Keep up at the back! Since you insist that we talk about numbers, what would you accept as reasonable in the way of the number of kids killed and injured by road vehicles in York each year?[/p][/quote]I never mention "As I have mentioned earlier, even if everybody was exceeding the limit, nobody would be caught because nobody is checking."??? i quoted the title of the article? Not sure why don't you tell me how many have been in the last 5 years and the reasons why they were killed? you seem hot on the subject? I can tell you my friend ran one over who ran out from in-between busses? he was doing the speed limit and got sued... so tell me what would a decrease in the speed limit do for an unavailable situation like that?! was it the drivers fault or are you yet again missing the point that kids need educating? not drivers![/p][/quote]Please define: 1) Breaking calcs ?! 2) an unavailable situation?! Haywire
  • Score: 1067

6:34pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Jonlogical says...

The Council could have used the £600,000 to pay for the closure of Lendal bridge, or was that another £600,000 of my money the irresponsible morons wasted?
The Council could have used the £600,000 to pay for the closure of Lendal bridge, or was that another £600,000 of my money the irresponsible morons wasted? Jonlogical
  • Score: 1051

6:57pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Loggo Logmond says...

Transport issues have basically finished any chance of Labour getting in next time. This Semylen woman is a very queer woman. Wasnt she ripping people off a few years ago with something to do with solar energy?
Transport issues have basically finished any chance of Labour getting in next time. This Semylen woman is a very queer woman. Wasnt she ripping people off a few years ago with something to do with solar energy? Loggo Logmond
  • Score: 1003

7:16pm Wed 13 Aug 14

york_chap says...

There'll always be a few people who dislike or have an irrational fear of motorised vehicles; it's just unfortunate that one of them has managed to persuade the council to blow £600k on useless street furniture which we all now have to live with. Like most rational people, the police are simply aware of the futility of these 20mph limits - them having been installed in small cul-de-sacs and roads which have seen no accidents attributable to speeding. Frankly, I'm glad they're spending their time on other matters which are actually worthwhile.

As an aside, the constant slating of 4x4's by this 'Beth foxhunter' character just reinforces the impression that many of the people who want to make driving less convenient are simply jealous of those who can afford to drive a car, particularly an expensive one. Funnily enough, the last time I drove past a point to point race organised by a local hunt, well over 50% of the cars parked up there were 4x4s. Go figure.
There'll always be a few people who dislike or have an irrational fear of motorised vehicles; it's just unfortunate that one of them has managed to persuade the council to blow £600k on useless street furniture which we all now have to live with. Like most rational people, the police are simply aware of the futility of these 20mph limits - them having been installed in small cul-de-sacs and roads which have seen no accidents attributable to speeding. Frankly, I'm glad they're spending their time on other matters which are actually worthwhile. As an aside, the constant slating of 4x4's by this 'Beth foxhunter' character just reinforces the impression that many of the people who want to make driving less convenient are simply jealous of those who can afford to drive a car, particularly an expensive one. Funnily enough, the last time I drove past a point to point race organised by a local hunt, well over 50% of the cars parked up there were 4x4s. Go figure. york_chap
  • Score: 997

7:44pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Fanny Free House says...

EH-Up Gordon Cheapcastle is changing the scores because they think it will persuade people that all the comments are personal, un-shared and not based on common perception of Labours most pathetic and damaging term in office.

Dream on, your time is limited and your cause as poorly thought out and executed just like everything Labour has done to ruin the City of York and it's finances.

All of a sudden Alexander wants better jobs for York, wonder why, is reality starting to hit home?. Anyway there will be 80 jobs available in the new McDonalds, suggest you wake up each day and practice saying "enjoy your meal, have a nice day".
EH-Up Gordon Cheapcastle is changing the scores because they think it will persuade people that all the comments are personal, un-shared and not based on common perception of Labours most pathetic and damaging term in office. Dream on, your time is limited and your cause as poorly thought out and executed just like everything Labour has done to ruin the City of York and it's finances. All of a sudden Alexander wants better jobs for York, wonder why, is reality starting to hit home?. Anyway there will be 80 jobs available in the new McDonalds, suggest you wake up each day and practice saying "enjoy your meal, have a nice day". Fanny Free House
  • Score: 1058

7:50pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Bo Jolly says...

Caecilius wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
Yeller Belly wrote: Who'll pay for it Beth? There's no money. The council have blown it on nonsense like this.
This is what manifestos are for. Maybe it'll make the next round of pledges or city development. I don't know as I obviously don't know the situation but I'm not sure we should be competing schemes against each other. 20mph was a priority this time around... hopefully your road will be next in line for some attention. Personally I would support a 100% blanket 20mph zone from once you get off the ring road (or maybe a few hundred metres of 40, 30 etc) so all these signs could be removed (ugly street furniture) and then random patrols across all roads. If that's in a manifesto next year I'd probably vote for it. I know so many people who've had really bad experiences whilst riding it's a big thing for me.
But Beth if you are a keen cyclist will you stick to the 20mph limit? If so how? Will the police enforce and fine cyclists going over 20mph in your dream blanket zones? I’ve had cyclists pass me which am even more dangerous on your blind side. Why should cars (the reasons why roads were built) have to slow down so cyclists can enjoy their bike ride on our roads but yet they can go faster then 20mph?

Now don't get me wrong cyclists can use our roads we will let them... but for me as someone who has cycled its a lot safer if a car can overtake you going faster rather then hover around you going the same speed. The quicker a car passes the safer a cyclist is.

Ps did you know the councillor when she was knocked off her bike that caused this whole mess? You can pretty easily kill a cyclist at 20mph you know... as soon as a car goes under a car tyre the crack whatever the speed.

I want to take my skateboard on the road and it would be much more enjoyable if cars only did 10mph lets enforce that... lets change the whole speed limits that have been around for decades to keep a minority happy. After all I know a lot of cyclists and non of them are even ar@ed about how fast a car goes in york as long as they take them into consideration... Even better lets waste more police time collecting revenue from motorists rather then actually doing their job… crime prevention!
You think roads didn't exist before 1895, when the first car ran on one in England? Really? Try reading this:

http://www.theguardi

an.com/environment/b

ike-blog/2011/aug/15

/cyclists-paved-way-

for-roads

And the roads in York aren't "our roads": they're maintained by CoYC and their maintenance is therefore funded by council tax payers. All council tax payers, including the ones who cycle on them and the ones who need to cross them on foot. Once again, a motorist - without any sense of irony - is accusing other road users of demanding that their interests should take priority, when in reality it's the motorist himself who's the one doing precisely that.

I'ld be more than happy to see the police dealing with motorists who are breaking the law, even if the motorists refuse to acknowledge that's what they're doing. Let's see speed limits, parking restrictions and road traffic legislation actually enforced, and people who flout them prosecuted.
Caecilius, you obviously haven't read the Guardian article (which is ironic since you're urging others to read it). Its title is a bit misleading and I suspect you never got any further. It makes the claim that modern road *surfaces* were driven by the needs of cyclists, NOT the roads themselves.

Roads - from Roman times onward - were for horse-drawn carts and carriages (and later for steam driven motor vehicles) and were designed for that purpose right up until the motor car and lorry transport took over.

The reason they work so well for cars is that *cars* are designed to be about the same size as carts so that they can fit on the existing road network. That's why American cars are historically so big compared with European ones (not many medieval town centres in the US!)

Of all the well-worn cliches of anti-car campaigners, the 'roads weren't built for cars' is the most nonsensical; no they weren't, quite right, but cars *were* built to fit the existing roads.
[quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yeller Belly[/bold] wrote: Who'll pay for it Beth? There's no money. The council have blown it on nonsense like this.[/p][/quote]This is what manifestos are for. Maybe it'll make the next round of pledges or city development. I don't know as I obviously don't know the situation but I'm not sure we should be competing schemes against each other. 20mph was a priority this time around... hopefully your road will be next in line for some attention. Personally I would support a 100% blanket 20mph zone from once you get off the ring road (or maybe a few hundred metres of 40, 30 etc) so all these signs could be removed (ugly street furniture) and then random patrols across all roads. If that's in a manifesto next year I'd probably vote for it. I know so many people who've had really bad experiences whilst riding it's a big thing for me.[/p][/quote]But Beth if you are a keen cyclist will you stick to the 20mph limit? If so how? Will the police enforce and fine cyclists going over 20mph in your dream blanket zones? I’ve had cyclists pass me which am even more dangerous on your blind side. Why should cars (the reasons why roads were built) have to slow down so cyclists can enjoy their bike ride on our roads but yet they can go faster then 20mph? Now don't get me wrong cyclists can use our roads we will let them... but for me as someone who has cycled its a lot safer if a car can overtake you going faster rather then hover around you going the same speed. The quicker a car passes the safer a cyclist is. Ps did you know the councillor when she was knocked off her bike that caused this whole mess? You can pretty easily kill a cyclist at 20mph you know... as soon as a car goes under a car tyre the crack whatever the speed. I want to take my skateboard on the road and it would be much more enjoyable if cars only did 10mph lets enforce that... lets change the whole speed limits that have been around for decades to keep a minority happy. After all I know a lot of cyclists and non of them are even ar@ed about how fast a car goes in york as long as they take them into consideration... Even better lets waste more police time collecting revenue from motorists rather then actually doing their job… crime prevention![/p][/quote]You think roads didn't exist before 1895, when the first car ran on one in England? Really? Try reading this: http://www.theguardi an.com/environment/b ike-blog/2011/aug/15 /cyclists-paved-way- for-roads And the roads in York aren't "our [motorists'] roads": they're maintained by CoYC and their maintenance is therefore funded by council tax payers. All council tax payers, including the ones who cycle on them and the ones who need to cross them on foot. Once again, a motorist - without any sense of irony - is accusing other road users of demanding that their interests should take priority, when in reality it's the motorist himself who's the one doing precisely that. I'ld be more than happy to see the police dealing with motorists who are breaking the law, even if the motorists refuse to acknowledge that's what they're doing. Let's see speed limits, parking restrictions and road traffic legislation actually enforced, and people who flout them prosecuted.[/p][/quote]Caecilius, you obviously haven't read the Guardian article (which is ironic since you're urging others to read it). Its title is a bit misleading and I suspect you never got any further. It makes the claim that modern road *surfaces* were driven by the needs of cyclists, NOT the roads themselves. Roads - from Roman times onward - were for horse-drawn carts and carriages (and later for steam driven motor vehicles) and were designed for that purpose right up until the motor car and lorry transport took over. The reason they work so well for cars is that *cars* are designed to be about the same size as carts so that they can fit on the existing road network. That's why American cars are historically so big compared with European ones (not many medieval town centres in the US!) Of all the well-worn cliches of anti-car campaigners, the 'roads weren't built for cars' is the most nonsensical; no they weren't, quite right, but cars *were* built to fit the existing roads. Bo Jolly
  • Score: 1181

7:59pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Bo Jolly says...

I see the score adjuster is at work already with some comments swinging from the +100s to minus figures in a matter of minutes.

Its a shame the Press can't stop it.

Does the council actually employ someone to change the scores, or is it just a sad individual? its *such* a lot of work (unless there's some kind of programming work-around) that, in a way, I really hope they get paid a decent wage for their efforts. Otherwise its sore eyes, sore fingers and wasted time for no purpose whatsoever...
I see the score adjuster is at work already with some comments swinging from the +100s to minus figures in a matter of minutes. Its a shame the Press can't stop it. Does the council actually employ someone to change the scores, or is it just a sad individual? its *such* a lot of work (unless there's some kind of programming work-around) that, in a way, I really hope they get paid a decent wage for their efforts. Otherwise its sore eyes, sore fingers and wasted time for no purpose whatsoever... Bo Jolly
  • Score: 996

8:38pm Wed 13 Aug 14

MorkofYork says...

I was in Harrogate the other day, didn't see any 20mph signs. Must be nice living somewhere civilized where the council don't treat everyone like incompetent idiots.

What an ugly mess they've made and every sign is an insult.
I was in Harrogate the other day, didn't see any 20mph signs. Must be nice living somewhere civilized where the council don't treat everyone like incompetent idiots. What an ugly mess they've made and every sign is an insult. MorkofYork
  • Score: 1078

8:42pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Martin Dawson says...

20mph speed limit is a joke any way - trying to do 10mph is a miracle half the time... mindst yer, go down Piccadilly around 4-5 o'clock there's plenty of idiots doing over 30 and the rest, or try Acomb Road coming out of Holgate...
20mph speed limit is a joke any way - trying to do 10mph is a miracle half the time... mindst yer, go down Piccadilly around 4-5 o'clock there's plenty of idiots doing over 30 and the rest, or try Acomb Road coming out of Holgate... Martin Dawson
  • Score: 996

8:50pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Haywire says...

pbrowne2009@live.co.
uk
wrote:
notpedallingpaul wrote:
pbrowne2009@live.co.


uk
wrote:
I laugh every time I pass a pointless 20mph sign. Unless its going past a school of course. In fact, just to flaunt the stupid idea I actually speed up. Police flaunt it, the general public flaunt it and to some extent the average fast paced cyclist flaunts it. People don't flaunt the signs because they feel rebellious, they flaunt it because it's a complete pointless scheme and a waste of money.
You forgot to mention busses, I have yet to drive behind one sticking to 20mph on the straight section of Bishopthorpe Road going past the pub!

As for beths speed humps, I suggest she tries driving down Heslington Road past St Lawrences school with a Uni Bus stuck to her rear bumper, like I have had on occasions, they dont need to slow down as they can straddle the speed cushions due to the wider track, whilst my car cant, so I just drive even slower just to p**s them off!!
I got so sick and tired of driving and paying for a car i invested in a decent honda 125cc 4 stroke bike. Will do 75mph, will get 200 miles to a £15 tank of fuel, costs me £16py to tax, £100 py to insure and I don't get stuck in traffic or face going over bumps.

I have access to my partners car for off-peak driving (which in York is any time between 11pm and 5am)

York is just a joke when it comes to the roads. Its a bad city for roads, yet instead of making a bad situation better, the council continue to make a bad situation worse. Pointless bumps, a traffic light system that actually causes traffic jams (ever noticed how smooth traffic flows when the lights don't work?) HUGE pointless buses too big for the roads, half empty and stop every 1/4 mile. Speed bumps that are designed to kill the car not slow it down. roundabouts that don't allow traffic to flow evenly in all directions. (traffic lights 50 yards after a roundabout so cars clog up and don't allow traffic to flow)

Pointless schemes to widen the ring road instead of just duelling the whole thing. But will still invest in a Park and Ride at every entry point going into York.

THE LIST GOES ON AND ON AND ON..............
Your (feasible) alternative?
[quote][p][bold]pbrowne2009@live.co. uk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pbrowne2009@live.co. uk[/bold] wrote: I laugh every time I pass a pointless 20mph sign. Unless its going past a school of course. In fact, just to flaunt the stupid idea I actually speed up. Police flaunt it, the general public flaunt it and to some extent the average fast paced cyclist flaunts it. People don't flaunt the signs because they feel rebellious, they flaunt it because it's a complete pointless scheme and a waste of money.[/p][/quote]You forgot to mention busses, I have yet to drive behind one sticking to 20mph on the straight section of Bishopthorpe Road going past the pub! As for beths speed humps, I suggest she tries driving down Heslington Road past St Lawrences school with a Uni Bus stuck to her rear bumper, like I have had on occasions, they dont need to slow down as they can straddle the speed cushions due to the wider track, whilst my car cant, so I just drive even slower just to p**s them off!![/p][/quote]I got so sick and tired of driving and paying for a car i invested in a decent honda 125cc 4 stroke bike. Will do 75mph, will get 200 miles to a £15 tank of fuel, costs me £16py to tax, £100 py to insure and I don't get stuck in traffic or face going over bumps. I have access to my partners car for off-peak driving (which in York is any time between 11pm and 5am) York is just a joke when it comes to the roads. Its a bad city for roads, yet instead of making a bad situation better, the council continue to make a bad situation worse. Pointless bumps, a traffic light system that actually causes traffic jams (ever noticed how smooth traffic flows when the lights don't work?) HUGE pointless buses too big for the roads, half empty and stop every 1/4 mile. Speed bumps that are designed to kill the car not slow it down. roundabouts that don't allow traffic to flow evenly in all directions. (traffic lights 50 yards after a roundabout so cars clog up and don't allow traffic to flow) Pointless schemes to widen the ring road instead of just duelling the whole thing. But will still invest in a Park and Ride at every entry point going into York. THE LIST GOES ON AND ON AND ON..............[/p][/quote]Your (feasible) alternative? Haywire
  • Score: 1036

8:53pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Haywire says...

archieboldthe2nd wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
I can tell you my friend ran one over who ran out from in-between busses? he was doing the speed limit and got sued... so tell me what would a decrease in the speed limit do for an unavailable situation like that?! was it the drivers fault or are you yet again missing the point that kids need educating? not drivers!
I think using made-up stories to demonstrate tedious, tenuous points shows how desperate you are absolve the poor car hard-done by driver from any blame and shift it onto the shoulders of the dead or injured child / cyclist / horse rider / whoever else. There are so many reasons why there should be a lot of constraints against cars and not against children. The last time a driver died as a result of a child running out into the road was when? Oh, silly me - it's cars that kill, hurt and maime, not children.
Ok look up accidents next to the asda just off foss island within the past 8 years where the bus stop is/was.. The car was a silver golf j reg if that helps... nice try to rubbish something though beth.. his insurance was about 2k per year because of that daft little girl! luckily he managed to swerve a tad so she only got a broken arm. if it was full on it would have been a lot worse!!! And no if the child as run into the road the driver hasn't killed them! the same as when someone runs onto a train track! they know the risks and they got hit! if a driver can not prevent hitting someone who has been that stupid then it is not their fault
And no if the child as run into the road the driver hasn't killed them! the same as when someone runs onto a train track! they know the risks and they got hit! if a driver can not prevent hitting someone who has been that stupid then it is not their fault
This is the crux of the issue. It is not about fault. It is about stopping those sorts of accidents in the first place. Hopefully cars will follow the signs so that when children do go out onto the road, whether following the green cross code or not, they are less likely to be hit, and if they are, less likely to be seriously injured. All the waffle about killing children, speed bumps, everything else aside, this is the sprungenpointen. Speed kills. Slowly down reduces accidents and reduces the impact of those accidents. The reason you feel cars are targetted is because they cause most damage to both roads, and to others when involved in crashes.
You talk garbage. Where are the facts from your knowledge on this matter? Educate the children and there isn't a need for a reduced speed limit it really is as simple and cheap as that. No the reason why i feel cars are targeted is because the world we live in has lost common sense! its a road! cars use them! don't walk in them unless its clear! don't let your child off its lead if there is a chance it will run into said road!

Tell me why the above would not be enough? bar your balls about tripping over! parents need to take more responsibility about their Childs behaviour! it really is that simple.. Make it a blanket 20mph zone.. no one will obey it. Do you know why? because people get to an age and decide actually I’m old enough to assess the risks and dangers around me and 20mph is the same speed as Gareth bale running...

I'm bored of you now and I can't help but feel sorry for your horse... if you actually ever have something constructive and unbiased to say I’ll be here to listen... until then though you really should sit down and have a cuppa with Paul.. you can both talk pointless sh@t together.
And you think that you don't talk garbage?!!
[quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote]I can tell you my friend ran one over who ran out from in-between busses? he was doing the speed limit and got sued... so tell me what would a decrease in the speed limit do for an unavailable situation like that?! was it the drivers fault or are you yet again missing the point that kids need educating? not drivers![/quote] I think using made-up stories to demonstrate tedious, tenuous points shows how desperate you are absolve the poor car hard-done by driver from any blame and shift it onto the shoulders of the dead or injured child / cyclist / horse rider / whoever else. There are so many reasons why there should be a lot of constraints against cars and not against children. The last time a driver died as a result of a child running out into the road was when? Oh, silly me - it's cars that kill, hurt and maime, not children.[/p][/quote]Ok look up accidents next to the asda just off foss island within the past 8 years where the bus stop is/was.. The car was a silver golf j reg if that helps... nice try to rubbish something though beth.. his insurance was about 2k per year because of that daft little girl! luckily he managed to swerve a tad so she only got a broken arm. if it was full on it would have been a lot worse!!! And no if the child as run into the road the driver hasn't killed them! the same as when someone runs onto a train track! they know the risks and they got hit! if a driver can not prevent hitting someone who has been that stupid then it is not their fault[/p][/quote][quote]And no if the child as run into the road the driver hasn't killed them! the same as when someone runs onto a train track! they know the risks and they got hit! if a driver can not prevent hitting someone who has been that stupid then it is not their fault[/quote] This is the crux of the issue. It is not about fault. It is about stopping those sorts of accidents in the first place. Hopefully cars will follow the signs so that when children do go out onto the road, whether following the green cross code or not, they are less likely to be hit, and if they are, less likely to be seriously injured. All the waffle about killing children, speed bumps, everything else aside, this is the sprungenpointen. Speed kills. Slowly down reduces accidents and reduces the impact of those accidents. The reason you feel cars are targetted is because they cause most damage to both roads, and to others when involved in crashes.[/p][/quote]You talk garbage. Where are the facts from your knowledge on this matter? Educate the children and there isn't a need for a reduced speed limit it really is as simple and cheap as that. No the reason why i feel cars are targeted is because the world we live in has lost common sense! its a road! cars use them! don't walk in them unless its clear! don't let your child off its lead if there is a chance it will run into said road! Tell me why the above would not be enough? bar your balls about tripping over! parents need to take more responsibility about their Childs behaviour! it really is that simple.. Make it a blanket 20mph zone.. no one will obey it. Do you know why? because people get to an age and decide actually I’m old enough to assess the risks and dangers around me and 20mph is the same speed as Gareth bale running... I'm bored of you now and I can't help but feel sorry for your horse... if you actually ever have something constructive and unbiased to say I’ll be here to listen... until then though you really should sit down and have a cuppa with Paul.. you can both talk pointless sh@t together.[/p][/quote]And you think that you don't talk garbage?!! Haywire
  • Score: 1401

8:54pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Haywire says...

Cheeky face wrote:
Not a surprise that there have been no prosecutions in York

Middlesbrough had the zones/selective streets reduced to 20mph and had no fines for the first 2 years. Average speeds were slightly down in residential streets, but not all areas were monitored before/after the introduction.

However Islington, London, spent half a million pounds of local taxpayers/business rate payers hard-earned money. After the first 6 months there had been no speeding fines! Only 2 of 158 streets/roads involved had new average speeds below 20mph. Average speeds on 100 of the 158 thoroughfares the average speeds actually increased or remained the same. All this actual research, and was extracted from Daily Telegraph last week.

If the overall average speeds in residential areas is more than 3mph down then the council, safety conscious people, and police will be happy.
The signs in York thoroughfares of less than 600 metres DID not need 20 limit signs if the council had followed the rules/guidance.

Whether the council were right or wrong we may never know. Could the transportable variable message illumination boards have been programmed to warn motorists; and what would that alternative have cost?

Noise and pollution from vehicles constantly changing gears may be an issue.
P.S. Whisper it - nobody was caught because nobody was checking!
[quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: Not a surprise that there have been no prosecutions in York Middlesbrough had the zones/selective streets reduced to 20mph and had no fines for the first 2 years. Average speeds were slightly down in residential streets, but not all areas were monitored before/after the introduction. However Islington, London, spent half a million pounds of local taxpayers/business rate payers hard-earned money. After the first 6 months there had been no speeding fines! Only 2 of 158 streets/roads involved had new average speeds below 20mph. Average speeds on 100 of the 158 thoroughfares the average speeds actually increased or remained the same. All this actual research, and was extracted from Daily Telegraph last week. If the overall average speeds in residential areas is more than 3mph down then the council, safety conscious people, and police will be happy. The signs in York thoroughfares of less than 600 metres DID not need 20 limit signs if the council had followed the rules/guidance. Whether the council were right or wrong we may never know. Could the transportable variable message illumination boards have been programmed to warn motorists; and what would that alternative have cost? Noise and pollution from vehicles constantly changing gears may be an issue.[/p][/quote]P.S. Whisper it - nobody was caught because nobody was checking! Haywire
  • Score: 1489

9:05pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Jack Ham says...

There is a simple way to look at this:

Labour in York tell us that due to cuts we have to charge disabled people more for support, cannot afford to grit the roads, have to close Beckfield Lane tip and try to sell off some of our prized assets like Union Terrace car park.

Despite this they then proceed to spend £600,000 on a 20mph scheme only a small handful of people want. Give another £100,000 to an Arts Barge nobody ever sees, travel across the world visiting foreign cities and spend tens of thousands on a 'Fairness Commission' to talk about inequality! That's before we even start with extra bonus payments for council staff and interim directors on £700 a day.

Fortunately they have now been well and truly found out. There are still a deluded few who think the people of York love them and the Labour elite - led by millionaire Julia Unwin and Patrick Kelly believe they know what's best for us.

The games up for Alexander, Simpson-Laing, Merrett, Levene and Semlyn. It's interesting to watch Daf Williams & Linsay Cunningham beginning to distance themselves - they've seen the writing on the wall and are positioned to take over what's left of York Labour after the elections next year.

The terrifying thing is that even when gone we'll be paying the Alexander legacy for decades to come. He's borrow £27,000,000 so far. That's an awful lot of council tax from and awful lot of residents for an awfully long time.

And for what? Photo opportunities. Appeasing his Labour friends and currying favour with the Labour West Yorkshire councils.

Disgrace.
There is a simple way to look at this: Labour in York tell us that due to cuts we have to charge disabled people more for support, cannot afford to grit the roads, have to close Beckfield Lane tip and try to sell off some of our prized assets like Union Terrace car park. Despite this they then proceed to spend £600,000 on a 20mph scheme only a small handful of people want. Give another £100,000 to an Arts Barge nobody ever sees, travel across the world visiting foreign cities and spend tens of thousands on a 'Fairness Commission' to talk about inequality! That's before we even start with extra bonus payments for council staff and interim directors on £700 a day. Fortunately they have now been well and truly found out. There are still a deluded few who think the people of York love them and the Labour elite - led by millionaire Julia Unwin and Patrick Kelly believe they know what's best for us. The games up for Alexander, Simpson-Laing, Merrett, Levene and Semlyn. It's interesting to watch Daf Williams & Linsay Cunningham beginning to distance themselves - they've seen the writing on the wall and are positioned to take over what's left of York Labour after the elections next year. The terrifying thing is that even when gone we'll be paying the Alexander legacy for decades to come. He's borrow £27,000,000 so far. That's an awful lot of council tax from and awful lot of residents for an awfully long time. And for what? Photo opportunities. Appeasing his Labour friends and currying favour with the Labour West Yorkshire councils. Disgrace. Jack Ham
  • Score: 1004

9:06pm Wed 13 Aug 14

MorkofYork says...

No one follows these limits. How many of you actually voted to criminalize yourselves ?
No one follows these limits. How many of you actually voted to criminalize yourselves ? MorkofYork
  • Score: 1647

9:18pm Wed 13 Aug 14

notpedallingpaul says...

MorkofYork wrote:
I was in Harrogate the other day, didn't see any 20mph signs. Must be nice living somewhere civilized where the council don't treat everyone like incompetent idiots.

What an ugly mess they've made and every sign is an insult.
Different coloured council in charge, with real councillors, say no more!!
[quote][p][bold]MorkofYork[/bold] wrote: I was in Harrogate the other day, didn't see any 20mph signs. Must be nice living somewhere civilized where the council don't treat everyone like incompetent idiots. What an ugly mess they've made and every sign is an insult.[/p][/quote]Different coloured council in charge, with real councillors, say no more!! notpedallingpaul
  • Score: 1013

9:31pm Wed 13 Aug 14

piaggio1 says...

FAO.pbrowne....
Should have got yerself a vespa gts125.
Pure italian class n style and its beats the mpg.or go for the 300..and come along to the euro rallies
FAO.pbrowne.... Should have got yerself a vespa gts125. Pure italian class n style and its beats the mpg.or go for the 300..and come along to the euro rallies piaggio1
  • Score: 1061

9:46pm Wed 13 Aug 14

eeoodares says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
This isn't a waste at all. My street is so much nicer now that cars go a bit slower. It's upsetting that the police don't give it much attention actually.

This exercise isn't about making cash form fines. It is about making streets safer. It was a manifesto pledge which the city voted for.

I do not know the councillor and she is not my ward councillor. I do not know why she is stepping down. But I am certainly not adverse to a councillor being elected to do a specific thing - fight a housing project, 20mph roads, save a hospital, whatever - and they leave when it has been accomplished. We get far too many career politicians as it is. We don't vote on whether or not we like someone. We vote for people based on their pledges. The councillor and her labour colleagues told us all what they would do and are doing it. Seems a bit of a non-story to me, other than to congratulate some politicians for actually keeping their promises!!

I wish to see a labour - green coalition in May 2015 at city level so we can look forward to even more streets being tamed for everyone, not just 4x4s or selfish car owners (you know who you are!).
What is wrong with 4x4's?
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: This isn't a waste at all. My street is so much nicer now that cars go a bit slower. It's upsetting that the police don't give it much attention actually. This exercise isn't about making cash form fines. It is about making streets safer. It was a manifesto pledge which the city voted for. I do not know the councillor and she is not my ward councillor. I do not know why she is stepping down. But I am certainly not adverse to a councillor being elected to do a specific thing - fight a housing project, 20mph roads, save a hospital, whatever - and they leave when it has been accomplished. We get far too many career politicians as it is. We don't vote on whether or not we like someone. We vote for people based on their pledges. The councillor and her labour colleagues told us all what they would do and are doing it. Seems a bit of a non-story to me, other than to congratulate some politicians for actually keeping their promises!! I wish to see a labour - green coalition in May 2015 at city level so we can look forward to even more streets being tamed for everyone, not just 4x4s or selfish car owners (you know who you are!).[/p][/quote]What is wrong with 4x4's? eeoodares
  • Score: 1023

10:02pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Silver says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
greenmonkey wrote:
robynd wrote: The more pertinant question is - have incidents and injuries decreased in the 20 mph zones. Probably not enough time to get enough data yet. And the data needs to be analysed carefully as the zones are likely to have been built in areas where accidents are more likely. If there have been a reduction in injuries, isn't that a good thing?
This is a very good point. Until it is implemented across the city there will be mixed messages about what the appropriate speed should be as you drive about. Getting the police to take action on any speed limits in York is difficult - only when people get injured or killed is it deemed a priority. No doubt the fact that its traffic cops who expect to drive around at speed themselves who get to comment on the limits has something to do with their attitude to 20mph. It would only take a few random speed traps to get the message over that the limit is there to be obeyed. However the bottom line for me is that if a driver hits someone when driving exceeding the speed limit the blame will be on them, and i would rather have most people driving down residential streets at 20 -30mph than at 35 -40mph as often happens with the present 30mph limit. Get hit by a car at 25mph and you have a good chance of surviving, at 35 -40mph you've little or no chance.
what are the breaking calcs between 20mph & 35mph? I always put this bluntly. If someone walks into a road without looking if there is a car, it is not the drivers fault. Yes they might have been going over the speed limit but the breaking distrances are like 2-5m extra (so 10-15m in total usually if dry) if you run out in front of a car that is 10-15m away then fool on you.
That's okay then, children always look and can judge breaking distances really well, in fact a two year old was explaining to me how stopping distances change according to weather and other conditions only last weekend. Survival of the fittest, after all, well, survival of the 4x4s against the menace of suicidal three year olds! Fool on them indeed.
Yes beth... maybe while you were having such an in-depth chat with this child who was two years old you should have asked it where its parents were. Or maybe they were too busy riding horses over speed bumps in a 20mph fantasy world? Also I’d like to say why was the child on about breaking calcs? does it think ah i'll run out into the road the car is doing 25mph and i'm 20m away so it can stop?
This is now some sort of bizarre alternative reality where parents can presumably stop a child falling into the road, tripping over, or just being a bit distracted and walking out anyway. What sort of child were you, a pudding baby who got pushed around in a pram until you were ten? Clearly not a parent nor someone who knows and youngsters or what they are like. Even an adult can fall into the road. But I guess because they fell it's their fault they died, so it's alright, speed away!

In the real world people don't want to live in GTA, and drivers don't actually get points for hitting people. Just so you know.
Beth have you actually played GTA? There isn't a point system anywhere in that game unless you take your character to an arcade and play a videogame within a video game. The system of value in GTA is actually pretend money.
Now onto the sensible rebuttal, young children of a certain age such as 2 can be placed on reins to ensure they don't run off into the road. Also you teach your children to respect the road, you put some discipline into their upbringing regarding roads. I wasn't allowed to cross a road unattended until my parents were sure I fully understood the dangers. They even made a game of it for me to tell them if I thought it was safe to cross. And after I left reins I was held by a hand to make sure I understood how dangerous it was. A 20mph sign will not tell a small child anything and a 20mph collision with a car can still kill a small child in the right scenario even a 1mph collision can kill a child. We do live in a dangerous world and we need to ensure our children respect it.
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]robynd[/bold] wrote: The more pertinant question is - have incidents and injuries decreased in the 20 mph zones. Probably not enough time to get enough data yet. And the data needs to be analysed carefully as the zones are likely to have been built in areas where accidents are more likely. If there have been a reduction in injuries, isn't that a good thing?[/p][/quote]This is a very good point. Until it is implemented across the city there will be mixed messages about what the appropriate speed should be as you drive about. Getting the police to take action on any speed limits in York is difficult - only when people get injured or killed is it deemed a priority. No doubt the fact that its traffic cops who expect to drive around at speed themselves who get to comment on the limits has something to do with their attitude to 20mph. It would only take a few random speed traps to get the message over that the limit is there to be obeyed. However the bottom line for me is that if a driver hits someone when driving exceeding the speed limit the blame will be on them, and i would rather have most people driving down residential streets at 20 -30mph than at 35 -40mph as often happens with the present 30mph limit. Get hit by a car at 25mph and you have a good chance of surviving, at 35 -40mph you've little or no chance.[/p][/quote]what are the breaking calcs between 20mph & 35mph? I always put this bluntly. If someone walks into a road without looking if there is a car, it is not the drivers fault. Yes they might have been going over the speed limit but the breaking distrances are like 2-5m extra (so 10-15m in total usually if dry) if you run out in front of a car that is 10-15m away then fool on you.[/p][/quote]That's okay then, children always look and can judge breaking distances really well, in fact a two year old was explaining to me how stopping distances change according to weather and other conditions only last weekend. Survival of the fittest, after all, well, survival of the 4x4s against the menace of suicidal three year olds! Fool on them indeed.[/p][/quote]Yes beth... maybe while you were having such an in-depth chat with this child who was two years old you should have asked it where its parents were. Or maybe they were too busy riding horses over speed bumps in a 20mph fantasy world? Also I’d like to say why was the child on about breaking calcs? does it think ah i'll run out into the road the car is doing 25mph and i'm 20m away so it can stop?[/p][/quote]This is now some sort of bizarre alternative reality where parents can presumably stop a child falling into the road, tripping over, or just being a bit distracted and walking out anyway. What sort of child were you, a pudding baby who got pushed around in a pram until you were ten? Clearly not a parent nor someone who knows and youngsters or what they are like. Even an adult can fall into the road. But I guess because they fell it's their fault they died, so it's alright, speed away! In the real world people don't want to live in GTA, and drivers don't actually get points for hitting people. Just so you know.[/p][/quote]Beth have you actually played GTA? There isn't a point system anywhere in that game unless you take your character to an arcade and play a videogame within a video game. The system of value in GTA is actually pretend money. Now onto the sensible rebuttal, young children of a certain age such as 2 can be placed on reins to ensure they don't run off into the road. Also you teach your children to respect the road, you put some discipline into their upbringing regarding roads. I wasn't allowed to cross a road unattended until my parents were sure I fully understood the dangers. They even made a game of it for me to tell them if I thought it was safe to cross. And after I left reins I was held by a hand to make sure I understood how dangerous it was. A 20mph sign will not tell a small child anything and a 20mph collision with a car can still kill a small child in the right scenario even a 1mph collision can kill a child. We do live in a dangerous world and we need to ensure our children respect it. Silver
  • Score: 1053

10:12pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Grumpy Old Man says...

P3TER1 wrote:
As I said in a previous story, speed doesn't necessarily cause accidents, lack of concentration, poor judgement and indecisiveness does. Yes, this was a complete waste of money.
You are talking utter rubbish. Speed is the major killer on British roads. Everything else you quote comes about because people drive at speeds they cannot handle. See court case on this page.
[quote][p][bold]P3TER1[/bold] wrote: As I said in a previous story, speed doesn't necessarily cause accidents, lack of concentration, poor judgement and indecisiveness does. Yes, this was a complete waste of money.[/p][/quote]You are talking utter rubbish. Speed is the major killer on British roads. Everything else you quote comes about because people drive at speeds they cannot handle. See court case on this page. Grumpy Old Man
  • Score: 986

10:15pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Silver says...

Grumpy Old Man wrote:
P3TER1 wrote:
As I said in a previous story, speed doesn't necessarily cause accidents, lack of concentration, poor judgement and indecisiveness does. Yes, this was a complete waste of money.
You are talking utter rubbish. Speed is the major killer on British roads. Everything else you quote comes about because people drive at speeds they cannot handle. See court case on this page.
You can kill someone at 1mph if they put their head under your tire and you drive over it.
Cars heavy and fast and need to be respected
[quote][p][bold]Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]P3TER1[/bold] wrote: As I said in a previous story, speed doesn't necessarily cause accidents, lack of concentration, poor judgement and indecisiveness does. Yes, this was a complete waste of money.[/p][/quote]You are talking utter rubbish. Speed is the major killer on British roads. Everything else you quote comes about because people drive at speeds they cannot handle. See court case on this page.[/p][/quote]You can kill someone at 1mph if they put their head under your tire and you drive over it. Cars heavy and fast and need to be respected Silver
  • Score: 696

10:22pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Haywire says...

Jack Ham wrote:
There is a simple way to look at this:

Labour in York tell us that due to cuts we have to charge disabled people more for support, cannot afford to grit the roads, have to close Beckfield Lane tip and try to sell off some of our prized assets like Union Terrace car park.

Despite this they then proceed to spend £600,000 on a 20mph scheme only a small handful of people want. Give another £100,000 to an Arts Barge nobody ever sees, travel across the world visiting foreign cities and spend tens of thousands on a 'Fairness Commission' to talk about inequality! That's before we even start with extra bonus payments for council staff and interim directors on £700 a day.

Fortunately they have now been well and truly found out. There are still a deluded few who think the people of York love them and the Labour elite - led by millionaire Julia Unwin and Patrick Kelly believe they know what's best for us.

The games up for Alexander, Simpson-Laing, Merrett, Levene and Semlyn. It's interesting to watch Daf Williams & Linsay Cunningham beginning to distance themselves - they've seen the writing on the wall and are positioned to take over what's left of York Labour after the elections next year.

The terrifying thing is that even when gone we'll be paying the Alexander legacy for decades to come. He's borrow £27,000,000 so far. That's an awful lot of council tax from and awful lot of residents for an awfully long time.

And for what? Photo opportunities. Appeasing his Labour friends and currying favour with the Labour West Yorkshire councils.

Disgrace.
"a 20mph scheme only a small handful of people want." Primary Source??
[quote][p][bold]Jack Ham[/bold] wrote: There is a simple way to look at this: Labour in York tell us that due to cuts we have to charge disabled people more for support, cannot afford to grit the roads, have to close Beckfield Lane tip and try to sell off some of our prized assets like Union Terrace car park. Despite this they then proceed to spend £600,000 on a 20mph scheme only a small handful of people want. Give another £100,000 to an Arts Barge nobody ever sees, travel across the world visiting foreign cities and spend tens of thousands on a 'Fairness Commission' to talk about inequality! That's before we even start with extra bonus payments for council staff and interim directors on £700 a day. Fortunately they have now been well and truly found out. There are still a deluded few who think the people of York love them and the Labour elite - led by millionaire Julia Unwin and Patrick Kelly believe they know what's best for us. The games up for Alexander, Simpson-Laing, Merrett, Levene and Semlyn. It's interesting to watch Daf Williams & Linsay Cunningham beginning to distance themselves - they've seen the writing on the wall and are positioned to take over what's left of York Labour after the elections next year. The terrifying thing is that even when gone we'll be paying the Alexander legacy for decades to come. He's borrow £27,000,000 so far. That's an awful lot of council tax from and awful lot of residents for an awfully long time. And for what? Photo opportunities. Appeasing his Labour friends and currying favour with the Labour West Yorkshire councils. Disgrace.[/p][/quote]"a 20mph scheme only a small handful of people want." Primary Source?? Haywire
  • Score: 503

10:26pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Haywire says...

MorkofYork wrote:
No one follows these limits. How many of you actually voted to criminalize yourselves ?
"No one follows these limits." - wrong again!
[quote][p][bold]MorkofYork[/bold] wrote: No one follows these limits. How many of you actually voted to criminalize yourselves ?[/p][/quote]"No one follows these limits." - wrong again! Haywire
  • Score: 996

10:28pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Jack Ham says...

Haywire wrote:
Jack Ham wrote:
There is a simple way to look at this:

Labour in York tell us that due to cuts we have to charge disabled people more for support, cannot afford to grit the roads, have to close Beckfield Lane tip and try to sell off some of our prized assets like Union Terrace car park.

Despite this they then proceed to spend £600,000 on a 20mph scheme only a small handful of people want. Give another £100,000 to an Arts Barge nobody ever sees, travel across the world visiting foreign cities and spend tens of thousands on a 'Fairness Commission' to talk about inequality! That's before we even start with extra bonus payments for council staff and interim directors on £700 a day.

Fortunately they have now been well and truly found out. There are still a deluded few who think the people of York love them and the Labour elite - led by millionaire Julia Unwin and Patrick Kelly believe they know what's best for us.

The games up for Alexander, Simpson-Laing, Merrett, Levene and Semlyn. It's interesting to watch Daf Williams & Linsay Cunningham beginning to distance themselves - they've seen the writing on the wall and are positioned to take over what's left of York Labour after the elections next year.

The terrifying thing is that even when gone we'll be paying the Alexander legacy for decades to come. He's borrow £27,000,000 so far. That's an awful lot of council tax from and awful lot of residents for an awfully long time.

And for what? Photo opportunities. Appeasing his Labour friends and currying favour with the Labour West Yorkshire councils.

Disgrace.
"a 20mph scheme only a small handful of people want." Primary Source??
Read above comments and stop deluding yourself. I don't think you'll find many people in support.
[quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack Ham[/bold] wrote: There is a simple way to look at this: Labour in York tell us that due to cuts we have to charge disabled people more for support, cannot afford to grit the roads, have to close Beckfield Lane tip and try to sell off some of our prized assets like Union Terrace car park. Despite this they then proceed to spend £600,000 on a 20mph scheme only a small handful of people want. Give another £100,000 to an Arts Barge nobody ever sees, travel across the world visiting foreign cities and spend tens of thousands on a 'Fairness Commission' to talk about inequality! That's before we even start with extra bonus payments for council staff and interim directors on £700 a day. Fortunately they have now been well and truly found out. There are still a deluded few who think the people of York love them and the Labour elite - led by millionaire Julia Unwin and Patrick Kelly believe they know what's best for us. The games up for Alexander, Simpson-Laing, Merrett, Levene and Semlyn. It's interesting to watch Daf Williams & Linsay Cunningham beginning to distance themselves - they've seen the writing on the wall and are positioned to take over what's left of York Labour after the elections next year. The terrifying thing is that even when gone we'll be paying the Alexander legacy for decades to come. He's borrow £27,000,000 so far. That's an awful lot of council tax from and awful lot of residents for an awfully long time. And for what? Photo opportunities. Appeasing his Labour friends and currying favour with the Labour West Yorkshire councils. Disgrace.[/p][/quote]"a 20mph scheme only a small handful of people want." Primary Source??[/p][/quote]Read above comments and stop deluding yourself. I don't think you'll find many people in support. Jack Ham
  • Score: 998

10:28pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Silver says...

Haywire wrote:
Jack Ham wrote:
There is a simple way to look at this:

Labour in York tell us that due to cuts we have to charge disabled people more for support, cannot afford to grit the roads, have to close Beckfield Lane tip and try to sell off some of our prized assets like Union Terrace car park.

Despite this they then proceed to spend £600,000 on a 20mph scheme only a small handful of people want. Give another £100,000 to an Arts Barge nobody ever sees, travel across the world visiting foreign cities and spend tens of thousands on a 'Fairness Commission' to talk about inequality! That's before we even start with extra bonus payments for council staff and interim directors on £700 a day.

Fortunately they have now been well and truly found out. There are still a deluded few who think the people of York love them and the Labour elite - led by millionaire Julia Unwin and Patrick Kelly believe they know what's best for us.

The games up for Alexander, Simpson-Laing, Merrett, Levene and Semlyn. It's interesting to watch Daf Williams & Linsay Cunningham beginning to distance themselves - they've seen the writing on the wall and are positioned to take over what's left of York Labour after the elections next year.

The terrifying thing is that even when gone we'll be paying the Alexander legacy for decades to come. He's borrow £27,000,000 so far. That's an awful lot of council tax from and awful lot of residents for an awfully long time.

And for what? Photo opportunities. Appeasing his Labour friends and currying favour with the Labour West Yorkshire councils.

Disgrace.
"a 20mph scheme only a small handful of people want." Primary Source??
It's been said before but here's the primary source http://www.yorkpress

.co.uk/news/11217748

.20_mph_campaigner_d

ismisses_driver_surv

ey_claims/
[quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack Ham[/bold] wrote: There is a simple way to look at this: Labour in York tell us that due to cuts we have to charge disabled people more for support, cannot afford to grit the roads, have to close Beckfield Lane tip and try to sell off some of our prized assets like Union Terrace car park. Despite this they then proceed to spend £600,000 on a 20mph scheme only a small handful of people want. Give another £100,000 to an Arts Barge nobody ever sees, travel across the world visiting foreign cities and spend tens of thousands on a 'Fairness Commission' to talk about inequality! That's before we even start with extra bonus payments for council staff and interim directors on £700 a day. Fortunately they have now been well and truly found out. There are still a deluded few who think the people of York love them and the Labour elite - led by millionaire Julia Unwin and Patrick Kelly believe they know what's best for us. The games up for Alexander, Simpson-Laing, Merrett, Levene and Semlyn. It's interesting to watch Daf Williams & Linsay Cunningham beginning to distance themselves - they've seen the writing on the wall and are positioned to take over what's left of York Labour after the elections next year. The terrifying thing is that even when gone we'll be paying the Alexander legacy for decades to come. He's borrow £27,000,000 so far. That's an awful lot of council tax from and awful lot of residents for an awfully long time. And for what? Photo opportunities. Appeasing his Labour friends and currying favour with the Labour West Yorkshire councils. Disgrace.[/p][/quote]"a 20mph scheme only a small handful of people want." Primary Source??[/p][/quote]It's been said before but here's the primary source http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/news/11217748 .20_mph_campaigner_d ismisses_driver_surv ey_claims/ Silver
  • Score: 1078

10:35pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Haywire says...

Grumpy Old Man wrote:
P3TER1 wrote:
As I said in a previous story, speed doesn't necessarily cause accidents, lack of concentration, poor judgement and indecisiveness does. Yes, this was a complete waste of money.
You are talking utter rubbish. Speed is the major killer on British roads. Everything else you quote comes about because people drive at speeds they cannot handle. See court case on this page.
Too right! On the one hand we have everybody saying it's a waste of money because nobody has been 'caught', therefore nobody has been naughty. On the other hand, the same people are saying, with no sense of irony, that nobody observes the limit anyway, so why bother.
Go figure!
As somebody said once (probably a 'Sun' reader), you can never underestimate the values and intelligence of the Great British public.
[quote][p][bold]Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]P3TER1[/bold] wrote: As I said in a previous story, speed doesn't necessarily cause accidents, lack of concentration, poor judgement and indecisiveness does. Yes, this was a complete waste of money.[/p][/quote]You are talking utter rubbish. Speed is the major killer on British roads. Everything else you quote comes about because people drive at speeds they cannot handle. See court case on this page.[/p][/quote]Too right! On the one hand we have everybody saying it's a waste of money because nobody has been 'caught', therefore nobody has been naughty. On the other hand, the same people are saying, with no sense of irony, that nobody observes the limit anyway, so why bother. Go figure! As somebody said once (probably a 'Sun' reader), you can never underestimate the values and intelligence of the Great British public. Haywire
  • Score: 1268

10:37pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Haywire says...

eeoodares wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
This isn't a waste at all. My street is so much nicer now that cars go a bit slower. It's upsetting that the police don't give it much attention actually.

This exercise isn't about making cash form fines. It is about making streets safer. It was a manifesto pledge which the city voted for.

I do not know the councillor and she is not my ward councillor. I do not know why she is stepping down. But I am certainly not adverse to a councillor being elected to do a specific thing - fight a housing project, 20mph roads, save a hospital, whatever - and they leave when it has been accomplished. We get far too many career politicians as it is. We don't vote on whether or not we like someone. We vote for people based on their pledges. The councillor and her labour colleagues told us all what they would do and are doing it. Seems a bit of a non-story to me, other than to congratulate some politicians for actually keeping their promises!!

I wish to see a labour - green coalition in May 2015 at city level so we can look forward to even more streets being tamed for everyone, not just 4x4s or selfish car owners (you know who you are!).
What is wrong with 4x4's?
What is not wrong about 4x4s? Please explain. What exactly are they for? Words of one syllable will suffice.
[quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: This isn't a waste at all. My street is so much nicer now that cars go a bit slower. It's upsetting that the police don't give it much attention actually. This exercise isn't about making cash form fines. It is about making streets safer. It was a manifesto pledge which the city voted for. I do not know the councillor and she is not my ward councillor. I do not know why she is stepping down. But I am certainly not adverse to a councillor being elected to do a specific thing - fight a housing project, 20mph roads, save a hospital, whatever - and they leave when it has been accomplished. We get far too many career politicians as it is. We don't vote on whether or not we like someone. We vote for people based on their pledges. The councillor and her labour colleagues told us all what they would do and are doing it. Seems a bit of a non-story to me, other than to congratulate some politicians for actually keeping their promises!! I wish to see a labour - green coalition in May 2015 at city level so we can look forward to even more streets being tamed for everyone, not just 4x4s or selfish car owners (you know who you are!).[/p][/quote]What is wrong with 4x4's?[/p][/quote]What is not wrong about 4x4s? Please explain. What exactly are they for? Words of one syllable will suffice. Haywire
  • Score: 750

10:40pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Haywire says...

Jack Ham wrote:
Haywire wrote:
Jack Ham wrote:
There is a simple way to look at this:

Labour in York tell us that due to cuts we have to charge disabled people more for support, cannot afford to grit the roads, have to close Beckfield Lane tip and try to sell off some of our prized assets like Union Terrace car park.

Despite this they then proceed to spend £600,000 on a 20mph scheme only a small handful of people want. Give another £100,000 to an Arts Barge nobody ever sees, travel across the world visiting foreign cities and spend tens of thousands on a 'Fairness Commission' to talk about inequality! That's before we even start with extra bonus payments for council staff and interim directors on £700 a day.

Fortunately they have now been well and truly found out. There are still a deluded few who think the people of York love them and the Labour elite - led by millionaire Julia Unwin and Patrick Kelly believe they know what's best for us.

The games up for Alexander, Simpson-Laing, Merrett, Levene and Semlyn. It's interesting to watch Daf Williams & Linsay Cunningham beginning to distance themselves - they've seen the writing on the wall and are positioned to take over what's left of York Labour after the elections next year.

The terrifying thing is that even when gone we'll be paying the Alexander legacy for decades to come. He's borrow £27,000,000 so far. That's an awful lot of council tax from and awful lot of residents for an awfully long time.

And for what? Photo opportunities. Appeasing his Labour friends and currying favour with the Labour West Yorkshire councils.

Disgrace.
"a 20mph scheme only a small handful of people want." Primary Source??
Read above comments and stop deluding yourself. I don't think you'll find many people in support.
Primary Source????
[quote][p][bold]Jack Ham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack Ham[/bold] wrote: There is a simple way to look at this: Labour in York tell us that due to cuts we have to charge disabled people more for support, cannot afford to grit the roads, have to close Beckfield Lane tip and try to sell off some of our prized assets like Union Terrace car park. Despite this they then proceed to spend £600,000 on a 20mph scheme only a small handful of people want. Give another £100,000 to an Arts Barge nobody ever sees, travel across the world visiting foreign cities and spend tens of thousands on a 'Fairness Commission' to talk about inequality! That's before we even start with extra bonus payments for council staff and interim directors on £700 a day. Fortunately they have now been well and truly found out. There are still a deluded few who think the people of York love them and the Labour elite - led by millionaire Julia Unwin and Patrick Kelly believe they know what's best for us. The games up for Alexander, Simpson-Laing, Merrett, Levene and Semlyn. It's interesting to watch Daf Williams & Linsay Cunningham beginning to distance themselves - they've seen the writing on the wall and are positioned to take over what's left of York Labour after the elections next year. The terrifying thing is that even when gone we'll be paying the Alexander legacy for decades to come. He's borrow £27,000,000 so far. That's an awful lot of council tax from and awful lot of residents for an awfully long time. And for what? Photo opportunities. Appeasing his Labour friends and currying favour with the Labour West Yorkshire councils. Disgrace.[/p][/quote]"a 20mph scheme only a small handful of people want." Primary Source??[/p][/quote]Read above comments and stop deluding yourself. I don't think you'll find many people in support.[/p][/quote]Primary Source???? Haywire
  • Score: 1000

10:45pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Haywire says...

Silver wrote:
Haywire wrote:
Jack Ham wrote:
There is a simple way to look at this:

Labour in York tell us that due to cuts we have to charge disabled people more for support, cannot afford to grit the roads, have to close Beckfield Lane tip and try to sell off some of our prized assets like Union Terrace car park.

Despite this they then proceed to spend £600,000 on a 20mph scheme only a small handful of people want. Give another £100,000 to an Arts Barge nobody ever sees, travel across the world visiting foreign cities and spend tens of thousands on a 'Fairness Commission' to talk about inequality! That's before we even start with extra bonus payments for council staff and interim directors on £700 a day.

Fortunately they have now been well and truly found out. There are still a deluded few who think the people of York love them and the Labour elite - led by millionaire Julia Unwin and Patrick Kelly believe they know what's best for us.

The games up for Alexander, Simpson-Laing, Merrett, Levene and Semlyn. It's interesting to watch Daf Williams & Linsay Cunningham beginning to distance themselves - they've seen the writing on the wall and are positioned to take over what's left of York Labour after the elections next year.

The terrifying thing is that even when gone we'll be paying the Alexander legacy for decades to come. He's borrow £27,000,000 so far. That's an awful lot of council tax from and awful lot of residents for an awfully long time.

And for what? Photo opportunities. Appeasing his Labour friends and currying favour with the Labour West Yorkshire councils.

Disgrace.
"a 20mph scheme only a small handful of people want." Primary Source??
It's been said before but here's the primary source http://www.yorkpress


.co.uk/news/11217748


.20_mph_campaigner_d


ismisses_driver_surv


ey_claims/
I can see that you have never done anything in the way of serious research by this reference. By the way, what speed would you suggest we drive in towns? 30/40/50 or just how you feel on the day?
[quote][p][bold]Silver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack Ham[/bold] wrote: There is a simple way to look at this: Labour in York tell us that due to cuts we have to charge disabled people more for support, cannot afford to grit the roads, have to close Beckfield Lane tip and try to sell off some of our prized assets like Union Terrace car park. Despite this they then proceed to spend £600,000 on a 20mph scheme only a small handful of people want. Give another £100,000 to an Arts Barge nobody ever sees, travel across the world visiting foreign cities and spend tens of thousands on a 'Fairness Commission' to talk about inequality! That's before we even start with extra bonus payments for council staff and interim directors on £700 a day. Fortunately they have now been well and truly found out. There are still a deluded few who think the people of York love them and the Labour elite - led by millionaire Julia Unwin and Patrick Kelly believe they know what's best for us. The games up for Alexander, Simpson-Laing, Merrett, Levene and Semlyn. It's interesting to watch Daf Williams & Linsay Cunningham beginning to distance themselves - they've seen the writing on the wall and are positioned to take over what's left of York Labour after the elections next year. The terrifying thing is that even when gone we'll be paying the Alexander legacy for decades to come. He's borrow £27,000,000 so far. That's an awful lot of council tax from and awful lot of residents for an awfully long time. And for what? Photo opportunities. Appeasing his Labour friends and currying favour with the Labour West Yorkshire councils. Disgrace.[/p][/quote]"a 20mph scheme only a small handful of people want." Primary Source??[/p][/quote]It's been said before but here's the primary source http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/news/11217748 .20_mph_campaigner_d ismisses_driver_surv ey_claims/[/p][/quote]I can see that you have never done anything in the way of serious research by this reference. By the way, what speed would you suggest we drive in towns? 30/40/50 or just how you feel on the day? Haywire
  • Score: 540

11:03pm Wed 13 Aug 14

notpedallingpaul says...

Haywire wrote:
Silver wrote:
Haywire wrote:
Jack Ham wrote:
There is a simple way to look at this:

Labour in York tell us that due to cuts we have to charge disabled people more for support, cannot afford to grit the roads, have to close Beckfield Lane tip and try to sell off some of our prized assets like Union Terrace car park.

Despite this they then proceed to spend £600,000 on a 20mph scheme only a small handful of people want. Give another £100,000 to an Arts Barge nobody ever sees, travel across the world visiting foreign cities and spend tens of thousands on a 'Fairness Commission' to talk about inequality! That's before we even start with extra bonus payments for council staff and interim directors on £700 a day.

Fortunately they have now been well and truly found out. There are still a deluded few who think the people of York love them and the Labour elite - led by millionaire Julia Unwin and Patrick Kelly believe they know what's best for us.

The games up for Alexander, Simpson-Laing, Merrett, Levene and Semlyn. It's interesting to watch Daf Williams & Linsay Cunningham beginning to distance themselves - they've seen the writing on the wall and are positioned to take over what's left of York Labour after the elections next year.

The terrifying thing is that even when gone we'll be paying the Alexander legacy for decades to come. He's borrow £27,000,000 so far. That's an awful lot of council tax from and awful lot of residents for an awfully long time.

And for what? Photo opportunities. Appeasing his Labour friends and currying favour with the Labour West Yorkshire councils.

Disgrace.
"a 20mph scheme only a small handful of people want." Primary Source??
It's been said before but here's the primary source http://www.yorkpress



.co.uk/news/11217748



.20_mph_campaigner_d



ismisses_driver_surv



ey_claims/
I can see that you have never done anything in the way of serious research by this reference. By the way, what speed would you suggest we drive in towns? 30/40/50 or just how you feel on the day?
so you don't like 4x4 vehicles, why?, do you have a particular aversion to them?
You may have a motorcycle, a push bike, a hybrid car, but whatever you do have it is your choice of transport, and please don't tell me you chose it to save the polar bears or the planet!
[quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Silver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack Ham[/bold] wrote: There is a simple way to look at this: Labour in York tell us that due to cuts we have to charge disabled people more for support, cannot afford to grit the roads, have to close Beckfield Lane tip and try to sell off some of our prized assets like Union Terrace car park. Despite this they then proceed to spend £600,000 on a 20mph scheme only a small handful of people want. Give another £100,000 to an Arts Barge nobody ever sees, travel across the world visiting foreign cities and spend tens of thousands on a 'Fairness Commission' to talk about inequality! That's before we even start with extra bonus payments for council staff and interim directors on £700 a day. Fortunately they have now been well and truly found out. There are still a deluded few who think the people of York love them and the Labour elite - led by millionaire Julia Unwin and Patrick Kelly believe they know what's best for us. The games up for Alexander, Simpson-Laing, Merrett, Levene and Semlyn. It's interesting to watch Daf Williams & Linsay Cunningham beginning to distance themselves - they've seen the writing on the wall and are positioned to take over what's left of York Labour after the elections next year. The terrifying thing is that even when gone we'll be paying the Alexander legacy for decades to come. He's borrow £27,000,000 so far. That's an awful lot of council tax from and awful lot of residents for an awfully long time. And for what? Photo opportunities. Appeasing his Labour friends and currying favour with the Labour West Yorkshire councils. Disgrace.[/p][/quote]"a 20mph scheme only a small handful of people want." Primary Source??[/p][/quote]It's been said before but here's the primary source http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/news/11217748 .20_mph_campaigner_d ismisses_driver_surv ey_claims/[/p][/quote]I can see that you have never done anything in the way of serious research by this reference. By the way, what speed would you suggest we drive in towns? 30/40/50 or just how you feel on the day?[/p][/quote]so you don't like 4x4 vehicles, why?, do you have a particular aversion to them? You may have a motorcycle, a push bike, a hybrid car, but whatever you do have it is your choice of transport, and please don't tell me you chose it to save the polar bears or the planet! notpedallingpaul
  • Score: 1005

11:05pm Wed 13 Aug 14

eeoodares says...

Haywire wrote:
eeoodares wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
This isn't a waste at all. My street is so much nicer now that cars go a bit slower. It's upsetting that the police don't give it much attention actually.

This exercise isn't about making cash form fines. It is about making streets safer. It was a manifesto pledge which the city voted for.

I do not know the councillor and she is not my ward councillor. I do not know why she is stepping down. But I am certainly not adverse to a councillor being elected to do a specific thing - fight a housing project, 20mph roads, save a hospital, whatever - and they leave when it has been accomplished. We get far too many career politicians as it is. We don't vote on whether or not we like someone. We vote for people based on their pledges. The councillor and her labour colleagues told us all what they would do and are doing it. Seems a bit of a non-story to me, other than to congratulate some politicians for actually keeping their promises!!

I wish to see a labour - green coalition in May 2015 at city level so we can look forward to even more streets being tamed for everyone, not just 4x4s or selfish car owners (you know who you are!).
What is wrong with 4x4's?
What is not wrong about 4x4s? Please explain. What exactly are they for? Words of one syllable will suffice.
Grouping 4x4's into one group misses the point by a mile. It uses far more energy and resources to build a vehicle than that car will ever use in its lifetime. So it seems self evident that if I drive my 25 year old Landy its green credentials are far superior to virtually any other vehicle on the road.

If you wish to pursue the point, please look to where the component parts of modern hybrid 'battery' cars come from, how they are mined, what is the toxic by products, the longevity of the batteries and the fact that manufacturers will not be drawn on either the number of charge cycles they will hold before efficiency drops or even the replacement costs of these parts and therefore the continued pollution in their manufacture and re-supply.

I hope that is simple enough for you!....incidentally
, these facts are not disputed by anyone including the Greens!
[quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: This isn't a waste at all. My street is so much nicer now that cars go a bit slower. It's upsetting that the police don't give it much attention actually. This exercise isn't about making cash form fines. It is about making streets safer. It was a manifesto pledge which the city voted for. I do not know the councillor and she is not my ward councillor. I do not know why she is stepping down. But I am certainly not adverse to a councillor being elected to do a specific thing - fight a housing project, 20mph roads, save a hospital, whatever - and they leave when it has been accomplished. We get far too many career politicians as it is. We don't vote on whether or not we like someone. We vote for people based on their pledges. The councillor and her labour colleagues told us all what they would do and are doing it. Seems a bit of a non-story to me, other than to congratulate some politicians for actually keeping their promises!! I wish to see a labour - green coalition in May 2015 at city level so we can look forward to even more streets being tamed for everyone, not just 4x4s or selfish car owners (you know who you are!).[/p][/quote]What is wrong with 4x4's?[/p][/quote]What is not wrong about 4x4s? Please explain. What exactly are they for? Words of one syllable will suffice.[/p][/quote]Grouping 4x4's into one group misses the point by a mile. It uses far more energy and resources to build a vehicle than that car will ever use in its lifetime. So it seems self evident that if I drive my 25 year old Landy its green credentials are far superior to virtually any other vehicle on the road. If you wish to pursue the point, please look to where the component parts of modern hybrid 'battery' cars come from, how they are mined, what is the toxic by products, the longevity of the batteries and the fact that manufacturers will not be drawn on either the number of charge cycles they will hold before efficiency drops or even the replacement costs of these parts and therefore the continued pollution in their manufacture and re-supply. I hope that is simple enough for you!....incidentally , these facts are not disputed by anyone including the Greens! eeoodares
  • Score: 1078

11:25pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Jack Ham says...

Haywire wrote:
Silver wrote:
Haywire wrote:
Jack Ham wrote:
There is a simple way to look at this:

Labour in York tell us that due to cuts we have to charge disabled people more for support, cannot afford to grit the roads, have to close Beckfield Lane tip and try to sell off some of our prized assets like Union Terrace car park.

Despite this they then proceed to spend £600,000 on a 20mph scheme only a small handful of people want. Give another £100,000 to an Arts Barge nobody ever sees, travel across the world visiting foreign cities and spend tens of thousands on a 'Fairness Commission' to talk about inequality! That's before we even start with extra bonus payments for council staff and interim directors on £700 a day.

Fortunately they have now been well and truly found out. There are still a deluded few who think the people of York love them and the Labour elite - led by millionaire Julia Unwin and Patrick Kelly believe they know what's best for us.

The games up for Alexander, Simpson-Laing, Merrett, Levene and Semlyn. It's interesting to watch Daf Williams & Linsay Cunningham beginning to distance themselves - they've seen the writing on the wall and are positioned to take over what's left of York Labour after the elections next year.

The terrifying thing is that even when gone we'll be paying the Alexander legacy for decades to come. He's borrow £27,000,000 so far. That's an awful lot of council tax from and awful lot of residents for an awfully long time.

And for what? Photo opportunities. Appeasing his Labour friends and currying favour with the Labour West Yorkshire councils.

Disgrace.
"a 20mph scheme only a small handful of people want." Primary Source??
It's been said before but here's the primary source http://www.yorkpress



.co.uk/news/11217748



.20_mph_campaigner_d



ismisses_driver_surv



ey_claims/
I can see that you have never done anything in the way of serious research by this reference. By the way, what speed would you suggest we drive in towns? 30/40/50 or just how you feel on the day?
Such a patronising response. You must surely be a member of the York Labour Group.

It's hard to believe that an administration welcomed with open arms by the city so quickly turned against its own voters, ignored what they were saying and just four short years later at little more than a laughing stock across the city.

If would almost be funny if it wasn't costing us so much money.
[quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Silver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack Ham[/bold] wrote: There is a simple way to look at this: Labour in York tell us that due to cuts we have to charge disabled people more for support, cannot afford to grit the roads, have to close Beckfield Lane tip and try to sell off some of our prized assets like Union Terrace car park. Despite this they then proceed to spend £600,000 on a 20mph scheme only a small handful of people want. Give another £100,000 to an Arts Barge nobody ever sees, travel across the world visiting foreign cities and spend tens of thousands on a 'Fairness Commission' to talk about inequality! That's before we even start with extra bonus payments for council staff and interim directors on £700 a day. Fortunately they have now been well and truly found out. There are still a deluded few who think the people of York love them and the Labour elite - led by millionaire Julia Unwin and Patrick Kelly believe they know what's best for us. The games up for Alexander, Simpson-Laing, Merrett, Levene and Semlyn. It's interesting to watch Daf Williams & Linsay Cunningham beginning to distance themselves - they've seen the writing on the wall and are positioned to take over what's left of York Labour after the elections next year. The terrifying thing is that even when gone we'll be paying the Alexander legacy for decades to come. He's borrow £27,000,000 so far. That's an awful lot of council tax from and awful lot of residents for an awfully long time. And for what? Photo opportunities. Appeasing his Labour friends and currying favour with the Labour West Yorkshire councils. Disgrace.[/p][/quote]"a 20mph scheme only a small handful of people want." Primary Source??[/p][/quote]It's been said before but here's the primary source http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/news/11217748 .20_mph_campaigner_d ismisses_driver_surv ey_claims/[/p][/quote]I can see that you have never done anything in the way of serious research by this reference. By the way, what speed would you suggest we drive in towns? 30/40/50 or just how you feel on the day?[/p][/quote]Such a patronising response. You must surely be a member of the York Labour Group. It's hard to believe that an administration welcomed with open arms by the city so quickly turned against its own voters, ignored what they were saying and just four short years later at little more than a laughing stock across the city. If would almost be funny if it wasn't costing us so much money. Jack Ham
  • Score: 1027

11:59pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Silver says...

Jack Ham wrote:
Haywire wrote:
Silver wrote:
Haywire wrote:
Jack Ham wrote:
There is a simple way to look at this:

Labour in York tell us that due to cuts we have to charge disabled people more for support, cannot afford to grit the roads, have to close Beckfield Lane tip and try to sell off some of our prized assets like Union Terrace car park.

Despite this they then proceed to spend £600,000 on a 20mph scheme only a small handful of people want. Give another £100,000 to an Arts Barge nobody ever sees, travel across the world visiting foreign cities and spend tens of thousands on a 'Fairness Commission' to talk about inequality! That's before we even start with extra bonus payments for council staff and interim directors on £700 a day.

Fortunately they have now been well and truly found out. There are still a deluded few who think the people of York love them and the Labour elite - led by millionaire Julia Unwin and Patrick Kelly believe they know what's best for us.

The games up for Alexander, Simpson-Laing, Merrett, Levene and Semlyn. It's interesting to watch Daf Williams & Linsay Cunningham beginning to distance themselves - they've seen the writing on the wall and are positioned to take over what's left of York Labour after the elections next year.

The terrifying thing is that even when gone we'll be paying the Alexander legacy for decades to come. He's borrow £27,000,000 so far. That's an awful lot of council tax from and awful lot of residents for an awfully long time.

And for what? Photo opportunities. Appeasing his Labour friends and currying favour with the Labour West Yorkshire councils.

Disgrace.
"a 20mph scheme only a small handful of people want." Primary Source??
It's been said before but here's the primary source http://www.yorkpress




.co.uk/news/11217748




.20_mph_campaigner_d




ismisses_driver_surv




ey_claims/
I can see that you have never done anything in the way of serious research by this reference. By the way, what speed would you suggest we drive in towns? 30/40/50 or just how you feel on the day?
Such a patronising response. You must surely be a member of the York Labour Group.

It's hard to believe that an administration welcomed with open arms by the city so quickly turned against its own voters, ignored what they were saying and just four short years later at little more than a laughing stock across the city.

If would almost be funny if it wasn't costing us so much money.
Ok Seeing as I've not suggested any change to the rules of accepted speed limits. You can assume I actually agree with the belief you drive to the situation. Last night I drove on the A64 in a high level of rain and dropped from the speed limit to 40 as even with my wipers on the fullest setting it was not safe. I will drive on a 30mph at a speed close to the recommended setting But I will adjust it depending on the scenario, if I am near a school I drop down to 20 as it's a smart move. I am also a labour voter and I do feel they've messed up their term rather badly. They only needed to not mess up the system and try to not sell off assets.
[quote][p][bold]Jack Ham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Silver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack Ham[/bold] wrote: There is a simple way to look at this: Labour in York tell us that due to cuts we have to charge disabled people more for support, cannot afford to grit the roads, have to close Beckfield Lane tip and try to sell off some of our prized assets like Union Terrace car park. Despite this they then proceed to spend £600,000 on a 20mph scheme only a small handful of people want. Give another £100,000 to an Arts Barge nobody ever sees, travel across the world visiting foreign cities and spend tens of thousands on a 'Fairness Commission' to talk about inequality! That's before we even start with extra bonus payments for council staff and interim directors on £700 a day. Fortunately they have now been well and truly found out. There are still a deluded few who think the people of York love them and the Labour elite - led by millionaire Julia Unwin and Patrick Kelly believe they know what's best for us. The games up for Alexander, Simpson-Laing, Merrett, Levene and Semlyn. It's interesting to watch Daf Williams & Linsay Cunningham beginning to distance themselves - they've seen the writing on the wall and are positioned to take over what's left of York Labour after the elections next year. The terrifying thing is that even when gone we'll be paying the Alexander legacy for decades to come. He's borrow £27,000,000 so far. That's an awful lot of council tax from and awful lot of residents for an awfully long time. And for what? Photo opportunities. Appeasing his Labour friends and currying favour with the Labour West Yorkshire councils. Disgrace.[/p][/quote]"a 20mph scheme only a small handful of people want." Primary Source??[/p][/quote]It's been said before but here's the primary source http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/news/11217748 .20_mph_campaigner_d ismisses_driver_surv ey_claims/[/p][/quote]I can see that you have never done anything in the way of serious research by this reference. By the way, what speed would you suggest we drive in towns? 30/40/50 or just how you feel on the day?[/p][/quote]Such a patronising response. You must surely be a member of the York Labour Group. It's hard to believe that an administration welcomed with open arms by the city so quickly turned against its own voters, ignored what they were saying and just four short years later at little more than a laughing stock across the city. If would almost be funny if it wasn't costing us so much money.[/p][/quote]Ok Seeing as I've not suggested any change to the rules of accepted speed limits. You can assume I actually agree with the belief you drive to the situation. Last night I drove on the A64 in a high level of rain and dropped from the speed limit to 40 as even with my wipers on the fullest setting it was not safe. I will drive on a 30mph at a speed close to the recommended setting But I will adjust it depending on the scenario, if I am near a school I drop down to 20 as it's a smart move. I am also a labour voter and I do feel they've messed up their term rather badly. They only needed to not mess up the system and try to not sell off assets. Silver
  • Score: 1200

1:54am Thu 14 Aug 14

Magicman! says...

Utterly bonkers, simple as that.

Anna Semlyen has been on her revenge drive against whoever knocked her over all that time ago, and everybody is paying for it. The police stated from day one that they would not be enforcing it, yet the council went ahead and wasted over half a million quid on a bunch of pointless signs, when we have roads which are practically ploughed in places. 20mph is good when used in targeted areas such as outside schools and playing fields, as it raises drivers' awareness that there may be extra hazards around - putting it as a blanket limit dulls down that awareness.

And don't even think for a minute that the council are doing it "for the benefit of cyclists", as this very same council got rid of the Water End cycle route as its very first act on coming to power, and has since taken away cycle priority on Malton Road and made up dangerous cycle lanes on Stirling Road at Clifton Moor... anybody would think the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing....
Utterly bonkers, simple as that. Anna Semlyen has been on her revenge drive against whoever knocked her over all that time ago, and everybody is paying for it. The police stated from day one that they would not be enforcing it, yet the council went ahead and wasted over half a million quid on a bunch of pointless signs, when we have roads which are practically ploughed in places. 20mph is good when used in targeted areas such as outside schools and playing fields, as it raises drivers' awareness that there may be extra hazards around - putting it as a blanket limit dulls down that awareness. And don't even think for a minute that the council are doing it "for the benefit of cyclists", as this very same council got rid of the Water End cycle route as its very first act on coming to power, and has since taken away cycle priority on Malton Road and made up dangerous cycle lanes on Stirling Road at Clifton Moor... anybody would think the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.... Magicman!
  • Score: 622

2:20am Thu 14 Aug 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

Yes, BONKERS.
And I see the Council score adjuster is back from holiday!

Not surprised the Council is skint...
Yes, BONKERS. And I see the Council score adjuster is back from holiday! Not surprised the Council is skint... ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: -2195

7:47am Thu 14 Aug 14

Pinza-C55 says...

"Cabinet member David Levene said residential 20mph speed limits were intended to be largely self-enforcing, so actual enforcement of a well-designed scheme was likely to be limited."
What an odd statement! How does a speed limit "enforce itself" ?
By that logic if you put a speed limit of 500 MPH on all UK roads I suppose everyone would obey it?
"Cabinet member David Levene said residential 20mph speed limits were intended to be largely self-enforcing, so actual enforcement of a well-designed scheme was likely to be limited." What an odd statement! How does a speed limit "enforce itself" ? By that logic if you put a speed limit of 500 MPH on all UK roads I suppose everyone would obey it? Pinza-C55
  • Score: 656

8:02am Thu 14 Aug 14

deckhanddave says...

The 20mph limits must be worth the money. No drivers have been prosecuted since it started! Every one must be obeying it then. At least that's probably what the idiot councillors would have us believe.

Also, it has proven hugely popular with the Chavs and potheads. They can now earn bragging rights for speeding at 20 to 30mph over the speed limit instead of only 10 to 20mph.

My right leg is now looking like Popeye's arm. All that up and downing changing speed to go from 20 to 30mph and back to 20mph.

My brain has never been so agile. Watching out for Lemmings disguised as bikes and pedestrians. Avoiding kamikaze pot heads in their big bore silenced 1100 cc hairdresser cars. Going around mini roundabouts whilst trying to avoid as much damage as possible to my steering and suspension by dodging potholes that there is no money to repair. Being buzzed by annoying Gnats, sorry *wats on their noisy modern day equivalent to push and fa*t mopeds. Swinging around numerous mini roundabouts.

All the above benefits for a mere measly £600,000 cost, wonderful value for money.
The 20mph limits must be worth the money. No drivers have been prosecuted since it started! Every one must be obeying it then. At least that's probably what the idiot councillors would have us believe. Also, it has proven hugely popular with the Chavs and potheads. They can now earn bragging rights for speeding at 20 to 30mph over the speed limit instead of only 10 to 20mph. My right leg is now looking like Popeye's arm. All that up and downing changing speed to go from 20 to 30mph and back to 20mph. My brain has never been so agile. Watching out for Lemmings disguised as bikes and pedestrians. Avoiding kamikaze pot heads in their big bore silenced 1100 cc hairdresser cars. Going around mini roundabouts whilst trying to avoid as much damage as possible to my steering and suspension by dodging potholes that there is no money to repair. Being buzzed by annoying Gnats, sorry *wats on their noisy modern day equivalent to push and fa*t mopeds. Swinging around numerous mini roundabouts. All the above benefits for a mere measly £600,000 cost, wonderful value for money. deckhanddave
  • Score: 1071

8:41am Thu 14 Aug 14

julia brica says...

Its a joke ! it has to be because I followed a police van along Bishopthorpe Road at 32 mph inside the 20mph limits.
Were they on their way to a call ? Doubt it, the passenger officer was reading a newspaper.
Its a joke ! it has to be because I followed a police van along Bishopthorpe Road at 32 mph inside the 20mph limits. Were they on their way to a call ? Doubt it, the passenger officer was reading a newspaper. julia brica
  • Score: 821

8:52am Thu 14 Aug 14

the original Homer says...

£600 000 on signs that have made no difference whatsoever.

Most drivers travel at the same speed they would have done before the signs were erected. This may be as slow as 5-10 mph on the cul-de-sacs, and as high as 30-35 mph on the through roads.

No increase or decrease in either safety or emissions.

The whole "twenty is plenty" campaign is based on reducing accidents, which sounds good in theory but fails miserably on a practical level.

It all boils down to an easy way of a certain Councillor getting brownie points by backing a campaign which everyone is scared to be seen to vote against. No-one is prepared to put their hand up and say they want to vote against a safety issue, even if the benefits are unproven.

£600 000 (and counting) wasted, and we're stuck with them now as it would cost again to remove them.

The sensible thing would be to call a halt to any further roll-out, but I can't see it happening..
£600 000 on signs that have made no difference whatsoever. Most drivers travel at the same speed they would have done before the signs were erected. This may be as slow as 5-10 mph on the cul-de-sacs, and as high as 30-35 mph on the through roads. No increase or decrease in either safety or emissions. The whole "twenty is plenty" campaign is based on reducing accidents, which sounds good in theory but fails miserably on a practical level. It all boils down to an easy way of a certain Councillor getting brownie points by backing a campaign which everyone is scared to be seen to vote against. No-one is prepared to put their hand up and say they want to vote against a safety issue, even if the benefits are unproven. £600 000 (and counting) wasted, and we're stuck with them now as it would cost again to remove them. The sensible thing would be to call a halt to any further roll-out, but I can't see it happening.. the original Homer
  • Score: 1229

8:58am Thu 14 Aug 14

archieboldthe2nd says...

Haywire wrote:
pbrowne2009@live.co. uk wrote:
notpedallingpaul wrote:
pbrowne2009@live.co. uk wrote: I laugh every time I pass a pointless 20mph sign. Unless its going past a school of course. In fact, just to flaunt the stupid idea I actually speed up. Police flaunt it, the general public flaunt it and to some extent the average fast paced cyclist flaunts it. People don't flaunt the signs because they feel rebellious, they flaunt it because it's a complete pointless scheme and a waste of money.
You forgot to mention busses, I have yet to drive behind one sticking to 20mph on the straight section of Bishopthorpe Road going past the pub! As for beths speed humps, I suggest she tries driving down Heslington Road past St Lawrences school with a Uni Bus stuck to her rear bumper, like I have had on occasions, they dont need to slow down as they can straddle the speed cushions due to the wider track, whilst my car cant, so I just drive even slower just to p**s them off!!
I got so sick and tired of driving and paying for a car i invested in a decent honda 125cc 4 stroke bike. Will do 75mph, will get 200 miles to a £15 tank of fuel, costs me £16py to tax, £100 py to insure and I don't get stuck in traffic or face going over bumps. I have access to my partners car for off-peak driving (which in York is any time between 11pm and 5am) York is just a joke when it comes to the roads. Its a bad city for roads, yet instead of making a bad situation better, the council continue to make a bad situation worse. Pointless bumps, a traffic light system that actually causes traffic jams (ever noticed how smooth traffic flows when the lights don't work?) HUGE pointless buses too big for the roads, half empty and stop every 1/4 mile. Speed bumps that are designed to kill the car not slow it down. roundabouts that don't allow traffic to flow evenly in all directions. (traffic lights 50 yards after a roundabout so cars clog up and don't allow traffic to flow) Pointless schemes to widen the ring road instead of just duelling the whole thing. But will still invest in a Park and Ride at every entry point going into York. THE LIST GOES ON AND ON AND ON..............
Your (feasible) alternative?
Rail links on the outskirts. Infrastructure is already there. Train companies will even offer funding to open old stations to generate them more revenue.

Not really rocket science is it.
[quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pbrowne2009@live.co. uk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pbrowne2009@live.co. uk[/bold] wrote: I laugh every time I pass a pointless 20mph sign. Unless its going past a school of course. In fact, just to flaunt the stupid idea I actually speed up. Police flaunt it, the general public flaunt it and to some extent the average fast paced cyclist flaunts it. People don't flaunt the signs because they feel rebellious, they flaunt it because it's a complete pointless scheme and a waste of money.[/p][/quote]You forgot to mention busses, I have yet to drive behind one sticking to 20mph on the straight section of Bishopthorpe Road going past the pub! As for beths speed humps, I suggest she tries driving down Heslington Road past St Lawrences school with a Uni Bus stuck to her rear bumper, like I have had on occasions, they dont need to slow down as they can straddle the speed cushions due to the wider track, whilst my car cant, so I just drive even slower just to p**s them off!![/p][/quote]I got so sick and tired of driving and paying for a car i invested in a decent honda 125cc 4 stroke bike. Will do 75mph, will get 200 miles to a £15 tank of fuel, costs me £16py to tax, £100 py to insure and I don't get stuck in traffic or face going over bumps. I have access to my partners car for off-peak driving (which in York is any time between 11pm and 5am) York is just a joke when it comes to the roads. Its a bad city for roads, yet instead of making a bad situation better, the council continue to make a bad situation worse. Pointless bumps, a traffic light system that actually causes traffic jams (ever noticed how smooth traffic flows when the lights don't work?) HUGE pointless buses too big for the roads, half empty and stop every 1/4 mile. Speed bumps that are designed to kill the car not slow it down. roundabouts that don't allow traffic to flow evenly in all directions. (traffic lights 50 yards after a roundabout so cars clog up and don't allow traffic to flow) Pointless schemes to widen the ring road instead of just duelling the whole thing. But will still invest in a Park and Ride at every entry point going into York. THE LIST GOES ON AND ON AND ON..............[/p][/quote]Your (feasible) alternative?[/p][/quote]Rail links on the outskirts. Infrastructure is already there. Train companies will even offer funding to open old stations to generate them more revenue. Not really rocket science is it. archieboldthe2nd
  • Score: 1121

9:00am Thu 14 Aug 14

TheTruthHurts says...

Silver wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
greenmonkey wrote:
robynd wrote: The more pertinant question is - have incidents and injuries decreased in the 20 mph zones. Probably not enough time to get enough data yet. And the data needs to be analysed carefully as the zones are likely to have been built in areas where accidents are more likely. If there have been a reduction in injuries, isn't that a good thing?
This is a very good point. Until it is implemented across the city there will be mixed messages about what the appropriate speed should be as you drive about. Getting the police to take action on any speed limits in York is difficult - only when people get injured or killed is it deemed a priority. No doubt the fact that its traffic cops who expect to drive around at speed themselves who get to comment on the limits has something to do with their attitude to 20mph. It would only take a few random speed traps to get the message over that the limit is there to be obeyed. However the bottom line for me is that if a driver hits someone when driving exceeding the speed limit the blame will be on them, and i would rather have most people driving down residential streets at 20 -30mph than at 35 -40mph as often happens with the present 30mph limit. Get hit by a car at 25mph and you have a good chance of surviving, at 35 -40mph you've little or no chance.
what are the breaking calcs between 20mph & 35mph? I always put this bluntly. If someone walks into a road without looking if there is a car, it is not the drivers fault. Yes they might have been going over the speed limit but the breaking distrances are like 2-5m extra (so 10-15m in total usually if dry) if you run out in front of a car that is 10-15m away then fool on you.
That's okay then, children always look and can judge breaking distances really well, in fact a two year old was explaining to me how stopping distances change according to weather and other conditions only last weekend. Survival of the fittest, after all, well, survival of the 4x4s against the menace of suicidal three year olds! Fool on them indeed.
Yes beth... maybe while you were having such an in-depth chat with this child who was two years old you should have asked it where its parents were. Or maybe they were too busy riding horses over speed bumps in a 20mph fantasy world? Also I’d like to say why was the child on about breaking calcs? does it think ah i'll run out into the road the car is doing 25mph and i'm 20m away so it can stop?
This is now some sort of bizarre alternative reality where parents can presumably stop a child falling into the road, tripping over, or just being a bit distracted and walking out anyway. What sort of child were you, a pudding baby who got pushed around in a pram until you were ten? Clearly not a parent nor someone who knows and youngsters or what they are like. Even an adult can fall into the road. But I guess because they fell it's their fault they died, so it's alright, speed away!

In the real world people don't want to live in GTA, and drivers don't actually get points for hitting people. Just so you know.
Beth have you actually played GTA? There isn't a point system anywhere in that game unless you take your character to an arcade and play a videogame within a video game. The system of value in GTA is actually pretend money.
Now onto the sensible rebuttal, young children of a certain age such as 2 can be placed on reins to ensure they don't run off into the road. Also you teach your children to respect the road, you put some discipline into their upbringing regarding roads. I wasn't allowed to cross a road unattended until my parents were sure I fully understood the dangers. They even made a game of it for me to tell them if I thought it was safe to cross. And after I left reins I was held by a hand to make sure I understood how dangerous it was. A 20mph sign will not tell a small child anything and a 20mph collision with a car can still kill a small child in the right scenario even a 1mph collision can kill a child. We do live in a dangerous world and we need to ensure our children respect it.
Lol, well actually if i recall the very first GTA you would get points for running over pedestrians, double points if you were in a police car and a 5000 point bonus if you killed the whole group of hare krishnas in one move :-)
[quote][p][bold]Silver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]robynd[/bold] wrote: The more pertinant question is - have incidents and injuries decreased in the 20 mph zones. Probably not enough time to get enough data yet. And the data needs to be analysed carefully as the zones are likely to have been built in areas where accidents are more likely. If there have been a reduction in injuries, isn't that a good thing?[/p][/quote]This is a very good point. Until it is implemented across the city there will be mixed messages about what the appropriate speed should be as you drive about. Getting the police to take action on any speed limits in York is difficult - only when people get injured or killed is it deemed a priority. No doubt the fact that its traffic cops who expect to drive around at speed themselves who get to comment on the limits has something to do with their attitude to 20mph. It would only take a few random speed traps to get the message over that the limit is there to be obeyed. However the bottom line for me is that if a driver hits someone when driving exceeding the speed limit the blame will be on them, and i would rather have most people driving down residential streets at 20 -30mph than at 35 -40mph as often happens with the present 30mph limit. Get hit by a car at 25mph and you have a good chance of surviving, at 35 -40mph you've little or no chance.[/p][/quote]what are the breaking calcs between 20mph & 35mph? I always put this bluntly. If someone walks into a road without looking if there is a car, it is not the drivers fault. Yes they might have been going over the speed limit but the breaking distrances are like 2-5m extra (so 10-15m in total usually if dry) if you run out in front of a car that is 10-15m away then fool on you.[/p][/quote]That's okay then, children always look and can judge breaking distances really well, in fact a two year old was explaining to me how stopping distances change according to weather and other conditions only last weekend. Survival of the fittest, after all, well, survival of the 4x4s against the menace of suicidal three year olds! Fool on them indeed.[/p][/quote]Yes beth... maybe while you were having such an in-depth chat with this child who was two years old you should have asked it where its parents were. Or maybe they were too busy riding horses over speed bumps in a 20mph fantasy world? Also I’d like to say why was the child on about breaking calcs? does it think ah i'll run out into the road the car is doing 25mph and i'm 20m away so it can stop?[/p][/quote]This is now some sort of bizarre alternative reality where parents can presumably stop a child falling into the road, tripping over, or just being a bit distracted and walking out anyway. What sort of child were you, a pudding baby who got pushed around in a pram until you were ten? Clearly not a parent nor someone who knows and youngsters or what they are like. Even an adult can fall into the road. But I guess because they fell it's their fault they died, so it's alright, speed away! In the real world people don't want to live in GTA, and drivers don't actually get points for hitting people. Just so you know.[/p][/quote]Beth have you actually played GTA? There isn't a point system anywhere in that game unless you take your character to an arcade and play a videogame within a video game. The system of value in GTA is actually pretend money. Now onto the sensible rebuttal, young children of a certain age such as 2 can be placed on reins to ensure they don't run off into the road. Also you teach your children to respect the road, you put some discipline into their upbringing regarding roads. I wasn't allowed to cross a road unattended until my parents were sure I fully understood the dangers. They even made a game of it for me to tell them if I thought it was safe to cross. And after I left reins I was held by a hand to make sure I understood how dangerous it was. A 20mph sign will not tell a small child anything and a 20mph collision with a car can still kill a small child in the right scenario even a 1mph collision can kill a child. We do live in a dangerous world and we need to ensure our children respect it.[/p][/quote]Lol, well actually if i recall the very first GTA you would get points for running over pedestrians, double points if you were in a police car and a 5000 point bonus if you killed the whole group of hare krishnas in one move :-) TheTruthHurts
  • Score: 1017

9:29am Thu 14 Aug 14

P3TER1 says...

Grumpy Old Man wrote:
P3TER1 wrote:
As I said in a previous story, speed doesn't necessarily cause accidents, lack of concentration, poor judgement and indecisiveness does. Yes, this was a complete waste of money.
You are talking utter rubbish. Speed is the major killer on British roads. Everything else you quote comes about because people drive at speeds they cannot handle. See court case on this page.
I disagree, speed is not the major killer. Using a mobile, applying make-up, fiddling with the radio, even talking to others in the car, anything that takes the drivers attention away from the road and what’s around them is more likely to cause an accident.
[quote][p][bold]Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]P3TER1[/bold] wrote: As I said in a previous story, speed doesn't necessarily cause accidents, lack of concentration, poor judgement and indecisiveness does. Yes, this was a complete waste of money.[/p][/quote]You are talking utter rubbish. Speed is the major killer on British roads. Everything else you quote comes about because people drive at speeds they cannot handle. See court case on this page.[/p][/quote]I disagree, speed is not the major killer. Using a mobile, applying make-up, fiddling with the radio, even talking to others in the car, anything that takes the drivers attention away from the road and what’s around them is more likely to cause an accident. P3TER1
  • Score: 1024

9:54am Thu 14 Aug 14

Fanny Free House says...

deckhanddave wrote:
The 20mph limits must be worth the money. No drivers have been prosecuted since it started! Every one must be obeying it then. At least that's probably what the idiot councillors would have us believe.

Also, it has proven hugely popular with the Chavs and potheads. They can now earn bragging rights for speeding at 20 to 30mph over the speed limit instead of only 10 to 20mph.

My right leg is now looking like Popeye's arm. All that up and downing changing speed to go from 20 to 30mph and back to 20mph.

My brain has never been so agile. Watching out for Lemmings disguised as bikes and pedestrians. Avoiding kamikaze pot heads in their big bore silenced 1100 cc hairdresser cars. Going around mini roundabouts whilst trying to avoid as much damage as possible to my steering and suspension by dodging potholes that there is no money to repair. Being buzzed by annoying Gnats, sorry *wats on their noisy modern day equivalent to push and fa*t mopeds. Swinging around numerous mini roundabouts.

All the above benefits for a mere measly £600,000 cost, wonderful value for money.
Fantastic, Kamikaze cyclists, I saw one yesterday. A car indicating to turn left, well in front of the cyclist, but the cyclist was in a cycle lane and continued to undertake. The cyclist waved a fist at the driver continued to look back muttering some words of protest.

Funny really how the cyclist protest would have massively conflicted with my statement to the police had the worst happened (fortunately it didn't).

Well officer, I was travelling at 15 to 20mph, the car some 12 to 15 meters in front of me was indicating to turn left. I was reducing my speed to allow the vehicle in front to make his manoeuvre, I was undertaken by the cyclist who clearly wasn't paying attention to what was happening, the rest is history.
[quote][p][bold]deckhanddave[/bold] wrote: The 20mph limits must be worth the money. No drivers have been prosecuted since it started! Every one must be obeying it then. At least that's probably what the idiot councillors would have us believe. Also, it has proven hugely popular with the Chavs and potheads. They can now earn bragging rights for speeding at 20 to 30mph over the speed limit instead of only 10 to 20mph. My right leg is now looking like Popeye's arm. All that up and downing changing speed to go from 20 to 30mph and back to 20mph. My brain has never been so agile. Watching out for Lemmings disguised as bikes and pedestrians. Avoiding kamikaze pot heads in their big bore silenced 1100 cc hairdresser cars. Going around mini roundabouts whilst trying to avoid as much damage as possible to my steering and suspension by dodging potholes that there is no money to repair. Being buzzed by annoying Gnats, sorry *wats on their noisy modern day equivalent to push and fa*t mopeds. Swinging around numerous mini roundabouts. All the above benefits for a mere measly £600,000 cost, wonderful value for money.[/p][/quote]Fantastic, Kamikaze cyclists, I saw one yesterday. A car indicating to turn left, well in front of the cyclist, but the cyclist was in a cycle lane and continued to undertake. The cyclist waved a fist at the driver continued to look back muttering some words of protest. Funny really how the cyclist protest would have massively conflicted with my statement to the police had the worst happened (fortunately it didn't). Well officer, I was travelling at 15 to 20mph, the car some 12 to 15 meters in front of me was indicating to turn left. I was reducing my speed to allow the vehicle in front to make his manoeuvre, I was undertaken by the cyclist who clearly wasn't paying attention to what was happening, the rest is history. Fanny Free House
  • Score: 1238

9:56am Thu 14 Aug 14

BethFoxhunter96 says...

Rail links on the outskirts. Infrastructure is already there. Train companies will even offer funding to open old stations to generate them more revenue.

Not really rocket science is it.


So, we're replacing free (to CYC) bus services with a massive bill to provide train services. Whose houses are you going to knock down to build new stations and railway lines? There is a P&R bus stop just along from where I live. Given your cunning plan will presumably not have a station every 300 meters, can you tell me how I get into town please?

#fail
[quote]Rail links on the outskirts. Infrastructure is already there. Train companies will even offer funding to open old stations to generate them more revenue. Not really rocket science is it.[/quote] So, we're replacing free (to CYC) bus services with a massive bill to provide train services. Whose houses are you going to knock down to build new stations and railway lines? There is a P&R bus stop just along from where I live. Given your cunning plan will presumably not have a station every 300 meters, can you tell me how I get into town please? #fail BethFoxhunter96
  • Score: -1322

10:05am Thu 14 Aug 14

BethFoxhunter96 says...

Your common sense is that of a 16 year old girl

And as for children, I have them and I don't think I'd be happy for you to be responsible for looking after them.
Roads even ones with 20 MPH zones are not places for children to play about.
If one child is killed on a road that has been changed to a 20 zone because Anna Semlyen said it's a safer place for children, then she should be held personally responsible.


Someone can't do maths. I'm 17, not 16. And frankly, who's to say you'd be able to afford my babysitting services? ;)

Don't be daft about being held "personally responsible". She hasn't asked anyone to play in the roads. Accidents happen when people aren't playing in the roads. Cyclists, pedestrians... even... wait for it... car to car accidents happen. At 20 mph both likelihood and severity of accidents reduce, which is why I suppose a blanket 20mph in York.

Funnily enough I was driving through Acomb last night at 20mph in the 20mph zones... 4th gear... hardly felt the speed bumps at all (pretty sure my suspension didn't fall off, my wheels didn't crack and my steering wheel worked fine too!)... 20 is lovely speed to carefully go over speed bumps, no low gears, nice low revs, nice happy speed. Seemed like an excellent way to travel to me. Plus the speed bumps were small enough so that horses and cycles can easily get past without problems. Very good road design.
[quote]Your common sense is that of a 16 year old girl And as for children, I have them and I don't think I'd be happy for you to be responsible for looking after them. Roads even ones with 20 MPH zones are not places for children to play about. If one child is killed on a road that has been changed to a 20 zone because Anna Semlyen said it's a safer place for children, then she should be held personally responsible.[/quote] Someone can't do maths. I'm 17, not 16. And frankly, who's to say you'd be able to afford my babysitting services? ;) Don't be daft about being held "personally responsible". She hasn't asked anyone to play in the roads. Accidents happen when people aren't playing in the roads. Cyclists, pedestrians... even... wait for it... car to car accidents happen. At 20 mph both likelihood and severity of accidents reduce, which is why I suppose a blanket 20mph in York. Funnily enough I was driving through Acomb last night at 20mph in the 20mph zones... 4th gear... hardly felt the speed bumps at all (pretty sure my suspension didn't fall off, my wheels didn't crack and my steering wheel worked fine too!)... 20 is lovely speed to carefully go over speed bumps, no low gears, nice low revs, nice happy speed. Seemed like an excellent way to travel to me. Plus the speed bumps were small enough so that horses and cycles can easily get past without problems. Very good road design. BethFoxhunter96
  • Score: 625

10:12am Thu 14 Aug 14

notpedallingpaul says...

The 20mph limit is a contentious issue there is no doubt about that, 20mph limits around schools and the like are a good thing and I would like to bet a penny to a pound that the majority of motorists and motorcyclists do slow down when in these areas, what I do disagree with is a blanket 20mph limit, after all one size does not fit all, as we motorist know, and can name roads and streets that have 20mph limits for no other reason than it was a vanity project by a certain soon not to be councilor, perhaps we should re-name the '20's Plenty' the 'Anna Semlyn Legacy', for that all she will be remembered for.
The 20mph limit is a contentious issue there is no doubt about that, 20mph limits around schools and the like are a good thing and I would like to bet a penny to a pound that the majority of motorists and motorcyclists do slow down when in these areas, what I do disagree with is a blanket 20mph limit, after all one size does not fit all, as we motorist know, and can name roads and streets that have 20mph limits for no other reason than it was a vanity project by a certain soon not to be councilor, perhaps we should re-name the '20's Plenty' the 'Anna Semlyn Legacy', for that all she will be remembered for. notpedallingpaul
  • Score: 908

10:28am Thu 14 Aug 14

the original Homer says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
Your common sense is that of a 16 year old girl

And as for children, I have them and I don't think I'd be happy for you to be responsible for looking after them.
Roads even ones with 20 MPH zones are not places for children to play about.
If one child is killed on a road that has been changed to a 20 zone because Anna Semlyen said it's a safer place for children, then she should be held personally responsible.


Someone can't do maths. I'm 17, not 16. And frankly, who's to say you'd be able to afford my babysitting services? ;)

Don't be daft about being held "personally responsible". She hasn't asked anyone to play in the roads. Accidents happen when people aren't playing in the roads. Cyclists, pedestrians... even... wait for it... car to car accidents happen. At 20 mph both likelihood and severity of accidents reduce, which is why I suppose a blanket 20mph in York.

Funnily enough I was driving through Acomb last night at 20mph in the 20mph zones... 4th gear... hardly felt the speed bumps at all (pretty sure my suspension didn't fall off, my wheels didn't crack and my steering wheel worked fine too!)... 20 is lovely speed to carefully go over speed bumps, no low gears, nice low revs, nice happy speed. Seemed like an excellent way to travel to me. Plus the speed bumps were small enough so that horses and cycles can easily get past without problems. Very good road design.
Could you please let us know the make and model of car where 4th is the appropriate gear at 20 mph?

I'd suggest you were either travelling faster or you were in the wrong gear.
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote]Your common sense is that of a 16 year old girl And as for children, I have them and I don't think I'd be happy for you to be responsible for looking after them. Roads even ones with 20 MPH zones are not places for children to play about. If one child is killed on a road that has been changed to a 20 zone because Anna Semlyen said it's a safer place for children, then she should be held personally responsible.[/quote] Someone can't do maths. I'm 17, not 16. And frankly, who's to say you'd be able to afford my babysitting services? ;) Don't be daft about being held "personally responsible". She hasn't asked anyone to play in the roads. Accidents happen when people aren't playing in the roads. Cyclists, pedestrians... even... wait for it... car to car accidents happen. At 20 mph both likelihood and severity of accidents reduce, which is why I suppose a blanket 20mph in York. Funnily enough I was driving through Acomb last night at 20mph in the 20mph zones... 4th gear... hardly felt the speed bumps at all (pretty sure my suspension didn't fall off, my wheels didn't crack and my steering wheel worked fine too!)... 20 is lovely speed to carefully go over speed bumps, no low gears, nice low revs, nice happy speed. Seemed like an excellent way to travel to me. Plus the speed bumps were small enough so that horses and cycles can easily get past without problems. Very good road design.[/p][/quote]Could you please let us know the make and model of car where 4th is the appropriate gear at 20 mph? I'd suggest you were either travelling faster or you were in the wrong gear. the original Homer
  • Score: 554

10:32am Thu 14 Aug 14

BethFoxhunter96 says...

Could you please let us know the make and model of car where 4th is the appropriate gear at 20 mph?

I'd suggest you were either travelling faster or you were in the wrong gear.


Okay that's kinda creepy, no, I'm not going to tell you what car I drive!!!

Suffice to say it was a smooth drive, I changed down to third to go round the roundabout at Green Lane if that's what you mean. But 4th works fine for me from about 20mph onwards. Thanks, Beth.
[quote]Could you please let us know the make and model of car where 4th is the appropriate gear at 20 mph? I'd suggest you were either travelling faster or you were in the wrong gear.[/quote] Okay that's kinda creepy, no, I'm not going to tell you what car I drive!!! Suffice to say it was a smooth drive, I changed down to third to go round the roundabout at Green Lane if that's what you mean. But 4th works fine for me from about 20mph onwards. Thanks, Beth. BethFoxhunter96
  • Score: 1053

10:37am Thu 14 Aug 14

The Great Buda says...

Knavesmire view wrote:
The Great Buda wrote:
Semlyens playing the victim. A sure sign she knows she's in the wrong.
She doesn't care anyway. She got what she wanted, is now stepping down.

It stinks, and if that isn't a clear conflict of interest I don't know what is. The whole thing should be investigated.
She should indeed be investigated.

She has rail-roaded through a waste of Tax Payers money, and then done a runner. She should be forced to pay it back herself.
[quote][p][bold]Knavesmire view[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: Semlyens playing the victim. A sure sign she knows she's in the wrong.[/p][/quote]She doesn't care anyway. She got what she wanted, is now stepping down. It stinks, and if that isn't a clear conflict of interest I don't know what is. The whole thing should be investigated.[/p][/quote]She should indeed be investigated. She has rail-roaded through a waste of Tax Payers money, and then done a runner. She should be forced to pay it back herself. The Great Buda
  • Score: 523

10:38am Thu 14 Aug 14

archieboldthe2nd says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
Rail links on the outskirts. Infrastructure is already there. Train companies will even offer funding to open old stations to generate them more revenue. Not really rocket science is it.
So, we're replacing free (to CYC) bus services with a massive bill to provide train services. Whose houses are you going to knock down to build new stations and railway lines? There is a P&R bus stop just along from where I live. Given your cunning plan will presumably not have a station every 300 meters, can you tell me how I get into town please? #fail
Excellent and intelligent comments yet again beth. Let me address them. You do not need to knock houses down as there is more then enough railway land on the outskirts, indeed some are even still there and just need re-opening. Is the bus service free? I’m pretty sure CYC just spent 23m of p&r? Not really free is it? New railway lines? No we have one of the countries biggest stations with more then enough lines already? Good for you, you have a p&r near you. Congratulations. Ah so the p&r stops every 300meters? I was under the assumption it had like 1 stop in its way to town that no one used? Silly me. The idea of outskirt stations are the same as P&R you drive to them, park and then get to York station traffic free and this would then remove traffic from our roads and would be a lot greener. You could even cycle with less fear!

Ah hash tag... beth you might actually think you are smart with all the answers but your a daft 17 year old hippy with no clue about transport infrastructure or the future of transport. #mummymummycanihavea
unicorn.
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote]Rail links on the outskirts. Infrastructure is already there. Train companies will even offer funding to open old stations to generate them more revenue. Not really rocket science is it.[/quote] So, we're replacing free (to CYC) bus services with a massive bill to provide train services. Whose houses are you going to knock down to build new stations and railway lines? There is a P&R bus stop just along from where I live. Given your cunning plan will presumably not have a station every 300 meters, can you tell me how I get into town please? #fail[/p][/quote]Excellent and intelligent comments yet again beth. Let me address them. You do not need to knock houses down as there is more then enough railway land on the outskirts, indeed some are even still there and just need re-opening. Is the bus service free? I’m pretty sure CYC just spent 23m of p&r? Not really free is it? New railway lines? No we have one of the countries biggest stations with more then enough lines already? Good for you, you have a p&r near you. Congratulations. Ah so the p&r stops every 300meters? I was under the assumption it had like 1 stop in its way to town that no one used? Silly me. The idea of outskirt stations are the same as P&R you drive to them, park and then get to York station traffic free and this would then remove traffic from our roads and would be a lot greener. You could even cycle with less fear! Ah hash tag... beth you might actually think you are smart with all the answers but your a daft 17 year old hippy with no clue about transport infrastructure or the future of transport. #mummymummycanihavea unicorn. archieboldthe2nd
  • Score: 871

10:41am Thu 14 Aug 14

the original Homer says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
Could you please let us know the make and model of car where 4th is the appropriate gear at 20 mph?

I'd suggest you were either travelling faster or you were in the wrong gear.


Okay that's kinda creepy, no, I'm not going to tell you what car I drive!!!

Suffice to say it was a smooth drive, I changed down to third to go round the roundabout at Green Lane if that's what you mean. But 4th works fine for me from about 20mph onwards. Thanks, Beth.
Is your car responsive in 4th gear at 20 mph?

Could you accelerate to avoid an accident?
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote]Could you please let us know the make and model of car where 4th is the appropriate gear at 20 mph? I'd suggest you were either travelling faster or you were in the wrong gear.[/quote] Okay that's kinda creepy, no, I'm not going to tell you what car I drive!!! Suffice to say it was a smooth drive, I changed down to third to go round the roundabout at Green Lane if that's what you mean. But 4th works fine for me from about 20mph onwards. Thanks, Beth.[/p][/quote]Is your car responsive in 4th gear at 20 mph? Could you accelerate to avoid an accident? the original Homer
  • Score: 996

10:48am Thu 14 Aug 14

The Great Buda says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
Could you please let us know the make and model of car where 4th is the appropriate gear at 20 mph?

I'd suggest you were either travelling faster or you were in the wrong gear.


Okay that's kinda creepy, no, I'm not going to tell you what car I drive!!!

Suffice to say it was a smooth drive, I changed down to third to go round the roundabout at Green Lane if that's what you mean. But 4th works fine for me from about 20mph onwards. Thanks, Beth.
I'd hate to be the poor person you sell that car too after you've finished destroying it.
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote]Could you please let us know the make and model of car where 4th is the appropriate gear at 20 mph? I'd suggest you were either travelling faster or you were in the wrong gear.[/quote] Okay that's kinda creepy, no, I'm not going to tell you what car I drive!!! Suffice to say it was a smooth drive, I changed down to third to go round the roundabout at Green Lane if that's what you mean. But 4th works fine for me from about 20mph onwards. Thanks, Beth.[/p][/quote]I'd hate to be the poor person you sell that car too after you've finished destroying it. The Great Buda
  • Score: 2252

10:49am Thu 14 Aug 14

BethFoxhunter96 says...

Excellent and intelligent comments yet again beth. Let me address them. You do not need to knock houses down as there is more then enough railway land on the outskirts, indeed some are even still there and just need re-opening.


You need land to build train lines on. Otherwise you are limiting yourself to Poppleton. Or slowing the mainline down.

Is the bus service free? I’m pretty sure CYC just spent 23m of p&r? Not really free is it?


Services are free for the council. 23 m for new Park and Ride parking spaces, not the bus services, because we already had roads in place so we already have the infrastructure there!

New railway lines? No we have one of the countries biggest stations with more then enough lines already?


Those lines are pretty big already. But if you want to go to say Monk's Cross of Clifton Moor then wed need to build new railway lines. So whose houses are you going to flatten?

Good for you, you have a p&r near you. Congratulations. Ah so the p&r stops every 300meters? I was under the assumption it had like 1 stop in its way to town that no one used? Silly me.


Yup, silly you. Don't worry, you can find a map of York's bus routes online.

The idea of outskirt stations are the same as P&R you drive to them, park and then get to York station traffic free and this would then remove traffic from our roads and would be a lot greener. You could even cycle with less fear!


We can do all those things with P&R without having to reopen stations, flatten homes for railway lines, and build lots more infrastructure.

Ah hash tag... beth you might actually think you are smart with all the answers but your a daft 17 year old hippy with no clue about transport infrastructure or the future of transport. #mummymummycanihavea

unicorn.


Lightweight patronising... try harder please. That made me giggle a bit.
[quote]Excellent and intelligent comments yet again beth. Let me address them. You do not need to knock houses down as there is more then enough railway land on the outskirts, indeed some are even still there and just need re-opening. [/quote] You need land to build train lines on. Otherwise you are limiting yourself to Poppleton. Or slowing the mainline down. [quote]Is the bus service free? I’m pretty sure CYC just spent 23m of p&r? Not really free is it? [/quote] Services are free for the council. 23 m for new Park and Ride parking spaces, not the bus services, because we already had roads in place so we already have the infrastructure there! [quote]New railway lines? No we have one of the countries biggest stations with more then enough lines already? [/quote] Those lines are pretty big already. But if you want to go to say Monk's Cross of Clifton Moor then wed need to build new railway lines. So whose houses are you going to flatten? [quote]Good for you, you have a p&r near you. Congratulations. Ah so the p&r stops every 300meters? I was under the assumption it had like 1 stop in its way to town that no one used? Silly me. [/quote] Yup, silly you. Don't worry, you can find a map of York's bus routes online. [quote]The idea of outskirt stations are the same as P&R you drive to them, park and then get to York station traffic free and this would then remove traffic from our roads and would be a lot greener. You could even cycle with less fear![/quote] We can do all those things with P&R without having to reopen stations, flatten homes for railway lines, and build lots more infrastructure. [quote]Ah hash tag... beth you might actually think you are smart with all the answers but your a daft 17 year old hippy with no clue about transport infrastructure or the future of transport. #mummymummycanihavea unicorn.[/quote] Lightweight patronising... try harder please. That made me giggle a bit. BethFoxhunter96
  • Score: 2534

10:53am Thu 14 Aug 14

vanmildert says...

archieboldthe2nd wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
This isn't a waste at all. My street is so much nicer now that cars go a bit slower. It's upsetting that the police don't give it much attention actually. This exercise isn't about making cash form fines. It is about making streets safer. It was a manifesto pledge which the city voted for. I do not know the councillor and she is not my ward councillor. I do not know why she is stepping down. But I am certainly not adverse to a councillor being elected to do a specific thing - fight a housing project, 20mph roads, save a hospital, whatever - and they leave when it has been accomplished. We get far too many career politicians as it is. We don't vote on whether or not we like someone. We vote for people based on their pledges. The councillor and her labour colleagues told us all what they would do and are doing it. Seems a bit of a non-story to me, other than to congratulate some politicians for actually keeping their promises!! I wish to see a labour - green coalition in May 2015 at city level so we can look forward to even more streets being tamed for everyone, not just 4x4s or selfish car owners (you know who you are!).
Once again beth what a well constructed post... but i'd like to point out a few things.

Cars are not going slower.
Signs have been put down streets where you can not reach 20mph (so just wasted money and vital CO2 as I’m sure you're aware concrete foundations are not healthy!).
She is stepping down as she no has no point in being in charge. She has already littered york with pointless signs while being paid as councillor and by 20 is plenty. Not to forget the corruption charge she faced earlier in her career i suggest it is a step down before the whole thing is investigated or sacrificial lamb.
Taming streets? yes these cul de sacs that are now 20mph were like race tracks before. Indeed I once clocked a car doing 22mph. I could barely walk across the road and have a sit down before it reached me.
4x4 are actually better for the environment then most hybrids on a whole life cost basis.
She has done her day job and been paid by two parties to put signs up. if you congratulate someone who does that it shows your knowledge of the real world. I.e 600k on this then her salary for 2 years off 2 different "companies" not to mention all the other sh@t she claimed for. And what have we got for it? Signs that no one (yes including me, the police, busses, taxis) pays attention too…

Also beth i'd like to add that travelling at 20mph is not good for most cars or the polar bears. The majority of CO2 emissions happen at this speed as its usually 2nd gear at high revs.

Before you preach about green have a think about the whole picture not just your view. You should run for coalition with these lot.. you already sound as biased to a minority view as them.
Bishopthorpe Road traffic speed is far lower since the 20mph limit between the Scarcroft Road lights and Terry's. With Rowntree park, Millthorpe school, Knavesmire school and lots of pedestrian and cycle traffic coming from the Millennium Bridge this is an excellent idea. Its just a shame there isn't the police budget to catch the idiot anti-social drivers still ignoring the speed limit.
[quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: This isn't a waste at all. My street is so much nicer now that cars go a bit slower. It's upsetting that the police don't give it much attention actually. This exercise isn't about making cash form fines. It is about making streets safer. It was a manifesto pledge which the city voted for. I do not know the councillor and she is not my ward councillor. I do not know why she is stepping down. But I am certainly not adverse to a councillor being elected to do a specific thing - fight a housing project, 20mph roads, save a hospital, whatever - and they leave when it has been accomplished. We get far too many career politicians as it is. We don't vote on whether or not we like someone. We vote for people based on their pledges. The councillor and her labour colleagues told us all what they would do and are doing it. Seems a bit of a non-story to me, other than to congratulate some politicians for actually keeping their promises!! I wish to see a labour - green coalition in May 2015 at city level so we can look forward to even more streets being tamed for everyone, not just 4x4s or selfish car owners (you know who you are!).[/p][/quote]Once again beth what a well constructed post... but i'd like to point out a few things. Cars are not going slower. Signs have been put down streets where you can not reach 20mph (so just wasted money and vital CO2 as I’m sure you're aware concrete foundations are not healthy!). She is stepping down as she no has no point in being in charge. She has already littered york with pointless signs while being paid as councillor and by 20 is plenty. Not to forget the corruption charge she faced earlier in her career i suggest it is a step down before the whole thing is investigated or sacrificial lamb. Taming streets? yes these cul de sacs that are now 20mph were like race tracks before. Indeed I once clocked a car doing 22mph. I could barely walk across the road and have a sit down before it reached me. 4x4 are actually better for the environment then most hybrids on a whole life cost basis. She has done her day job and been paid by two parties to put signs up. if you congratulate someone who does that it shows your knowledge of the real world. I.e 600k on this then her salary for 2 years off 2 different "companies" not to mention all the other sh@t she claimed for. And what have we got for it? Signs that no one (yes including me, the police, busses, taxis) pays attention too… Also beth i'd like to add that travelling at 20mph is not good for most cars or the polar bears. The majority of CO2 emissions happen at this speed as its usually 2nd gear at high revs. Before you preach about green have a think about the whole picture not just your view. You should run for coalition with these lot.. you already sound as biased to a minority view as them.[/p][/quote]Bishopthorpe Road traffic speed is far lower since the 20mph limit between the Scarcroft Road lights and Terry's. With Rowntree park, Millthorpe school, Knavesmire school and lots of pedestrian and cycle traffic coming from the Millennium Bridge this is an excellent idea. Its just a shame there isn't the police budget to catch the idiot anti-social drivers still ignoring the speed limit. vanmildert
  • Score: 746

10:54am Thu 14 Aug 14

BethFoxhunter96 says...

Is your car responsive in 4th gear at 20 mph?

Could you accelerate to avoid an accident?


Not particularly, but luckily most normal drivers press the break ("stop") pedal to avoid accidents. Of course you can talk about some hypothetical situation when an alien is trying to abduct a lorry driver and you notice this is your rear view mirror, speed up to avoid the impending doom and manage to teleport through the car in front and round a cyclist too, but lets stay within realms of reality please.
[quote]Is your car responsive in 4th gear at 20 mph? Could you accelerate to avoid an accident?[/quote] Not particularly, but luckily most normal drivers press the break ("stop") pedal to avoid accidents. Of course you can talk about some hypothetical situation when an alien is trying to abduct a lorry driver and you notice this is your rear view mirror, speed up to avoid the impending doom and manage to teleport through the car in front and round a cyclist too, but lets stay within realms of reality please. BethFoxhunter96
  • Score: 499

10:57am Thu 14 Aug 14

The Great Buda says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
Is your car responsive in 4th gear at 20 mph?

Could you accelerate to avoid an accident?


Not particularly, but luckily most normal drivers press the break ("stop") pedal to avoid accidents. Of course you can talk about some hypothetical situation when an alien is trying to abduct a lorry driver and you notice this is your rear view mirror, speed up to avoid the impending doom and manage to teleport through the car in front and round a cyclist too, but lets stay within realms of reality please.
You'd do well to follow your own advice. A good dose of reality would do wonders for you.
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote]Is your car responsive in 4th gear at 20 mph? Could you accelerate to avoid an accident?[/quote] Not particularly, but luckily most normal drivers press the break ("stop") pedal to avoid accidents. Of course you can talk about some hypothetical situation when an alien is trying to abduct a lorry driver and you notice this is your rear view mirror, speed up to avoid the impending doom and manage to teleport through the car in front and round a cyclist too, but lets stay within realms of reality please.[/p][/quote]You'd do well to follow your own advice. A good dose of reality would do wonders for you. The Great Buda
  • Score: 626

11:03am Thu 14 Aug 14

the original Homer says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
Is your car responsive in 4th gear at 20 mph?

Could you accelerate to avoid an accident?


Not particularly, but luckily most normal drivers press the break ("stop") pedal to avoid accidents. Of course you can talk about some hypothetical situation when an alien is trying to abduct a lorry driver and you notice this is your rear view mirror, speed up to avoid the impending doom and manage to teleport through the car in front and round a cyclist too, but lets stay within realms of reality please.
Your imagination is impressive

Cars with break pedals

Aliens abducting lorry drivers

However, accelerating is often the best way to avoid an accident and you should drive in the gear which is most responsive for the speed you are driving at. For most cars, 2nd would be the most appropriate gear for 20 mph.
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote]Is your car responsive in 4th gear at 20 mph? Could you accelerate to avoid an accident?[/quote] Not particularly, but luckily most normal drivers press the break ("stop") pedal to avoid accidents. Of course you can talk about some hypothetical situation when an alien is trying to abduct a lorry driver and you notice this is your rear view mirror, speed up to avoid the impending doom and manage to teleport through the car in front and round a cyclist too, but lets stay within realms of reality please.[/p][/quote]Your imagination is impressive Cars with break pedals Aliens abducting lorry drivers However, accelerating is often the best way to avoid an accident and you should drive in the gear which is most responsive for the speed you are driving at. For most cars, 2nd would be the most appropriate gear for 20 mph. the original Homer
  • Score: 1518

11:06am Thu 14 Aug 14

archieboldthe2nd says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
Excellent and intelligent comments yet again beth. Let me address them. You do not need to knock houses down as there is more then enough railway land on the outskirts, indeed some are even still there and just need re-opening.
You need land to build train lines on. Otherwise you are limiting yourself to Poppleton. Or slowing the mainline down.
Is the bus service free? I’m pretty sure CYC just spent 23m of p&r? Not really free is it?
Services are free for the council. 23 m for new Park and Ride parking spaces, not the bus services, because we already had roads in place so we already have the infrastructure there!
New railway lines? No we have one of the countries biggest stations with more then enough lines already?
Those lines are pretty big already. But if you want to go to say Monk's Cross of Clifton Moor then wed need to build new railway lines. So whose houses are you going to flatten?
Good for you, you have a p&r near you. Congratulations. Ah so the p&r stops every 300meters? I was under the assumption it had like 1 stop in its way to town that no one used? Silly me.
Yup, silly you. Don't worry, you can find a map of York's bus routes online.
The idea of outskirt stations are the same as P&R you drive to them, park and then get to York station traffic free and this would then remove traffic from our roads and would be a lot greener. You could even cycle with less fear!
We can do all those things with P&R without having to reopen stations, flatten homes for railway lines, and build lots more infrastructure.
Ah hash tag... beth you might actually think you are smart with all the answers but your a daft 17 year old hippy with no clue about transport infrastructure or the future of transport. #mummymummycanihavea unicorn.
Lightweight patronising... try harder please. That made me giggle a bit.
Beth, no new lines need to be built? The capacity is there already? i.e northern already run on the main line? Did you know that york has more then one line coming in and out of it? How do you think the northern trains run to leeds and stop at like 8 stops on the way! so before you start arguing at least be honest enough to admit you know f/a about railway or how its run or its capacity.

So what you are saying are the busses are free but the parking isn’t? please tell me how this is different from building say a platform and parking? the trains are free as they already run? again proves how stupid you are.

Next statment what if you want to go to monks x or Clifton moor... well you use your common sense and realise that there isnt going to be a train link for every journey!

Next comment i wont rise too.

Right ok p&r does all the above? yeh ok.. but it stops and causes mayhem, adds to traffic and pollution and isn't even close to its capactiy. The idea in reducing congestion is to take vehicles off the road. Dont worry the brain grows as you get older.

Again why do you need new infastructure when we have a north, south east and west trian line that could easily have a station on the ring road that people commuting to york could park and use? How many times do you need telling that you dont need new train lines? you use the existing trains and lines? With new technology like traffic management coming out the railway will have a lot more spare capacity! as with the ECML with the new flyover? so beth if you actually want to argue about this subject go ahead but its pretty pointless as everything you say is made up.

Oh and it’s funny that as you are 17 you are driving around? Must have just passed your test? And yes driving over speed bumps for a day won’t make your car fall apart but maybe in 2 years time you will notice it? And 4th gear at 20mph? Yes very economical? oh but wait I’d like to point out that running in such a gear at that speed actually burns more fuel? Think of peddling on your bike in 21st gear when you are actually just crawling? it burns more energy yes? but anyway you can not drive a petrol car at 40mph in 4th gear without it stalling so I doubt you even drive if I’m being honest?
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote]Excellent and intelligent comments yet again beth. Let me address them. You do not need to knock houses down as there is more then enough railway land on the outskirts, indeed some are even still there and just need re-opening. [/quote] You need land to build train lines on. Otherwise you are limiting yourself to Poppleton. Or slowing the mainline down. [quote]Is the bus service free? I’m pretty sure CYC just spent 23m of p&r? Not really free is it? [/quote] Services are free for the council. 23 m for new Park and Ride parking spaces, not the bus services, because we already had roads in place so we already have the infrastructure there! [quote]New railway lines? No we have one of the countries biggest stations with more then enough lines already? [/quote] Those lines are pretty big already. But if you want to go to say Monk's Cross of Clifton Moor then wed need to build new railway lines. So whose houses are you going to flatten? [quote]Good for you, you have a p&r near you. Congratulations. Ah so the p&r stops every 300meters? I was under the assumption it had like 1 stop in its way to town that no one used? Silly me. [/quote] Yup, silly you. Don't worry, you can find a map of York's bus routes online. [quote]The idea of outskirt stations are the same as P&R you drive to them, park and then get to York station traffic free and this would then remove traffic from our roads and would be a lot greener. You could even cycle with less fear![/quote] We can do all those things with P&R without having to reopen stations, flatten homes for railway lines, and build lots more infrastructure. [quote]Ah hash tag... beth you might actually think you are smart with all the answers but your a daft 17 year old hippy with no clue about transport infrastructure or the future of transport. #mummymummycanihavea unicorn.[/quote] Lightweight patronising... try harder please. That made me giggle a bit.[/p][/quote]Beth, no new lines need to be built? The capacity is there already? i.e northern already run on the main line? Did you know that york has more then one line coming in and out of it? How do you think the northern trains run to leeds and stop at like 8 stops on the way! so before you start arguing at least be honest enough to admit you know f/a about railway or how its run or its capacity. So what you are saying are the busses are free but the parking isn’t? please tell me how this is different from building say a platform and parking? the trains are free as they already run? again proves how stupid you are. Next statment what if you want to go to monks x or Clifton moor... well you use your common sense and realise that there isnt going to be a train link for every journey! Next comment i wont rise too. Right ok p&r does all the above? yeh ok.. but it stops and causes mayhem, adds to traffic and pollution and isn't even close to its capactiy. The idea in reducing congestion is to take vehicles off the road. Dont worry the brain grows as you get older. Again why do you need new infastructure when we have a north, south east and west trian line that could easily have a station on the ring road that people commuting to york could park and use? How many times do you need telling that you dont need new train lines? you use the existing trains and lines? With new technology like traffic management coming out the railway will have a lot more spare capacity! as with the ECML with the new flyover? so beth if you actually want to argue about this subject go ahead but its pretty pointless as everything you say is made up. Oh and it’s funny that as you are 17 you are driving around? Must have just passed your test? And yes driving over speed bumps for a day won’t make your car fall apart but maybe in 2 years time you will notice it? And 4th gear at 20mph? Yes very economical? oh but wait I’d like to point out that running in such a gear at that speed actually burns more fuel? Think of peddling on your bike in 21st gear when you are actually just crawling? it burns more energy yes? but anyway you can not drive a petrol car at 40mph in 4th gear without it stalling so I doubt you even drive if I’m being honest? archieboldthe2nd
  • Score: 982

11:09am Thu 14 Aug 14

archieboldthe2nd says...

vanmildert wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote: This isn't a waste at all. My street is so much nicer now that cars go a bit slower. It's upsetting that the police don't give it much attention actually. This exercise isn't about making cash form fines. It is about making streets safer. It was a manifesto pledge which the city voted for. I do not know the councillor and she is not my ward councillor. I do not know why she is stepping down. But I am certainly not adverse to a councillor being elected to do a specific thing - fight a housing project, 20mph roads, save a hospital, whatever - and they leave when it has been accomplished. We get far too many career politicians as it is. We don't vote on whether or not we like someone. We vote for people based on their pledges. The councillor and her labour colleagues told us all what they would do and are doing it. Seems a bit of a non-story to me, other than to congratulate some politicians for actually keeping their promises!! I wish to see a labour - green coalition in May 2015 at city level so we can look forward to even more streets being tamed for everyone, not just 4x4s or selfish car owners (you know who you are!).
Once again beth what a well constructed post... but i'd like to point out a few things. Cars are not going slower. Signs have been put down streets where you can not reach 20mph (so just wasted money and vital CO2 as I’m sure you're aware concrete foundations are not healthy!). She is stepping down as she no has no point in being in charge. She has already littered york with pointless signs while being paid as councillor and by 20 is plenty. Not to forget the corruption charge she faced earlier in her career i suggest it is a step down before the whole thing is investigated or sacrificial lamb. Taming streets? yes these cul de sacs that are now 20mph were like race tracks before. Indeed I once clocked a car doing 22mph. I could barely walk across the road and have a sit down before it reached me. 4x4 are actually better for the environment then most hybrids on a whole life cost basis. She has done her day job and been paid by two parties to put signs up. if you congratulate someone who does that it shows your knowledge of the real world. I.e 600k on this then her salary for 2 years off 2 different "companies" not to mention all the other sh@t she claimed for. And what have we got for it? Signs that no one (yes including me, the police, busses, taxis) pays attention too… Also beth i'd like to add that travelling at 20mph is not good for most cars or the polar bears. The majority of CO2 emissions happen at this speed as its usually 2nd gear at high revs. Before you preach about green have a think about the whole picture not just your view. You should run for coalition with these lot.. you already sound as biased to a minority view as them.
Bishopthorpe Road traffic speed is far lower since the 20mph limit between the Scarcroft Road lights and Terry's. With Rowntree park, Millthorpe school, Knavesmire school and lots of pedestrian and cycle traffic coming from the Millennium Bridge this is an excellent idea. Its just a shame there isn't the police budget to catch the idiot anti-social drivers still ignoring the speed limit.
Ah is this based on a survey? can you send me the link? or is this just a personal view as you are in favour of destroying a historic city with 20mph signs? as i live in that area i have not noticed one bit of difference?
[quote][p][bold]vanmildert[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: This isn't a waste at all. My street is so much nicer now that cars go a bit slower. It's upsetting that the police don't give it much attention actually. This exercise isn't about making cash form fines. It is about making streets safer. It was a manifesto pledge which the city voted for. I do not know the councillor and she is not my ward councillor. I do not know why she is stepping down. But I am certainly not adverse to a councillor being elected to do a specific thing - fight a housing project, 20mph roads, save a hospital, whatever - and they leave when it has been accomplished. We get far too many career politicians as it is. We don't vote on whether or not we like someone. We vote for people based on their pledges. The councillor and her labour colleagues told us all what they would do and are doing it. Seems a bit of a non-story to me, other than to congratulate some politicians for actually keeping their promises!! I wish to see a labour - green coalition in May 2015 at city level so we can look forward to even more streets being tamed for everyone, not just 4x4s or selfish car owners (you know who you are!).[/p][/quote]Once again beth what a well constructed post... but i'd like to point out a few things. Cars are not going slower. Signs have been put down streets where you can not reach 20mph (so just wasted money and vital CO2 as I’m sure you're aware concrete foundations are not healthy!). She is stepping down as she no has no point in being in charge. She has already littered york with pointless signs while being paid as councillor and by 20 is plenty. Not to forget the corruption charge she faced earlier in her career i suggest it is a step down before the whole thing is investigated or sacrificial lamb. Taming streets? yes these cul de sacs that are now 20mph were like race tracks before. Indeed I once clocked a car doing 22mph. I could barely walk across the road and have a sit down before it reached me. 4x4 are actually better for the environment then most hybrids on a whole life cost basis. She has done her day job and been paid by two parties to put signs up. if you congratulate someone who does that it shows your knowledge of the real world. I.e 600k on this then her salary for 2 years off 2 different "companies" not to mention all the other sh@t she claimed for. And what have we got for it? Signs that no one (yes including me, the police, busses, taxis) pays attention too… Also beth i'd like to add that travelling at 20mph is not good for most cars or the polar bears. The majority of CO2 emissions happen at this speed as its usually 2nd gear at high revs. Before you preach about green have a think about the whole picture not just your view. You should run for coalition with these lot.. you already sound as biased to a minority view as them.[/p][/quote]Bishopthorpe Road traffic speed is far lower since the 20mph limit between the Scarcroft Road lights and Terry's. With Rowntree park, Millthorpe school, Knavesmire school and lots of pedestrian and cycle traffic coming from the Millennium Bridge this is an excellent idea. Its just a shame there isn't the police budget to catch the idiot anti-social drivers still ignoring the speed limit.[/p][/quote]Ah is this based on a survey? can you send me the link? or is this just a personal view as you are in favour of destroying a historic city with 20mph signs? as i live in that area i have not noticed one bit of difference? archieboldthe2nd
  • Score: 1711

11:10am Thu 14 Aug 14

Bo Jolly says...

BethFoxHunter96 says: "Don't be daft about being held "personally responsible". She hasn't asked anyone to play in the roads."

Beth, that's horsemuck and you know it! The idea that children should play in the roads is a minor but persistent theme in the 20's Plenty's campaign.

"Place not Empty Space: A sense of ‘place’ rather than just an empty space results when drivers slow down. Streets are no longer just thoroughfares, but a quality environment to savour, meet and *even play.*"

"“Make 20mph or lower speed limits the norm for residential streets & those used by shoppers, tourists & others, close to schools or public buildings, or important for walking & cycling or *children’s play*"

It is a also part of York Council's campaign material, which we can assume meets with Anna's approval:

"On a 20mph street it’s easier to cross the road, ride bikes and *play out*"

To encourage parents to allow their children to play in the road in a blanket way is irresponsible. It may be one of the reasons that nationally accidents in 20mph zones have *risen by a quarter*, compared with a fall in accidents in non-20mph zones.

http://www.yorkpress
.co.uk/news/9874263.
Accidents____may_be_
more_likely____on_20
mph_zones/
BethFoxHunter96 says: "Don't be daft about being held "personally responsible". She hasn't asked anyone to play in the roads." Beth, that's horsemuck and you know it! The idea that children should play in the roads is a minor but persistent theme in the 20's Plenty's campaign. "Place not Empty Space: A sense of ‘place’ rather than just an empty space results when drivers slow down. Streets are no longer just thoroughfares, but a quality environment to savour, meet and *even play.*" "“Make 20mph or lower speed limits the norm for residential streets & those used by shoppers, tourists & others, close to schools or public buildings, or important for walking & cycling or *children’s play*" It is a also part of York Council's campaign material, which we can assume meets with Anna's approval: "On a 20mph street it’s easier to cross the road, ride bikes and *play out*" To encourage parents to allow their children to play in the road in a blanket way is irresponsible. It may be one of the reasons that nationally accidents in 20mph zones have *risen by a quarter*, compared with a fall in accidents in non-20mph zones. http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/news/9874263. Accidents____may_be_ more_likely____on_20 mph_zones/ Bo Jolly
  • Score: 769

11:22am Thu 14 Aug 14

BethFoxhunter96 says...

I'm going to ignore your fantasy railway P&R story and cut to this, in an attempt to get "back on topic".

Oh and it’s funny that as you are 17 you are driving around? Must have just passed your test? And yes driving over speed bumps for a day won’t make your car fall apart but maybe in 2 years time you will notice it? And 4th gear at 20mph? Yes very economical? oh but wait I’d like to point out that running in such a gear at that speed actually burns more fuel? Think of peddling on your bike in 21st gear when you are actually just crawling? it burns more energy yes? but anyway you can not drive a petrol car at 40mph in 4th gear without it stalling so I doubt you even drive if I’m being honest?


I don't know why you want to know so much information about me. But I passed my text in Feb, thanks, and drove through Acomb last night in 4th very happily. As for burning more petrol, the amount burned is a function of revs, my rev count was very low, sure I did not have a lot of power, but that was because I was going through Acomb, not on a motorway. No point trying to do 0 - 20 in under a second, really.

http://www.20splenty
forus.org.uk/rationa
le_for_20_mph.htm

Seems pretty legit and reasonable. Steady driving, fewer gear changes, lots of time to adjust for the road and plan ahead. And no stopping from Energise to my house!
I'm going to ignore your fantasy railway P&R story and cut to this, in an attempt to get "back on topic". [quote]Oh and it’s funny that as you are 17 you are driving around? Must have just passed your test? And yes driving over speed bumps for a day won’t make your car fall apart but maybe in 2 years time you will notice it? And 4th gear at 20mph? Yes very economical? oh but wait I’d like to point out that running in such a gear at that speed actually burns more fuel? Think of peddling on your bike in 21st gear when you are actually just crawling? it burns more energy yes? but anyway you can not drive a petrol car at 40mph in 4th gear without it stalling so I doubt you even drive if I’m being honest?[/quote] I don't know why you want to know so much information about me. But I passed my text in Feb, thanks, and drove through Acomb last night in 4th very happily. As for burning more petrol, the amount burned is a function of revs, my rev count was very low, sure I did not have a lot of power, but that was because I was going through Acomb, not on a motorway. No point trying to do 0 - 20 in under a second, really. http://www.20splenty forus.org.uk/rationa le_for_20_mph.htm Seems pretty legit and reasonable. Steady driving, fewer gear changes, lots of time to adjust for the road and plan ahead. And no stopping from Energise to my house! BethFoxhunter96
  • Score: 1011

11:31am Thu 14 Aug 14

Mr Udigawa says...

archieboldthe2nd wrote:
vanmildert wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote: This isn't a waste at all. My street is so much nicer now that cars go a bit slower. It's upsetting that the police don't give it much attention actually. This exercise isn't about making cash form fines. It is about making streets safer. It was a manifesto pledge which the city voted for. I do not know the councillor and she is not my ward councillor. I do not know why she is stepping down. But I am certainly not adverse to a councillor being elected to do a specific thing - fight a housing project, 20mph roads, save a hospital, whatever - and they leave when it has been accomplished. We get far too many career politicians as it is. We don't vote on whether or not we like someone. We vote for people based on their pledges. The councillor and her labour colleagues told us all what they would do and are doing it. Seems a bit of a non-story to me, other than to congratulate some politicians for actually keeping their promises!! I wish to see a labour - green coalition in May 2015 at city level so we can look forward to even more streets being tamed for everyone, not just 4x4s or selfish car owners (you know who you are!).
Once again beth what a well constructed post... but i'd like to point out a few things. Cars are not going slower. Signs have been put down streets where you can not reach 20mph (so just wasted money and vital CO2 as I’m sure you're aware concrete foundations are not healthy!). She is stepping down as she no has no point in being in charge. She has already littered york with pointless signs while being paid as councillor and by 20 is plenty. Not to forget the corruption charge she faced earlier in her career i suggest it is a step down before the whole thing is investigated or sacrificial lamb. Taming streets? yes these cul de sacs that are now 20mph were like race tracks before. Indeed I once clocked a car doing 22mph. I could barely walk across the road and have a sit down before it reached me. 4x4 are actually better for the environment then most hybrids on a whole life cost basis. She has done her day job and been paid by two parties to put signs up. if you congratulate someone who does that it shows your knowledge of the real world. I.e 600k on this then her salary for 2 years off 2 different "companies" not to mention all the other sh@t she claimed for. And what have we got for it? Signs that no one (yes including me, the police, busses, taxis) pays attention too… Also beth i'd like to add that travelling at 20mph is not good for most cars or the polar bears. The majority of CO2 emissions happen at this speed as its usually 2nd gear at high revs. Before you preach about green have a think about the whole picture not just your view. You should run for coalition with these lot.. you already sound as biased to a minority view as them.
Bishopthorpe Road traffic speed is far lower since the 20mph limit between the Scarcroft Road lights and Terry's. With Rowntree park, Millthorpe school, Knavesmire school and lots of pedestrian and cycle traffic coming from the Millennium Bridge this is an excellent idea. Its just a shame there isn't the police budget to catch the idiot anti-social drivers still ignoring the speed limit.
Ah is this based on a survey? can you send me the link? or is this just a personal view as you are in favour of destroying a historic city with 20mph signs? as i live in that area i have not noticed one bit of difference?
I travel down this stretch of Bishy road twice a day and there has definitely been a reduction in speeds, when the 20mph limit was first introduced I used to regularly get tailgated for sticking to the limit but over the months attitudes seem to have changed, anyway, most people probably realise that going a bit slower means less time sat in the next queue.
I agree with the reaction against all the unneccessary signs though, I thought we were aiming to reduce street clutter?
[quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]vanmildert[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: This isn't a waste at all. My street is so much nicer now that cars go a bit slower. It's upsetting that the police don't give it much attention actually. This exercise isn't about making cash form fines. It is about making streets safer. It was a manifesto pledge which the city voted for. I do not know the councillor and she is not my ward councillor. I do not know why she is stepping down. But I am certainly not adverse to a councillor being elected to do a specific thing - fight a housing project, 20mph roads, save a hospital, whatever - and they leave when it has been accomplished. We get far too many career politicians as it is. We don't vote on whether or not we like someone. We vote for people based on their pledges. The councillor and her labour colleagues told us all what they would do and are doing it. Seems a bit of a non-story to me, other than to congratulate some politicians for actually keeping their promises!! I wish to see a labour - green coalition in May 2015 at city level so we can look forward to even more streets being tamed for everyone, not just 4x4s or selfish car owners (you know who you are!).[/p][/quote]Once again beth what a well constructed post... but i'd like to point out a few things. Cars are not going slower. Signs have been put down streets where you can not reach 20mph (so just wasted money and vital CO2 as I’m sure you're aware concrete foundations are not healthy!). She is stepping down as she no has no point in being in charge. She has already littered york with pointless signs while being paid as councillor and by 20 is plenty. Not to forget the corruption charge she faced earlier in her career i suggest it is a step down before the whole thing is investigated or sacrificial lamb. Taming streets? yes these cul de sacs that are now 20mph were like race tracks before. Indeed I once clocked a car doing 22mph. I could barely walk across the road and have a sit down before it reached me. 4x4 are actually better for the environment then most hybrids on a whole life cost basis. She has done her day job and been paid by two parties to put signs up. if you congratulate someone who does that it shows your knowledge of the real world. I.e 600k on this then her salary for 2 years off 2 different "companies" not to mention all the other sh@t she claimed for. And what have we got for it? Signs that no one (yes including me, the police, busses, taxis) pays attention too… Also beth i'd like to add that travelling at 20mph is not good for most cars or the polar bears. The majority of CO2 emissions happen at this speed as its usually 2nd gear at high revs. Before you preach about green have a think about the whole picture not just your view. You should run for coalition with these lot.. you already sound as biased to a minority view as them.[/p][/quote]Bishopthorpe Road traffic speed is far lower since the 20mph limit between the Scarcroft Road lights and Terry's. With Rowntree park, Millthorpe school, Knavesmire school and lots of pedestrian and cycle traffic coming from the Millennium Bridge this is an excellent idea. Its just a shame there isn't the police budget to catch the idiot anti-social drivers still ignoring the speed limit.[/p][/quote]Ah is this based on a survey? can you send me the link? or is this just a personal view as you are in favour of destroying a historic city with 20mph signs? as i live in that area i have not noticed one bit of difference?[/p][/quote]I travel down this stretch of Bishy road twice a day and there has definitely been a reduction in speeds, when the 20mph limit was first introduced I used to regularly get tailgated for sticking to the limit but over the months attitudes seem to have changed, anyway, most people probably realise that going a bit slower means less time sat in the next queue. I agree with the reaction against all the unneccessary signs though, I thought we were aiming to reduce street clutter? Mr Udigawa
  • Score: 665

11:32am Thu 14 Aug 14

BethFoxhunter96 says...

Bo Jolly wrote:
BethFoxHunter96 says: "Don't be daft about being held "personally responsible". She hasn't asked anyone to play in the roads."

Beth, that's horsemuck and you know it! The idea that children should play in the roads is a minor but persistent theme in the 20's Plenty's campaign.

"Place not Empty Space: A sense of ‘place’ rather than just an empty space results when drivers slow down. Streets are no longer just thoroughfares, but a quality environment to savour, meet and *even play.*"

"“Make 20mph or lower speed limits the norm for residential streets & those used by shoppers, tourists & others, close to schools or public buildings, or important for walking & cycling or *children’s play*"

It is a also part of York Council's campaign material, which we can assume meets with Anna's approval:

"On a 20mph street it’s easier to cross the road, ride bikes and *play out*"

To encourage parents to allow their children to play in the road in a blanket way is irresponsible. It may be one of the reasons that nationally accidents in 20mph zones have *risen by a quarter*, compared with a fall in accidents in non-20mph zones.

http://www.yorkpress

.co.uk/news/9874263.

Accidents____may_be_

more_likely____on_20

mph_zones/
Thanks for those quotes. I disagree that any of them encourage playing *in the road* per se, and agree with lots of the quotes.

I think of it this way: a group of children are playing tag, very excitedly, running home from school. Of of them gets a bit too excited (because that's what children do) and runs into the road. That's not "playing in the road" as in sitting down and playing with a tea set in the road, rather, playing in the street which unfortunately spills into the road. That scenario can happen outside a school gate or anywhere along a walk (or run!) home.

http://www.20splenty
forus.org.uk/rationa
le_for_20_mph.htm

Twenty's plenty for us suggests injuries have reduced by 22% with the 20mph zones which must be a good thing. And having been to Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium etc they do have much slower urban speeds and therefore the streets are much nicer to walk along or use... for everyone. The driver of my car (I was too young to drive in Germany!) said it was very pleasant.
[quote][p][bold]Bo Jolly[/bold] wrote: BethFoxHunter96 says: "Don't be daft about being held "personally responsible". She hasn't asked anyone to play in the roads." Beth, that's horsemuck and you know it! The idea that children should play in the roads is a minor but persistent theme in the 20's Plenty's campaign. "Place not Empty Space: A sense of ‘place’ rather than just an empty space results when drivers slow down. Streets are no longer just thoroughfares, but a quality environment to savour, meet and *even play.*" "“Make 20mph or lower speed limits the norm for residential streets & those used by shoppers, tourists & others, close to schools or public buildings, or important for walking & cycling or *children’s play*" It is a also part of York Council's campaign material, which we can assume meets with Anna's approval: "On a 20mph street it’s easier to cross the road, ride bikes and *play out*" To encourage parents to allow their children to play in the road in a blanket way is irresponsible. It may be one of the reasons that nationally accidents in 20mph zones have *risen by a quarter*, compared with a fall in accidents in non-20mph zones. http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/news/9874263. Accidents____may_be_ more_likely____on_20 mph_zones/[/p][/quote]Thanks for those quotes. I disagree that any of them encourage playing *in the road* per se, and agree with lots of the quotes. I think of it this way: a group of children are playing tag, very excitedly, running home from school. Of of them gets a bit too excited (because that's what children do) and runs into the road. That's not "playing in the road" as in sitting down and playing with a tea set in the road, rather, playing in the street which unfortunately spills into the road. That scenario can happen outside a school gate or anywhere along a walk (or run!) home. http://www.20splenty forus.org.uk/rationa le_for_20_mph.htm Twenty's plenty for us suggests injuries have reduced by 22% with the 20mph zones which must be a good thing. And having been to Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium etc they do have much slower urban speeds and therefore the streets are much nicer to walk along or use... for everyone. The driver of my car (I was too young to drive in Germany!) said it was very pleasant. BethFoxhunter96
  • Score: 803

11:35am Thu 14 Aug 14

archieboldthe2nd says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
I'm going to ignore your fantasy railway P&R story and cut to this, in an attempt to get "back on topic".
Oh and it’s funny that as you are 17 you are driving around? Must have just passed your test? And yes driving over speed bumps for a day won’t make your car fall apart but maybe in 2 years time you will notice it? And 4th gear at 20mph? Yes very economical? oh but wait I’d like to point out that running in such a gear at that speed actually burns more fuel? Think of peddling on your bike in 21st gear when you are actually just crawling? it burns more energy yes? but anyway you can not drive a petrol car at 40mph in 4th gear without it stalling so I doubt you even drive if I’m being honest?
I don't know why you want to know so much information about me. But I passed my text in Feb, thanks, and drove through Acomb last night in 4th very happily. As for burning more petrol, the amount burned is a function of revs, my rev count was very low, sure I did not have a lot of power, but that was because I was going through Acomb, not on a motorway. No point trying to do 0 - 20 in under a second, really. http://www.20splenty forus.org.uk/rationa le_for_20_mph.htm Seems pretty legit and reasonable. Steady driving, fewer gear changes, lots of time to adjust for the road and plan ahead. And no stopping from Energise to my house!
Well Beth ignore it but I can guarantee in the next 5 years the plan will be there. But don't worry I’ll ignore you passed a driving text.

Driving at low revs in 4th.. Right let me try explain this again. Just because your car is not revving as much does not mean it takes less energy to maintain that speed? i.e the most economical rev count in a car is jsut over 2000rpm. If you were in 4th at 20mph then you will have been below this... Fact.. So at such low revs the car has to try extra hard to power the gear using more fuel. If your are not peddling as quick on your bike do you save energy? Or indeed is it harder to pedal as the gear you are in requires more energy to move?

To be fair beth i don't need to know you.. They were rhetorical questions. That’s where you say something but already know the answer. Oh I’m glad you pointed to a 20splenty site... Did you know Liverpool are the best football team in the world just head to their website?

Everyone on this site already knows enough about you. You have a horse, like riding bikes and believe everything you say is correct yet you are only 17 and have no real knowledge of any of the subject matters discussed... You have no real arguments or indeed an idea of what the future of transport is. You believe propaganda sites and then relay this information back on here believing it must be true. Oh and you are 17 and instead of going out and having a youth you are on here trying to prove you are intelligent when really it's not working to well.. You are simply proving you are the next Anna. Silver spoon fed with no idea of the real world.
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: I'm going to ignore your fantasy railway P&R story and cut to this, in an attempt to get "back on topic". [quote]Oh and it’s funny that as you are 17 you are driving around? Must have just passed your test? And yes driving over speed bumps for a day won’t make your car fall apart but maybe in 2 years time you will notice it? And 4th gear at 20mph? Yes very economical? oh but wait I’d like to point out that running in such a gear at that speed actually burns more fuel? Think of peddling on your bike in 21st gear when you are actually just crawling? it burns more energy yes? but anyway you can not drive a petrol car at 40mph in 4th gear without it stalling so I doubt you even drive if I’m being honest?[/quote] I don't know why you want to know so much information about me. But I passed my text in Feb, thanks, and drove through Acomb last night in 4th very happily. As for burning more petrol, the amount burned is a function of revs, my rev count was very low, sure I did not have a lot of power, but that was because I was going through Acomb, not on a motorway. No point trying to do 0 - 20 in under a second, really. http://www.20splenty forus.org.uk/rationa le_for_20_mph.htm Seems pretty legit and reasonable. Steady driving, fewer gear changes, lots of time to adjust for the road and plan ahead. And no stopping from Energise to my house![/p][/quote]Well Beth ignore it but I can guarantee in the next 5 years the plan will be there. But don't worry I’ll ignore you passed a driving text. Driving at low revs in 4th.. Right let me try explain this again. Just because your car is not revving as much does not mean it takes less energy to maintain that speed? i.e the most economical rev count in a car is jsut over 2000rpm. If you were in 4th at 20mph then you will have been below this... Fact.. So at such low revs the car has to try extra hard to power the gear using more fuel. If your are not peddling as quick on your bike do you save energy? Or indeed is it harder to pedal as the gear you are in requires more energy to move? To be fair beth i don't need to know you.. They were rhetorical questions. That’s where you say something but already know the answer. Oh I’m glad you pointed to a 20splenty site... Did you know Liverpool are the best football team in the world just head to their website? Everyone on this site already knows enough about you. You have a horse, like riding bikes and believe everything you say is correct yet you are only 17 and have no real knowledge of any of the subject matters discussed... You have no real arguments or indeed an idea of what the future of transport is. You believe propaganda sites and then relay this information back on here believing it must be true. Oh and you are 17 and instead of going out and having a youth you are on here trying to prove you are intelligent when really it's not working to well.. You are simply proving you are the next Anna. Silver spoon fed with no idea of the real world. archieboldthe2nd
  • Score: 1094

11:36am Thu 14 Aug 14

archieboldthe2nd says...

archieboldthe2nd wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote: I'm going to ignore your fantasy railway P&R story and cut to this, in an attempt to get "back on topic".
Oh and it’s funny that as you are 17 you are driving around? Must have just passed your test? And yes driving over speed bumps for a day won’t make your car fall apart but maybe in 2 years time you will notice it? And 4th gear at 20mph? Yes very economical? oh but wait I’d like to point out that running in such a gear at that speed actually burns more fuel? Think of peddling on your bike in 21st gear when you are actually just crawling? it burns more energy yes? but anyway you can not drive a petrol car at 40mph in 4th gear without it stalling so I doubt you even drive if I’m being honest?
I don't know why you want to know so much information about me. But I passed my text in Feb, thanks, and drove through Acomb last night in 4th very happily. As for burning more petrol, the amount burned is a function of revs, my rev count was very low, sure I did not have a lot of power, but that was because I was going through Acomb, not on a motorway. No point trying to do 0 - 20 in under a second, really. http://www.20splenty forus.org.uk/rationa le_for_20_mph.htm Seems pretty legit and reasonable. Steady driving, fewer gear changes, lots of time to adjust for the road and plan ahead. And no stopping from Energise to my house!
Well Beth ignore it but I can guarantee in the next 5 years the plan will be there. But don't worry I’ll ignore you passed a driving text. Driving at low revs in 4th.. Right let me try explain this again. Just because your car is not revving as much does not mean it takes less energy to maintain that speed? i.e the most economical rev count in a car is jsut over 2000rpm. If you were in 4th at 20mph then you will have been below this... Fact.. So at such low revs the car has to try extra hard to power the gear using more fuel. If your are not peddling as quick on your bike do you save energy? Or indeed is it harder to pedal as the gear you are in requires more energy to move? To be fair beth i don't need to know you.. They were rhetorical questions. That’s where you say something but already know the answer. Oh I’m glad you pointed to a 20splenty site... Did you know Liverpool are the best football team in the world just head to their website? Everyone on this site already knows enough about you. You have a horse, like riding bikes and believe everything you say is correct yet you are only 17 and have no real knowledge of any of the subject matters discussed... You have no real arguments or indeed an idea of what the future of transport is. You believe propaganda sites and then relay this information back on here believing it must be true. Oh and you are 17 and instead of going out and having a youth you are on here trying to prove you are intelligent when really it's not working to well.. You are simply proving you are the next Anna. Silver spoon fed with no idea of the real world.
oh an no stopping from your energise to your house? thats dangerous as in every direction there is a roundabout?
[quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: I'm going to ignore your fantasy railway P&R story and cut to this, in an attempt to get "back on topic". [quote]Oh and it’s funny that as you are 17 you are driving around? Must have just passed your test? And yes driving over speed bumps for a day won’t make your car fall apart but maybe in 2 years time you will notice it? And 4th gear at 20mph? Yes very economical? oh but wait I’d like to point out that running in such a gear at that speed actually burns more fuel? Think of peddling on your bike in 21st gear when you are actually just crawling? it burns more energy yes? but anyway you can not drive a petrol car at 40mph in 4th gear without it stalling so I doubt you even drive if I’m being honest?[/quote] I don't know why you want to know so much information about me. But I passed my text in Feb, thanks, and drove through Acomb last night in 4th very happily. As for burning more petrol, the amount burned is a function of revs, my rev count was very low, sure I did not have a lot of power, but that was because I was going through Acomb, not on a motorway. No point trying to do 0 - 20 in under a second, really. http://www.20splenty forus.org.uk/rationa le_for_20_mph.htm Seems pretty legit and reasonable. Steady driving, fewer gear changes, lots of time to adjust for the road and plan ahead. And no stopping from Energise to my house![/p][/quote]Well Beth ignore it but I can guarantee in the next 5 years the plan will be there. But don't worry I’ll ignore you passed a driving text. Driving at low revs in 4th.. Right let me try explain this again. Just because your car is not revving as much does not mean it takes less energy to maintain that speed? i.e the most economical rev count in a car is jsut over 2000rpm. If you were in 4th at 20mph then you will have been below this... Fact.. So at such low revs the car has to try extra hard to power the gear using more fuel. If your are not peddling as quick on your bike do you save energy? Or indeed is it harder to pedal as the gear you are in requires more energy to move? To be fair beth i don't need to know you.. They were rhetorical questions. That’s where you say something but already know the answer. Oh I’m glad you pointed to a 20splenty site... Did you know Liverpool are the best football team in the world just head to their website? Everyone on this site already knows enough about you. You have a horse, like riding bikes and believe everything you say is correct yet you are only 17 and have no real knowledge of any of the subject matters discussed... You have no real arguments or indeed an idea of what the future of transport is. You believe propaganda sites and then relay this information back on here believing it must be true. Oh and you are 17 and instead of going out and having a youth you are on here trying to prove you are intelligent when really it's not working to well.. You are simply proving you are the next Anna. Silver spoon fed with no idea of the real world.[/p][/quote]oh an no stopping from your energise to your house? thats dangerous as in every direction there is a roundabout? archieboldthe2nd
  • Score: 1520

11:39am Thu 14 Aug 14

BethFoxhunter96 says...

archieboldthe2nd wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote: I'm going to ignore your fantasy railway P&R story and cut to this, in an attempt to get "back on topic".
Oh and it’s funny that as you are 17 you are driving around? Must have just passed your test? And yes driving over speed bumps for a day won’t make your car fall apart but maybe in 2 years time you will notice it? And 4th gear at 20mph? Yes very economical? oh but wait I’d like to point out that running in such a gear at that speed actually burns more fuel? Think of peddling on your bike in 21st gear when you are actually just crawling? it burns more energy yes? but anyway you can not drive a petrol car at 40mph in 4th gear without it stalling so I doubt you even drive if I’m being honest?
I don't know why you want to know so much information about me. But I passed my text in Feb, thanks, and drove through Acomb last night in 4th very happily. As for burning more petrol, the amount burned is a function of revs, my rev count was very low, sure I did not have a lot of power, but that was because I was going through Acomb, not on a motorway. No point trying to do 0 - 20 in under a second, really. http://www.20splenty forus.org.uk/rationa le_for_20_mph.htm Seems pretty legit and reasonable. Steady driving, fewer gear changes, lots of time to adjust for the road and plan ahead. And no stopping from Energise to my house!
Well Beth ignore it but I can guarantee in the next 5 years the plan will be there. But don't worry I’ll ignore you passed a driving text. Driving at low revs in 4th.. Right let me try explain this again. Just because your car is not revving as much does not mean it takes less energy to maintain that speed? i.e the most economical rev count in a car is jsut over 2000rpm. If you were in 4th at 20mph then you will have been below this... Fact.. So at such low revs the car has to try extra hard to power the gear using more fuel. If your are not peddling as quick on your bike do you save energy? Or indeed is it harder to pedal as the gear you are in requires more energy to move? To be fair beth i don't need to know you.. They were rhetorical questions. That’s where you say something but already know the answer. Oh I’m glad you pointed to a 20splenty site... Did you know Liverpool are the best football team in the world just head to their website? Everyone on this site already knows enough about you. You have a horse, like riding bikes and believe everything you say is correct yet you are only 17 and have no real knowledge of any of the subject matters discussed... You have no real arguments or indeed an idea of what the future of transport is. You believe propaganda sites and then relay this information back on here believing it must be true. Oh and you are 17 and instead of going out and having a youth you are on here trying to prove you are intelligent when really it's not working to well.. You are simply proving you are the next Anna. Silver spoon fed with no idea of the real world.
oh an no stopping from your energise to your house? thats dangerous as in every direction there is a roundabout?
Sop grumpy! I think someone needs more sleep.
[quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: I'm going to ignore your fantasy railway P&R story and cut to this, in an attempt to get "back on topic". [quote]Oh and it’s funny that as you are 17 you are driving around? Must have just passed your test? And yes driving over speed bumps for a day won’t make your car fall apart but maybe in 2 years time you will notice it? And 4th gear at 20mph? Yes very economical? oh but wait I’d like to point out that running in such a gear at that speed actually burns more fuel? Think of peddling on your bike in 21st gear when you are actually just crawling? it burns more energy yes? but anyway you can not drive a petrol car at 40mph in 4th gear without it stalling so I doubt you even drive if I’m being honest?[/quote] I don't know why you want to know so much information about me. But I passed my text in Feb, thanks, and drove through Acomb last night in 4th very happily. As for burning more petrol, the amount burned is a function of revs, my rev count was very low, sure I did not have a lot of power, but that was because I was going through Acomb, not on a motorway. No point trying to do 0 - 20 in under a second, really. http://www.20splenty forus.org.uk/rationa le_for_20_mph.htm Seems pretty legit and reasonable. Steady driving, fewer gear changes, lots of time to adjust for the road and plan ahead. And no stopping from Energise to my house![/p][/quote]Well Beth ignore it but I can guarantee in the next 5 years the plan will be there. But don't worry I’ll ignore you passed a driving text. Driving at low revs in 4th.. Right let me try explain this again. Just because your car is not revving as much does not mean it takes less energy to maintain that speed? i.e the most economical rev count in a car is jsut over 2000rpm. If you were in 4th at 20mph then you will have been below this... Fact.. So at such low revs the car has to try extra hard to power the gear using more fuel. If your are not peddling as quick on your bike do you save energy? Or indeed is it harder to pedal as the gear you are in requires more energy to move? To be fair beth i don't need to know you.. They were rhetorical questions. That’s where you say something but already know the answer. Oh I’m glad you pointed to a 20splenty site... Did you know Liverpool are the best football team in the world just head to their website? Everyone on this site already knows enough about you. You have a horse, like riding bikes and believe everything you say is correct yet you are only 17 and have no real knowledge of any of the subject matters discussed... You have no real arguments or indeed an idea of what the future of transport is. You believe propaganda sites and then relay this information back on here believing it must be true. Oh and you are 17 and instead of going out and having a youth you are on here trying to prove you are intelligent when really it's not working to well.. You are simply proving you are the next Anna. Silver spoon fed with no idea of the real world.[/p][/quote]oh an no stopping from your energise to your house? thats dangerous as in every direction there is a roundabout?[/p][/quote]Sop grumpy! I think someone needs more sleep. BethFoxhunter96
  • Score: 1271

11:44am Thu 14 Aug 14

archieboldthe2nd says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote: I'm going to ignore your fantasy railway P&R story and cut to this, in an attempt to get "back on topic".
Oh and it’s funny that as you are 17 you are driving around? Must have just passed your test? And yes driving over speed bumps for a day won’t make your car fall apart but maybe in 2 years time you will notice it? And 4th gear at 20mph? Yes very economical? oh but wait I’d like to point out that running in such a gear at that speed actually burns more fuel? Think of peddling on your bike in 21st gear when you are actually just crawling? it burns more energy yes? but anyway you can not drive a petrol car at 40mph in 4th gear without it stalling so I doubt you even drive if I’m being honest?
I don't know why you want to know so much information about me. But I passed my text in Feb, thanks, and drove through Acomb last night in 4th very happily. As for burning more petrol, the amount burned is a function of revs, my rev count was very low, sure I did not have a lot of power, but that was because I was going through Acomb, not on a motorway. No point trying to do 0 - 20 in under a second, really. http://www.20splenty forus.org.uk/rationa le_for_20_mph.htm Seems pretty legit and reasonable. Steady driving, fewer gear changes, lots of time to adjust for the road and plan ahead. And no stopping from Energise to my house!
Well Beth ignore it but I can guarantee in the next 5 years the plan will be there. But don't worry I’ll ignore you passed a driving text. Driving at low revs in 4th.. Right let me try explain this again. Just because your car is not revving as much does not mean it takes less energy to maintain that speed? i.e the most economical rev count in a car is jsut over 2000rpm. If you were in 4th at 20mph then you will have been below this... Fact.. So at such low revs the car has to try extra hard to power the gear using more fuel. If your are not peddling as quick on your bike do you save energy? Or indeed is it harder to pedal as the gear you are in requires more energy to move? To be fair beth i don't need to know you.. They were rhetorical questions. That’s where you say something but already know the answer. Oh I’m glad you pointed to a 20splenty site... Did you know Liverpool are the best football team in the world just head to their website? Everyone on this site already knows enough about you. You have a horse, like riding bikes and believe everything you say is correct yet you are only 17 and have no real knowledge of any of the subject matters discussed... You have no real arguments or indeed an idea of what the future of transport is. You believe propaganda sites and then relay this information back on here believing it must be true. Oh and you are 17 and instead of going out and having a youth you are on here trying to prove you are intelligent when really it's not working to well.. You are simply proving you are the next Anna. Silver spoon fed with no idea of the real world.
oh an no stopping from your energise to your house? thats dangerous as in every direction there is a roundabout?
Sop grumpy! I think someone needs more sleep.
Nah just sick of your blatent lies. Its fun sitting down such an arrogant youth.
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: I'm going to ignore your fantasy railway P&R story and cut to this, in an attempt to get "back on topic". [quote]Oh and it’s funny that as you are 17 you are driving around? Must have just passed your test? And yes driving over speed bumps for a day won’t make your car fall apart but maybe in 2 years time you will notice it? And 4th gear at 20mph? Yes very economical? oh but wait I’d like to point out that running in such a gear at that speed actually burns more fuel? Think of peddling on your bike in 21st gear when you are actually just crawling? it burns more energy yes? but anyway you can not drive a petrol car at 40mph in 4th gear without it stalling so I doubt you even drive if I’m being honest?[/quote] I don't know why you want to know so much information about me. But I passed my text in Feb, thanks, and drove through Acomb last night in 4th very happily. As for burning more petrol, the amount burned is a function of revs, my rev count was very low, sure I did not have a lot of power, but that was because I was going through Acomb, not on a motorway. No point trying to do 0 - 20 in under a second, really. http://www.20splenty forus.org.uk/rationa le_for_20_mph.htm Seems pretty legit and reasonable. Steady driving, fewer gear changes, lots of time to adjust for the road and plan ahead. And no stopping from Energise to my house![/p][/quote]Well Beth ignore it but I can guarantee in the next 5 years the plan will be there. But don't worry I’ll ignore you passed a driving text. Driving at low revs in 4th.. Right let me try explain this again. Just because your car is not revving as much does not mean it takes less energy to maintain that speed? i.e the most economical rev count in a car is jsut over 2000rpm. If you were in 4th at 20mph then you will have been below this... Fact.. So at such low revs the car has to try extra hard to power the gear using more fuel. If your are not peddling as quick on your bike do you save energy? Or indeed is it harder to pedal as the gear you are in requires more energy to move? To be fair beth i don't need to know you.. They were rhetorical questions. That’s where you say something but already know the answer. Oh I’m glad you pointed to a 20splenty site... Did you know Liverpool are the best football team in the world just head to their website? Everyone on this site already knows enough about you. You have a horse, like riding bikes and believe everything you say is correct yet you are only 17 and have no real knowledge of any of the subject matters discussed... You have no real arguments or indeed an idea of what the future of transport is. You believe propaganda sites and then relay this information back on here believing it must be true. Oh and you are 17 and instead of going out and having a youth you are on here trying to prove you are intelligent when really it's not working to well.. You are simply proving you are the next Anna. Silver spoon fed with no idea of the real world.[/p][/quote]oh an no stopping from your energise to your house? thats dangerous as in every direction there is a roundabout?[/p][/quote]Sop grumpy! I think someone needs more sleep.[/p][/quote]Nah just sick of your blatent lies. Its fun sitting down such an arrogant youth. archieboldthe2nd
  • Score: 658

11:52am Thu 14 Aug 14

BethFoxhunter96 says...

Nah just sick of your blatent lies. Its fun sitting down such an arrogant youth.


I'm quite enjoying this too.

So far:

Your "dodgy mechanics" has failed to convince me it's more economical to drive at a higher gear with higher revs at 20 than 30;

You've failed to convince me that it's safer to drive at 30 than 20;

You've failed to explain why traveling at 30 is more important than road safety, protecting lives, and making the roads and streets a better place for everyone;

You've failed to tell me what the benefit of traveling at 30 vs 20 is;

You've attempted to patronise me, and then tried to deflect the conversation to a tangent about railways because you don't like P&R;

And you've shouted entirely aimlessly and pointlessly about anything that doesn't fit your worldview that it must be propaganda or biased. You're suffering from an unfortunate dose of confirmation bias.

Next, please.
[quote]Nah just sick of your blatent lies. Its fun sitting down such an arrogant youth.[/quote] I'm quite enjoying this too. So far: Your "dodgy mechanics" has failed to convince me it's more economical to drive at a higher gear with higher revs at 20 than 30; You've failed to convince me that it's safer to drive at 30 than 20; You've failed to explain why traveling at 30 is more important than road safety, protecting lives, and making the roads and streets a better place for everyone; You've failed to tell me what the benefit of traveling at 30 vs 20 is; You've attempted to patronise me, and then tried to deflect the conversation to a tangent about railways because you don't like P&R; And you've shouted entirely aimlessly and pointlessly about anything that doesn't fit your worldview that it must be propaganda or biased. You're suffering from an unfortunate dose of confirmation bias. Next, please. BethFoxhunter96
  • Score: 676

12:12pm Thu 14 Aug 14

archieboldthe2nd says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
Nah just sick of your blatent lies. Its fun sitting down such an arrogant youth.
I'm quite enjoying this too. So far: Your "dodgy mechanics" has failed to convince me it's more economical to drive at a higher gear with higher revs at 20 than 30; You've failed to convince me that it's safer to drive at 30 than 20; You've failed to explain why traveling at 30 is more important than road safety, protecting lives, and making the roads and streets a better place for everyone; You've failed to tell me what the benefit of traveling at 30 vs 20 is; You've attempted to patronise me, and then tried to deflect the conversation to a tangent about railways because you don't like P&R; And you've shouted entirely aimlessly and pointlessly about anything that doesn't fit your worldview that it must be propaganda or biased. You're suffering from an unfortunate dose of confirmation bias. Next, please.
Ok beth buy a new car and have a look at the fuel consumption usage (they have a computer that does it for you) in different gears at different speeds. I can't break it down any simpler for you! 4th gear at low speeds requires more energy then to push 2nd gear at the same speed. I honestly don't car if I convince you. Look at a MPG usage in 4th at 20pmh then look at it in 2nd. Then come say sorry.

There is no safety issue from driving at 30mph to 20mph. The argument you came across was it hurts people more if you hit them at 30mph. I can happily drive through any 20mph zone at 30mph and not crash into a lamppost. You said its not safe for the children. Which I said why are they in a road?

No I’ve said parents and children need to be educated about road dangers. If this happened then no one would be put in danger so speed would be irrelevant. Imagine if people knew when to cross a road? Cars would have no little kids to hit?

No I’ve explained that 23m on a bus service could have been better spent on rail links just like in every other thriving city. Look around Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield (tram train) etc etc. Every decent city has train links to take vehicles off the road. They don't just put a p&r there. Like at Whitby where you have to drive out of the centre to get to the p&r to go back into the centre. Logic? Again I don't care if you are convinced, the fact is soon there you wont be able to fit anymore busses on the raid and traffic will still be poor. This will lead to the council seeking a long term future investment. I.e railway. (by the way its pretty relevant as someone asked what other options is there to p&r so I answered it? durrr)

I've not shouted? I’ve typed? I loved being 17 i was out having fun..... not worrying about road safety. Now go back to dream world where parents let kids run around in the road and when they get hit blame it on cars. In fact some bloke was playing on a train line the other day and the selfish train driver was speeding and hit him! We should now reduce all train traffic to 20mph.
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote]Nah just sick of your blatent lies. Its fun sitting down such an arrogant youth.[/quote] I'm quite enjoying this too. So far: Your "dodgy mechanics" has failed to convince me it's more economical to drive at a higher gear with higher revs at 20 than 30; You've failed to convince me that it's safer to drive at 30 than 20; You've failed to explain why traveling at 30 is more important than road safety, protecting lives, and making the roads and streets a better place for everyone; You've failed to tell me what the benefit of traveling at 30 vs 20 is; You've attempted to patronise me, and then tried to deflect the conversation to a tangent about railways because you don't like P&R; And you've shouted entirely aimlessly and pointlessly about anything that doesn't fit your worldview that it must be propaganda or biased. You're suffering from an unfortunate dose of confirmation bias. Next, please.[/p][/quote]Ok beth buy a new car and have a look at the fuel consumption usage (they have a computer that does it for you) in different gears at different speeds. I can't break it down any simpler for you! 4th gear at low speeds requires more energy then to push 2nd gear at the same speed. I honestly don't car if I convince you. Look at a MPG usage in 4th at 20pmh then look at it in 2nd. Then come say sorry. There is no safety issue from driving at 30mph to 20mph. The argument you came across was it hurts people more if you hit them at 30mph. I can happily drive through any 20mph zone at 30mph and not crash into a lamppost. You said its not safe for the children. Which I said why are they in a road? No I’ve said parents and children need to be educated about road dangers. If this happened then no one would be put in danger so speed would be irrelevant. Imagine if people knew when to cross a road? Cars would have no little kids to hit? No I’ve explained that 23m on a bus service could have been better spent on rail links just like in every other thriving city. Look around Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield (tram train) etc etc. Every decent city has train links to take vehicles off the road. They don't just put a p&r there. Like at Whitby where you have to drive out of the centre to get to the p&r to go back into the centre. Logic? Again I don't care if you are convinced, the fact is soon there you wont be able to fit anymore busses on the raid and traffic will still be poor. This will lead to the council seeking a long term future investment. I.e railway. (by the way its pretty relevant as someone asked what other options is there to p&r so I answered it? durrr) I've not shouted? I’ve typed? I loved being 17 i was out having fun..... not worrying about road safety. Now go back to dream world where parents let kids run around in the road and when they get hit blame it on cars. In fact some bloke was playing on a train line the other day and the selfish train driver was speeding and hit him! We should now reduce all train traffic to 20mph. archieboldthe2nd
  • Score: 920

12:21pm Thu 14 Aug 14

notpedallingpaul says...

the original Homer wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
Your common sense is that of a 16 year old girl And as for children, I have them and I don't think I'd be happy for you to be responsible for looking after them. Roads even ones with 20 MPH zones are not places for children to play about. If one child is killed on a road that has been changed to a 20 zone because Anna Semlyen said it's a safer place for children, then she should be held personally responsible.
Someone can't do maths. I'm 17, not 16. And frankly, who's to say you'd be able to afford my babysitting services? ;) Don't be daft about being held "personally responsible". She hasn't asked anyone to play in the roads. Accidents happen when people aren't playing in the roads. Cyclists, pedestrians... even... wait for it... car to car accidents happen. At 20 mph both likelihood and severity of accidents reduce, which is why I suppose a blanket 20mph in York. Funnily enough I was driving through Acomb last night at 20mph in the 20mph zones... 4th gear... hardly felt the speed bumps at all (pretty sure my suspension didn't fall off, my wheels didn't crack and my steering wheel worked fine too!)... 20 is lovely speed to carefully go over speed bumps, no low gears, nice low revs, nice happy speed. Seemed like an excellent way to travel to me. Plus the speed bumps were small enough so that horses and cycles can easily get past without problems. Very good road design.
Could you please let us know the make and model of car where 4th is the appropriate gear at 20 mph? I'd suggest you were either travelling faster or you were in the wrong gear.
beth quotes..............
....Funnily enough I was driving through Acomb last night at 20mph in the 20mph zones... 4th gear... hardly felt the speed bumps at all (pretty sure my suspension didn't fall off, my wheels didn't crack and my steering wheel worked fine too!)... 20 is lovely speed to carefully go over speed bumps, no low gears, nice low revs, nice happy speed. Seemed like an excellent way to travel to me. Plus the speed bumps were small enough so that horses and cycles can easily get past without problems. Very good road design..............
..

I am pretty sure that you are not what you appear to be?, plus anyone with a manual gear box will tell you that driving at 20mph in 4th gear puts a strain on the engine, also at 20mph you most certainly do feel the speed hupms/cushions/table
s.

Cycles I dont have a problem with, unless of course they are practicing to be the next stupid idiot in the mortuary, but to horses I do show the utmost respect and slow down to walking pace, as its not their fault they are mixing with traffic, its the dim wit in the saddle thats at fault - horses are for open country and jumping fences etc.
[quote][p][bold]the original Homer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote]Your common sense is that of a 16 year old girl And as for children, I have them and I don't think I'd be happy for you to be responsible for looking after them. Roads even ones with 20 MPH zones are not places for children to play about. If one child is killed on a road that has been changed to a 20 zone because Anna Semlyen said it's a safer place for children, then she should be held personally responsible.[/quote] Someone can't do maths. I'm 17, not 16. And frankly, who's to say you'd be able to afford my babysitting services? ;) Don't be daft about being held "personally responsible". She hasn't asked anyone to play in the roads. Accidents happen when people aren't playing in the roads. Cyclists, pedestrians... even... wait for it... car to car accidents happen. At 20 mph both likelihood and severity of accidents reduce, which is why I suppose a blanket 20mph in York. Funnily enough I was driving through Acomb last night at 20mph in the 20mph zones... 4th gear... hardly felt the speed bumps at all (pretty sure my suspension didn't fall off, my wheels didn't crack and my steering wheel worked fine too!)... 20 is lovely speed to carefully go over speed bumps, no low gears, nice low revs, nice happy speed. Seemed like an excellent way to travel to me. Plus the speed bumps were small enough so that horses and cycles can easily get past without problems. Very good road design.[/p][/quote]Could you please let us know the make and model of car where 4th is the appropriate gear at 20 mph? I'd suggest you were either travelling faster or you were in the wrong gear.[/p][/quote]beth quotes.............. ....Funnily enough I was driving through Acomb last night at 20mph in the 20mph zones... 4th gear... hardly felt the speed bumps at all (pretty sure my suspension didn't fall off, my wheels didn't crack and my steering wheel worked fine too!)... 20 is lovely speed to carefully go over speed bumps, no low gears, nice low revs, nice happy speed. Seemed like an excellent way to travel to me. Plus the speed bumps were small enough so that horses and cycles can easily get past without problems. Very good road design.............. .. I am pretty sure that you are not what you appear to be?, plus anyone with a manual gear box will tell you that driving at 20mph in 4th gear puts a strain on the engine, also at 20mph you most certainly do feel the speed hupms/cushions/table s. Cycles I dont have a problem with, unless of course they are practicing to be the next stupid idiot in the mortuary, but to horses I do show the utmost respect and slow down to walking pace, as its not their fault they are mixing with traffic, its the dim wit in the saddle thats at fault - horses are for open country and jumping fences etc. notpedallingpaul
  • Score: 1000

12:23pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Bo Jolly says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
Bo Jolly wrote:
BethFoxHunter96 says: "Don't be daft about being held "personally responsible". She hasn't asked anyone to play in the roads."

Beth, that's horsemuck and you know it! The idea that children should play in the roads is a minor but persistent theme in the 20's Plenty's campaign.

"Place not Empty Space: A sense of ‘place’ rather than just an empty space results when drivers slow down. Streets are no longer just thoroughfares, but a quality environment to savour, meet and *even play.*"

"“Make 20mph or lower speed limits the norm for residential streets & those used by shoppers, tourists & others, close to schools or public buildings, or important for walking & cycling or *children’s play*"

It is a also part of York Council's campaign material, which we can assume meets with Anna's approval:

"On a 20mph street it’s easier to cross the road, ride bikes and *play out*"

To encourage parents to allow their children to play in the road in a blanket way is irresponsible. It may be one of the reasons that nationally accidents in 20mph zones have *risen by a quarter*, compared with a fall in accidents in non-20mph zones.

http://www.yorkpress


.co.uk/news/9874263.


Accidents____may_be_


more_likely____on_20


mph_zones/
Thanks for those quotes. I disagree that any of them encourage playing *in the road* per se, and agree with lots of the quotes.

I think of it this way: a group of children are playing tag, very excitedly, running home from school. Of of them gets a bit too excited (because that's what children do) and runs into the road. That's not "playing in the road" as in sitting down and playing with a tea set in the road, rather, playing in the street which unfortunately spills into the road. That scenario can happen outside a school gate or anywhere along a walk (or run!) home.

http://www.20splenty

forus.org.uk/rationa

le_for_20_mph.htm

Twenty's plenty for us suggests injuries have reduced by 22% with the 20mph zones which must be a good thing. And having been to Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium etc they do have much slower urban speeds and therefore the streets are much nicer to walk along or use... for everyone. The driver of my car (I was too young to drive in Germany!) said it was very pleasant.
'When I use a word,' Beth said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

Also, you need to be VERY careful with 20s Plenty 'statistics'. The 22% figure you quote is from a Department for Transport study in Portsmouth and is a result of blatant cherry-picking. In fact serious accidents in the Portsmouth 20mph zones have *increased* slightly, the 22% reduction only applies when minor accidents are included and has to be set against a 14% fall in similar incidents nationally.

Overall the DfT analysis concluded "casualty benefits greater than the national trend have not been demonstrated"
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bo Jolly[/bold] wrote: BethFoxHunter96 says: "Don't be daft about being held "personally responsible". She hasn't asked anyone to play in the roads." Beth, that's horsemuck and you know it! The idea that children should play in the roads is a minor but persistent theme in the 20's Plenty's campaign. "Place not Empty Space: A sense of ‘place’ rather than just an empty space results when drivers slow down. Streets are no longer just thoroughfares, but a quality environment to savour, meet and *even play.*" "“Make 20mph or lower speed limits the norm for residential streets & those used by shoppers, tourists & others, close to schools or public buildings, or important for walking & cycling or *children’s play*" It is a also part of York Council's campaign material, which we can assume meets with Anna's approval: "On a 20mph street it’s easier to cross the road, ride bikes and *play out*" To encourage parents to allow their children to play in the road in a blanket way is irresponsible. It may be one of the reasons that nationally accidents in 20mph zones have *risen by a quarter*, compared with a fall in accidents in non-20mph zones. http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/news/9874263. Accidents____may_be_ more_likely____on_20 mph_zones/[/p][/quote]Thanks for those quotes. I disagree that any of them encourage playing *in the road* per se, and agree with lots of the quotes. I think of it this way: a group of children are playing tag, very excitedly, running home from school. Of of them gets a bit too excited (because that's what children do) and runs into the road. That's not "playing in the road" as in sitting down and playing with a tea set in the road, rather, playing in the street which unfortunately spills into the road. That scenario can happen outside a school gate or anywhere along a walk (or run!) home. http://www.20splenty forus.org.uk/rationa le_for_20_mph.htm Twenty's plenty for us suggests injuries have reduced by 22% with the 20mph zones which must be a good thing. And having been to Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium etc they do have much slower urban speeds and therefore the streets are much nicer to walk along or use... for everyone. The driver of my car (I was too young to drive in Germany!) said it was very pleasant.[/p][/quote]'When I use a word,' Beth said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.' Also, you need to be VERY careful with 20s Plenty 'statistics'. The 22% figure you quote is from a Department for Transport study in Portsmouth and is a result of blatant cherry-picking. In fact serious accidents in the Portsmouth 20mph zones have *increased* slightly, the 22% reduction only applies when minor accidents are included and has to be set against a 14% fall in similar incidents nationally. Overall the DfT analysis concluded "casualty benefits greater than the national trend have not been demonstrated" Bo Jolly
  • Score: 677

12:30pm Thu 14 Aug 14

BethFoxhunter96 says...

Also, you need to be VERY careful with 20s Plenty 'statistics'. The 22% figure you quote is from a Department for Transport study in Portsmouth and is a result of blatant cherry-picking. In fact serious accidents in the Portsmouth 20mph zones have *increased* slightly, the 22% reduction only applies when minor accidents are included and has to be set against a 14% fall in similar incidents nationally.

Overall the DfT analysis concluded "casualty benefits greater than the national trend have not been demonstrated"


Thank you, that's an interesting read. Statistics are always argued about. Interesting to read that, though, thank you. I will be careful of using narrative reasoning (i.e. slower cars = less severe accidents).

However I can't quite square the final DfT statement with the 22% drop... or 8% drop if you're adjusting for the 14% you mentioned. Not having the source info it's difficult to on.

I would have thought the cherry picking actually applied when taking out minor stats, not adding them "back in". Because, hopefully (narrative logic alert!!) at 20 rather than 30 more accidents are less severe, both absolute and as a % of total. And I would be interested to see the numbers of more severe accidents that were caused or in part caused by people going quicker than 20. Otherwise we get into a scenario where someone thinks a car's going at 20, steps out (or whatever), is hit, has a serious accident... if that makes sense.
[quote]Also, you need to be VERY careful with 20s Plenty 'statistics'. The 22% figure you quote is from a Department for Transport study in Portsmouth and is a result of blatant cherry-picking. In fact serious accidents in the Portsmouth 20mph zones have *increased* slightly, the 22% reduction only applies when minor accidents are included and has to be set against a 14% fall in similar incidents nationally. Overall the DfT analysis concluded "casualty benefits greater than the national trend have not been demonstrated"[/quote] Thank you, that's an interesting read. Statistics are always argued about. Interesting to read that, though, thank you. I will be careful of using narrative reasoning (i.e. slower cars = less severe accidents). However I can't quite square the final DfT statement with the 22% drop... or 8% drop if you're adjusting for the 14% you mentioned. Not having the source info it's difficult to on. I would have thought the cherry picking actually applied when taking out minor stats, not adding them "back in". Because, hopefully (narrative logic alert!!) at 20 rather than 30 more accidents are less severe, both absolute and as a % of total. And I would be interested to see the numbers of more severe accidents that were caused or in part caused by people going quicker than 20. Otherwise we get into a scenario where someone thinks a car's going at 20, steps out (or whatever), is hit, has a serious accident... if that makes sense. BethFoxhunter96
  • Score: 1104

12:44pm Thu 14 Aug 14

BethFoxhunter96 says...

Ok beth buy a new car and have a look at the fuel consumption usage (they have a computer that does it for you) in different gears at different speeds. I can't break it down any simpler for you! 4th gear at low speeds requires more energy then to push 2nd gear at the same speed. I honestly don't car if I convince you. Look at a MPG usage in 4th at 20pmh then look at it in 2nd. Then come say sorry.


I have a "newish" car, thank you, one that tells me instant mpg and average mpg, I can to kmpg, km/l too, I can even switch it to the Amercian gallons per mile system too if I want. And I have found my car goes just fine, and economically, using low revs. In fact a basic google search for "how to drive economically" shows #1 tip is normally "drive in a high gear".

There is no safety issue from driving at 30mph to 20mph. The argument you came across was it hurts people more if you hit them at 30mph. I can happily drive through any 20mph zone at 30mph and not crash into a lamppost. You said its not safe for the children. Which I said why are they in a road?


Because people need to cross roads, or might run out onto the road, or might have just not looked? I've said it's not about "fault". You can blame all you like. At the end of the day, a dead kid, a mangled horse, an injured rider, a grieving family, whatever, aren't really going to care about who was to blame. I suspect neither is the driver. Hitting someone really messes up one's day.

No I’ve said parents and children need to be educated about road dangers. If this happened then no one would be put in danger so speed would be irrelevant. Imagine if people knew when to cross a road? Cars would have no little kids to hit?


That's fine. All the education in the world's not going to stop an excited nine year old running out into the path of a car because he or she's playing tag. Because that's what kids do.

No I’ve explained that 23m on a bus service could have been better spent on rail links just like in every other thriving city. Look around Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield (tram train) etc etc. Every decent city has train links to take vehicles off the road. They don't just put a p&r there. Like at Whitby where you have to drive out of the centre to get to the p&r to go back into the centre. Logic? Again I don't care if you are convinced, the fact is soon there you wont be able to fit anymore busses on the raid and traffic will still be poor. This will lead to the council seeking a long term future investment. I.e railway. (by the way its pretty relevant as someone asked what other options is there to p&r so I answered it? durrr)


I don't know what Whitby's like, not living there, but it's not a major city. All those cities you mention have excellent park and rides. Actually the best I saw was Glasgow's.

I've not shouted? I’ve typed? I loved being 17 i was out having fun..... not worrying about road safety. Now go back to dream world where parents let kids run around in the road and when they get hit blame it on cars. In fact some bloke was playing on a train line the other day and the selfish train driver was speeding and hit him! We should now reduce all train traffic to 20mph.


Don't be silly. We don't expect children to be playing tag with easy access to train lines, or walking home from school next to them. The logic of your argument is that it's perfectly safe to travel at 90mpg in a town because if someone gets it, it's because they are on the road. Which we know is nonsense.
[quote]Ok beth buy a new car and have a look at the fuel consumption usage (they have a computer that does it for you) in different gears at different speeds. I can't break it down any simpler for you! 4th gear at low speeds requires more energy then to push 2nd gear at the same speed. I honestly don't car if I convince you. Look at a MPG usage in 4th at 20pmh then look at it in 2nd. Then come say sorry.[/quote] I have a "newish" car, thank you, one that tells me instant mpg and average mpg, I can to kmpg, km/l too, I can even switch it to the Amercian gallons per mile system too if I want. And I have found my car goes just fine, and economically, using low revs. In fact a basic google search for "how to drive economically" shows #1 tip is normally "drive in a high gear". [quote]There is no safety issue from driving at 30mph to 20mph. The argument you came across was it hurts people more if you hit them at 30mph. I can happily drive through any 20mph zone at 30mph and not crash into a lamppost. You said its not safe for the children. Which I said why are they in a road?[/quote] Because people need to cross roads, or might run out onto the road, or might have just not looked? I've said it's not about "fault". You can blame all you like. At the end of the day, a dead kid, a mangled horse, an injured rider, a grieving family, whatever, aren't really going to care about who was to blame. I suspect neither is the driver. Hitting someone really messes up one's day. [quote]No I’ve said parents and children need to be educated about road dangers. If this happened then no one would be put in danger so speed would be irrelevant. Imagine if people knew when to cross a road? Cars would have no little kids to hit?[/quote] That's fine. All the education in the world's not going to stop an excited nine year old running out into the path of a car because he or she's playing tag. Because that's what kids do. [quote]No I’ve explained that 23m on a bus service could have been better spent on rail links just like in every other thriving city. Look around Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield (tram train) etc etc. Every decent city has train links to take vehicles off the road. They don't just put a p&r there. Like at Whitby where you have to drive out of the centre to get to the p&r to go back into the centre. Logic? Again I don't care if you are convinced, the fact is soon there you wont be able to fit anymore busses on the raid and traffic will still be poor. This will lead to the council seeking a long term future investment. I.e railway. (by the way its pretty relevant as someone asked what other options is there to p&r so I answered it? durrr)[/quote] I don't know what Whitby's like, not living there, but it's not a major city. All those cities you mention have excellent park and rides. Actually the best I saw was Glasgow's. [quote]I've not shouted? I’ve typed? I loved being 17 i was out having fun..... not worrying about road safety. Now go back to dream world where parents let kids run around in the road and when they get hit blame it on cars. In fact some bloke was playing on a train line the other day and the selfish train driver was speeding and hit him! We should now reduce all train traffic to 20mph.[/quote] Don't be silly. We don't expect children to be playing tag with easy access to train lines, or walking home from school next to them. The logic of your argument is that it's perfectly safe to travel at 90mpg in a town because if someone gets it, it's because they are on the road. Which we know is nonsense. BethFoxhunter96
  • Score: 500

12:47pm Thu 14 Aug 14

BethFoxhunter96 says...

Anyway. Postie hasn't come so I'm going to stop being lazy and will go to school to get my AS's... shall I take Daddy's Austin, Mummy's Ford, the truck, my mini or my sister's ped... choices choices... which one's best for a 20 zone mmmmmm? Wish me luck. If I fail I'm running for election in a few years... ;)
Anyway. Postie hasn't come so I'm going to stop being lazy and will go to school to get my AS's... shall I take Daddy's Austin, Mummy's Ford, the truck, my mini or my sister's ped... choices choices... which one's best for a 20 zone mmmmmm? Wish me luck. If I fail I'm running for election in a few years... ;) BethFoxhunter96
  • Score: 1006

12:51pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Mr Udigawa says...

archieboldthe2nd wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote: I'm going to ignore your fantasy railway P&R story and cut to this, in an attempt to get "back on topic".
Oh and it’s funny that as you are 17 you are driving around? Must have just passed your test? And yes driving over speed bumps for a day won’t make your car fall apart but maybe in 2 years time you will notice it? And 4th gear at 20mph? Yes very economical? oh but wait I’d like to point out that running in such a gear at that speed actually burns more fuel? Think of peddling on your bike in 21st gear when you are actually just crawling? it burns more energy yes? but anyway you can not drive a petrol car at 40mph in 4th gear without it stalling so I doubt you even drive if I’m being honest?
I don't know why you want to know so much information about me. But I passed my text in Feb, thanks, and drove through Acomb last night in 4th very happily. As for burning more petrol, the amount burned is a function of revs, my rev count was very low, sure I did not have a lot of power, but that was because I was going through Acomb, not on a motorway. No point trying to do 0 - 20 in under a second, really. http://www.20splenty forus.org.uk/rationa le_for_20_mph.htm Seems pretty legit and reasonable. Steady driving, fewer gear changes, lots of time to adjust for the road and plan ahead. And no stopping from Energise to my house!
Well Beth ignore it but I can guarantee in the next 5 years the plan will be there. But don't worry I’ll ignore you passed a driving text. Driving at low revs in 4th.. Right let me try explain this again. Just because your car is not revving as much does not mean it takes less energy to maintain that speed? i.e the most economical rev count in a car is jsut over 2000rpm. If you were in 4th at 20mph then you will have been below this... Fact.. So at such low revs the car has to try extra hard to power the gear using more fuel. If your are not peddling as quick on your bike do you save energy? Or indeed is it harder to pedal as the gear you are in requires more energy to move? To be fair beth i don't need to know you.. They were rhetorical questions. That’s where you say something but already know the answer. Oh I’m glad you pointed to a 20splenty site... Did you know Liverpool are the best football team in the world just head to their website? Everyone on this site already knows enough about you. You have a horse, like riding bikes and believe everything you say is correct yet you are only 17 and have no real knowledge of any of the subject matters discussed... You have no real arguments or indeed an idea of what the future of transport is. You believe propaganda sites and then relay this information back on here believing it must be true. Oh and you are 17 and instead of going out and having a youth you are on here trying to prove you are intelligent when really it's not working to well.. You are simply proving you are the next Anna. Silver spoon fed with no idea of the real world.
oh an no stopping from your energise to your house? thats dangerous as in every direction there is a roundabout?
Lol, how is not stopping at rounabouts dangerous? You maybe need to brush up on your driving techniques Archie, you'll be wasting even more fuel & causing accidents driving like that...
[quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: I'm going to ignore your fantasy railway P&R story and cut to this, in an attempt to get "back on topic". [quote]Oh and it’s funny that as you are 17 you are driving around? Must have just passed your test? And yes driving over speed bumps for a day won’t make your car fall apart but maybe in 2 years time you will notice it? And 4th gear at 20mph? Yes very economical? oh but wait I’d like to point out that running in such a gear at that speed actually burns more fuel? Think of peddling on your bike in 21st gear when you are actually just crawling? it burns more energy yes? but anyway you can not drive a petrol car at 40mph in 4th gear without it stalling so I doubt you even drive if I’m being honest?[/quote] I don't know why you want to know so much information about me. But I passed my text in Feb, thanks, and drove through Acomb last night in 4th very happily. As for burning more petrol, the amount burned is a function of revs, my rev count was very low, sure I did not have a lot of power, but that was because I was going through Acomb, not on a motorway. No point trying to do 0 - 20 in under a second, really. http://www.20splenty forus.org.uk/rationa le_for_20_mph.htm Seems pretty legit and reasonable. Steady driving, fewer gear changes, lots of time to adjust for the road and plan ahead. And no stopping from Energise to my house![/p][/quote]Well Beth ignore it but I can guarantee in the next 5 years the plan will be there. But don't worry I’ll ignore you passed a driving text. Driving at low revs in 4th.. Right let me try explain this again. Just because your car is not revving as much does not mean it takes less energy to maintain that speed? i.e the most economical rev count in a car is jsut over 2000rpm. If you were in 4th at 20mph then you will have been below this... Fact.. So at such low revs the car has to try extra hard to power the gear using more fuel. If your are not peddling as quick on your bike do you save energy? Or indeed is it harder to pedal as the gear you are in requires more energy to move? To be fair beth i don't need to know you.. They were rhetorical questions. That’s where you say something but already know the answer. Oh I’m glad you pointed to a 20splenty site... Did you know Liverpool are the best football team in the world just head to their website? Everyone on this site already knows enough about you. You have a horse, like riding bikes and believe everything you say is correct yet you are only 17 and have no real knowledge of any of the subject matters discussed... You have no real arguments or indeed an idea of what the future of transport is. You believe propaganda sites and then relay this information back on here believing it must be true. Oh and you are 17 and instead of going out and having a youth you are on here trying to prove you are intelligent when really it's not working to well.. You are simply proving you are the next Anna. Silver spoon fed with no idea of the real world.[/p][/quote]oh an no stopping from your energise to your house? thats dangerous as in every direction there is a roundabout?[/p][/quote]Lol, how is not stopping at rounabouts dangerous? You maybe need to brush up on your driving techniques Archie, you'll be wasting even more fuel & causing accidents driving like that... Mr Udigawa
  • Score: 1232

12:54pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Cheeky face says...

the original Homer wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
Could you please let us know the make and model of car where 4th is the appropriate gear at 20 mph?

I'd suggest you were either travelling faster or you were in the wrong gear.


Okay that's kinda creepy, no, I'm not going to tell you what car I drive!!!

Suffice to say it was a smooth drive, I changed down to third to go round the roundabout at Green Lane if that's what you mean. But 4th works fine for me from about 20mph onwards. Thanks, Beth.
Is your car responsive in 4th gear at 20 mph?

Could you accelerate to avoid an accident?
Quite right with that reply. Modern gearboxes allow 4th at 20mph, but it is wrong as stated by Original Homer. Revs are good for maintaining/charging battery so if Beth wants to have a breakdown(in the car) continue as you like. Third is the working gear and helps you get out of problems in built up areas.
[quote][p][bold]the original Homer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote]Could you please let us know the make and model of car where 4th is the appropriate gear at 20 mph? I'd suggest you were either travelling faster or you were in the wrong gear.[/quote] Okay that's kinda creepy, no, I'm not going to tell you what car I drive!!! Suffice to say it was a smooth drive, I changed down to third to go round the roundabout at Green Lane if that's what you mean. But 4th works fine for me from about 20mph onwards. Thanks, Beth.[/p][/quote]Is your car responsive in 4th gear at 20 mph? Could you accelerate to avoid an accident?[/p][/quote]Quite right with that reply. Modern gearboxes allow 4th at 20mph, but it is wrong as stated by Original Homer. Revs are good for maintaining/charging battery so if Beth wants to have a breakdown(in the car) continue as you like. Third is the working gear and helps you get out of problems in built up areas. Cheeky face
  • Score: 1092

12:58pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Cheeky face says...

vanmildert wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
This isn't a waste at all. My street is so much nicer now that cars go a bit slower. It's upsetting that the police don't give it much attention actually. This exercise isn't about making cash form fines. It is about making streets safer. It was a manifesto pledge which the city voted for. I do not know the councillor and she is not my ward councillor. I do not know why she is stepping down. But I am certainly not adverse to a councillor being elected to do a specific thing - fight a housing project, 20mph roads, save a hospital, whatever - and they leave when it has been accomplished. We get far too many career politicians as it is. We don't vote on whether or not we like someone. We vote for people based on their pledges. The councillor and her labour colleagues told us all what they would do and are doing it. Seems a bit of a non-story to me, other than to congratulate some politicians for actually keeping their promises!! I wish to see a labour - green coalition in May 2015 at city level so we can look forward to even more streets being tamed for everyone, not just 4x4s or selfish car owners (you know who you are!).
Once again beth what a well constructed post... but i'd like to point out a few things.

Cars are not going slower.
Signs have been put down streets where you can not reach 20mph (so just wasted money and vital CO2 as I’m sure you're aware concrete foundations are not healthy!).
She is stepping down as she no has no point in being in charge. She has already littered york with pointless signs while being paid as councillor and by 20 is plenty. Not to forget the corruption charge she faced earlier in her career i suggest it is a step down before the whole thing is investigated or sacrificial lamb.
Taming streets? yes these cul de sacs that are now 20mph were like race tracks before. Indeed I once clocked a car doing 22mph. I could barely walk across the road and have a sit down before it reached me.
4x4 are actually better for the environment then most hybrids on a whole life cost basis.
She has done her day job and been paid by two parties to put signs up. if you congratulate someone who does that it shows your knowledge of the real world. I.e 600k on this then her salary for 2 years off 2 different "companies" not to mention all the other sh@t she claimed for. And what have we got for it? Signs that no one (yes including me, the police, busses, taxis) pays attention too…

Also beth i'd like to add that travelling at 20mph is not good for most cars or the polar bears. The majority of CO2 emissions happen at this speed as its usually 2nd gear at high revs.

Before you preach about green have a think about the whole picture not just your view. You should run for coalition with these lot.. you already sound as biased to a minority view as them.
Bishopthorpe Road traffic speed is far lower since the 20mph limit between the Scarcroft Road lights and Terry's. With Rowntree park, Millthorpe school, Knavesmire school and lots of pedestrian and cycle traffic coming from the Millennium Bridge this is an excellent idea. Its just a shame there isn't the police budget to catch the idiot anti-social drivers still ignoring the speed limit.
Police incognito traffic cars do not normal fine police cars!
[quote][p][bold]vanmildert[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: This isn't a waste at all. My street is so much nicer now that cars go a bit slower. It's upsetting that the police don't give it much attention actually. This exercise isn't about making cash form fines. It is about making streets safer. It was a manifesto pledge which the city voted for. I do not know the councillor and she is not my ward councillor. I do not know why she is stepping down. But I am certainly not adverse to a councillor being elected to do a specific thing - fight a housing project, 20mph roads, save a hospital, whatever - and they leave when it has been accomplished. We get far too many career politicians as it is. We don't vote on whether or not we like someone. We vote for people based on their pledges. The councillor and her labour colleagues told us all what they would do and are doing it. Seems a bit of a non-story to me, other than to congratulate some politicians for actually keeping their promises!! I wish to see a labour - green coalition in May 2015 at city level so we can look forward to even more streets being tamed for everyone, not just 4x4s or selfish car owners (you know who you are!).[/p][/quote]Once again beth what a well constructed post... but i'd like to point out a few things. Cars are not going slower. Signs have been put down streets where you can not reach 20mph (so just wasted money and vital CO2 as I’m sure you're aware concrete foundations are not healthy!). She is stepping down as she no has no point in being in charge. She has already littered york with pointless signs while being paid as councillor and by 20 is plenty. Not to forget the corruption charge she faced earlier in her career i suggest it is a step down before the whole thing is investigated or sacrificial lamb. Taming streets? yes these cul de sacs that are now 20mph were like race tracks before. Indeed I once clocked a car doing 22mph. I could barely walk across the road and have a sit down before it reached me. 4x4 are actually better for the environment then most hybrids on a whole life cost basis. She has done her day job and been paid by two parties to put signs up. if you congratulate someone who does that it shows your knowledge of the real world. I.e 600k on this then her salary for 2 years off 2 different "companies" not to mention all the other sh@t she claimed for. And what have we got for it? Signs that no one (yes including me, the police, busses, taxis) pays attention too… Also beth i'd like to add that travelling at 20mph is not good for most cars or the polar bears. The majority of CO2 emissions happen at this speed as its usually 2nd gear at high revs. Before you preach about green have a think about the whole picture not just your view. You should run for coalition with these lot.. you already sound as biased to a minority view as them.[/p][/quote]Bishopthorpe Road traffic speed is far lower since the 20mph limit between the Scarcroft Road lights and Terry's. With Rowntree park, Millthorpe school, Knavesmire school and lots of pedestrian and cycle traffic coming from the Millennium Bridge this is an excellent idea. Its just a shame there isn't the police budget to catch the idiot anti-social drivers still ignoring the speed limit.[/p][/quote]Police incognito traffic cars do not normal fine police cars! Cheeky face
  • Score: 1264

1:01pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Cheeky face says...

Mr Udigawa wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
vanmildert wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote: This isn't a waste at all. My street is so much nicer now that cars go a bit slower. It's upsetting that the police don't give it much attention actually. This exercise isn't about making cash form fines. It is about making streets safer. It was a manifesto pledge which the city voted for. I do not know the councillor and she is not my ward councillor. I do not know why she is stepping down. But I am certainly not adverse to a councillor being elected to do a specific thing - fight a housing project, 20mph roads, save a hospital, whatever - and they leave when it has been accomplished. We get far too many career politicians as it is. We don't vote on whether or not we like someone. We vote for people based on their pledges. The councillor and her labour colleagues told us all what they would do and are doing it. Seems a bit of a non-story to me, other than to congratulate some politicians for actually keeping their promises!! I wish to see a labour - green coalition in May 2015 at city level so we can look forward to even more streets being tamed for everyone, not just 4x4s or selfish car owners (you know who you are!).
Once again beth what a well constructed post... but i'd like to point out a few things. Cars are not going slower. Signs have been put down streets where you can not reach 20mph (so just wasted money and vital CO2 as I’m sure you're aware concrete foundations are not healthy!). She is stepping down as she no has no point in being in charge. She has already littered york with pointless signs while being paid as councillor and by 20 is plenty. Not to forget the corruption charge she faced earlier in her career i suggest it is a step down before the whole thing is investigated or sacrificial lamb. Taming streets? yes these cul de sacs that are now 20mph were like race tracks before. Indeed I once clocked a car doing 22mph. I could barely walk across the road and have a sit down before it reached me. 4x4 are actually better for the environment then most hybrids on a whole life cost basis. She has done her day job and been paid by two parties to put signs up. if you congratulate someone who does that it shows your knowledge of the real world. I.e 600k on this then her salary for 2 years off 2 different "companies" not to mention all the other sh@t she claimed for. And what have we got for it? Signs that no one (yes including me, the police, busses, taxis) pays attention too… Also beth i'd like to add that travelling at 20mph is not good for most cars or the polar bears. The majority of CO2 emissions happen at this speed as its usually 2nd gear at high revs. Before you preach about green have a think about the whole picture not just your view. You should run for coalition with these lot.. you already sound as biased to a minority view as them.
Bishopthorpe Road traffic speed is far lower since the 20mph limit between the Scarcroft Road lights and Terry's. With Rowntree park, Millthorpe school, Knavesmire school and lots of pedestrian and cycle traffic coming from the Millennium Bridge this is an excellent idea. Its just a shame there isn't the police budget to catch the idiot anti-social drivers still ignoring the speed limit.
Ah is this based on a survey? can you send me the link? or is this just a personal view as you are in favour of destroying a historic city with 20mph signs? as i live in that area i have not noticed one bit of difference?
I travel down this stretch of Bishy road twice a day and there has definitely been a reduction in speeds, when the 20mph limit was first introduced I used to regularly get tailgated for sticking to the limit but over the months attitudes seem to have changed, anyway, most people probably realise that going a bit slower means less time sat in the next queue.
I agree with the reaction against all the unneccessary signs though, I thought we were aiming to reduce street clutter?
Council stats agree with these comments.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Udigawa[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]vanmildert[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: This isn't a waste at all. My street is so much nicer now that cars go a bit slower. It's upsetting that the police don't give it much attention actually. This exercise isn't about making cash form fines. It is about making streets safer. It was a manifesto pledge which the city voted for. I do not know the councillor and she is not my ward councillor. I do not know why she is stepping down. But I am certainly not adverse to a councillor being elected to do a specific thing - fight a housing project, 20mph roads, save a hospital, whatever - and they leave when it has been accomplished. We get far too many career politicians as it is. We don't vote on whether or not we like someone. We vote for people based on their pledges. The councillor and her labour colleagues told us all what they would do and are doing it. Seems a bit of a non-story to me, other than to congratulate some politicians for actually keeping their promises!! I wish to see a labour - green coalition in May 2015 at city level so we can look forward to even more streets being tamed for everyone, not just 4x4s or selfish car owners (you know who you are!).[/p][/quote]Once again beth what a well constructed post... but i'd like to point out a few things. Cars are not going slower. Signs have been put down streets where you can not reach 20mph (so just wasted money and vital CO2 as I’m sure you're aware concrete foundations are not healthy!). She is stepping down as she no has no point in being in charge. She has already littered york with pointless signs while being paid as councillor and by 20 is plenty. Not to forget the corruption charge she faced earlier in her career i suggest it is a step down before the whole thing is investigated or sacrificial lamb. Taming streets? yes these cul de sacs that are now 20mph were like race tracks before. Indeed I once clocked a car doing 22mph. I could barely walk across the road and have a sit down before it reached me. 4x4 are actually better for the environment then most hybrids on a whole life cost basis. She has done her day job and been paid by two parties to put signs up. if you congratulate someone who does that it shows your knowledge of the real world. I.e 600k on this then her salary for 2 years off 2 different "companies" not to mention all the other sh@t she claimed for. And what have we got for it? Signs that no one (yes including me, the police, busses, taxis) pays attention too… Also beth i'd like to add that travelling at 20mph is not good for most cars or the polar bears. The majority of CO2 emissions happen at this speed as its usually 2nd gear at high revs. Before you preach about green have a think about the whole picture not just your view. You should run for coalition with these lot.. you already sound as biased to a minority view as them.[/p][/quote]Bishopthorpe Road traffic speed is far lower since the 20mph limit between the Scarcroft Road lights and Terry's. With Rowntree park, Millthorpe school, Knavesmire school and lots of pedestrian and cycle traffic coming from the Millennium Bridge this is an excellent idea. Its just a shame there isn't the police budget to catch the idiot anti-social drivers still ignoring the speed limit.[/p][/quote]Ah is this based on a survey? can you send me the link? or is this just a personal view as you are in favour of destroying a historic city with 20mph signs? as i live in that area i have not noticed one bit of difference?[/p][/quote]I travel down this stretch of Bishy road twice a day and there has definitely been a reduction in speeds, when the 20mph limit was first introduced I used to regularly get tailgated for sticking to the limit but over the months attitudes seem to have changed, anyway, most people probably realise that going a bit slower means less time sat in the next queue. I agree with the reaction against all the unneccessary signs though, I thought we were aiming to reduce street clutter?[/p][/quote]Council stats agree with these comments. Cheeky face
  • Score: 1034

1:27pm Thu 14 Aug 14

archieboldthe2nd says...

Mr Udigawa wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote: I'm going to ignore your fantasy railway P&R story and cut to this, in an attempt to get "back on topic".
Oh and it’s funny that as you are 17 you are driving around? Must have just passed your test? And yes driving over speed bumps for a day won’t make your car fall apart but maybe in 2 years time you will notice it? And 4th gear at 20mph? Yes very economical? oh but wait I’d like to point out that running in such a gear at that speed actually burns more fuel? Think of peddling on your bike in 21st gear when you are actually just crawling? it burns more energy yes? but anyway you can not drive a petrol car at 40mph in 4th gear without it stalling so I doubt you even drive if I’m being honest?
I don't know why you want to know so much information about me. But I passed my text in Feb, thanks, and drove through Acomb last night in 4th very happily. As for burning more petrol, the amount burned is a function of revs, my rev count was very low, sure I did not have a lot of power, but that was because I was going through Acomb, not on a motorway. No point trying to do 0 - 20 in under a second, really. http://www.20splenty forus.org.uk/rationa le_for_20_mph.htm Seems pretty legit and reasonable. Steady driving, fewer gear changes, lots of time to adjust for the road and plan ahead. And no stopping from Energise to my house!
Well Beth ignore it but I can guarantee in the next 5 years the plan will be there. But don't worry I’ll ignore you passed a driving text. Driving at low revs in 4th.. Right let me try explain this again. Just because your car is not revving as much does not mean it takes less energy to maintain that speed? i.e the most economical rev count in a car is jsut over 2000rpm. If you were in 4th at 20mph then you will have been below this... Fact.. So at such low revs the car has to try extra hard to power the gear using more fuel. If your are not peddling as quick on your bike do you save energy? Or indeed is it harder to pedal as the gear you are in requires more energy to move? To be fair beth i don't need to know you.. They were rhetorical questions. That’s where you say something but already know the answer. Oh I’m glad you pointed to a 20splenty site... Did you know Liverpool are the best football team in the world just head to their website? Everyone on this site already knows enough about you. You have a horse, like riding bikes and believe everything you say is correct yet you are only 17 and have no real knowledge of any of the subject matters discussed... You have no real arguments or indeed an idea of what the future of transport is. You believe propaganda sites and then relay this information back on here believing it must be true. Oh and you are 17 and instead of going out and having a youth you are on here trying to prove you are intelligent when really it's not working to well.. You are simply proving you are the next Anna. Silver spoon fed with no idea of the real world.
oh an no stopping from your energise to your house? thats dangerous as in every direction there is a roundabout?
Lol, how is not stopping at rounabouts dangerous? You maybe need to brush up on your driving techniques Archie, you'll be wasting even more fuel & causing accidents driving like that...
Well I would have thought that was obvious? If you pull out and a car is already on it, it goes into you? As its not your right of way you're liable? Especially on a mini roundabout where you can not see the road to your right until you are there?

Thank you though for your very intelligent comment Mr Udigawa. It’s good to know you always go to a roundabout and just carry on. Bit dangerous mind? especially to say it was you wanting a duel carriageway (a64) to have its speed reduced so your lad could cross over it (not using the bridge) to get to work easier? But yet you don’t stop at roundabouts ever? Excellent input. Now back to trying to fit the shapes in the right holes.

#LOL!
[quote][p][bold]Mr Udigawa[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: I'm going to ignore your fantasy railway P&R story and cut to this, in an attempt to get "back on topic". [quote]Oh and it’s funny that as you are 17 you are driving around? Must have just passed your test? And yes driving over speed bumps for a day won’t make your car fall apart but maybe in 2 years time you will notice it? And 4th gear at 20mph? Yes very economical? oh but wait I’d like to point out that running in such a gear at that speed actually burns more fuel? Think of peddling on your bike in 21st gear when you are actually just crawling? it burns more energy yes? but anyway you can not drive a petrol car at 40mph in 4th gear without it stalling so I doubt you even drive if I’m being honest?[/quote] I don't know why you want to know so much information about me. But I passed my text in Feb, thanks, and drove through Acomb last night in 4th very happily. As for burning more petrol, the amount burned is a function of revs, my rev count was very low, sure I did not have a lot of power, but that was because I was going through Acomb, not on a motorway. No point trying to do 0 - 20 in under a second, really. http://www.20splenty forus.org.uk/rationa le_for_20_mph.htm Seems pretty legit and reasonable. Steady driving, fewer gear changes, lots of time to adjust for the road and plan ahead. And no stopping from Energise to my house![/p][/quote]Well Beth ignore it but I can guarantee in the next 5 years the plan will be there. But don't worry I’ll ignore you passed a driving text. Driving at low revs in 4th.. Right let me try explain this again. Just because your car is not revving as much does not mean it takes less energy to maintain that speed? i.e the most economical rev count in a car is jsut over 2000rpm. If you were in 4th at 20mph then you will have been below this... Fact.. So at such low revs the car has to try extra hard to power the gear using more fuel. If your are not peddling as quick on your bike do you save energy? Or indeed is it harder to pedal as the gear you are in requires more energy to move? To be fair beth i don't need to know you.. They were rhetorical questions. That’s where you say something but already know the answer. Oh I’m glad you pointed to a 20splenty site... Did you know Liverpool are the best football team in the world just head to their website? Everyone on this site already knows enough about you. You have a horse, like riding bikes and believe everything you say is correct yet you are only 17 and have no real knowledge of any of the subject matters discussed... You have no real arguments or indeed an idea of what the future of transport is. You believe propaganda sites and then relay this information back on here believing it must be true. Oh and you are 17 and instead of going out and having a youth you are on here trying to prove you are intelligent when really it's not working to well.. You are simply proving you are the next Anna. Silver spoon fed with no idea of the real world.[/p][/quote]oh an no stopping from your energise to your house? thats dangerous as in every direction there is a roundabout?[/p][/quote]Lol, how is not stopping at rounabouts dangerous? You maybe need to brush up on your driving techniques Archie, you'll be wasting even more fuel & causing accidents driving like that...[/p][/quote]Well I would have thought that was obvious? If you pull out and a car is already on it, it goes into you? As its not your right of way you're liable? Especially on a mini roundabout where you can not see the road to your right until you are there? Thank you though for your very intelligent comment Mr Udigawa. It’s good to know you always go to a roundabout and just carry on. Bit dangerous mind? especially to say it was you wanting a duel carriageway (a64) to have its speed reduced so your lad could cross over it (not using the bridge) to get to work easier? But yet you don’t stop at roundabouts ever? Excellent input. Now back to trying to fit the shapes in the right holes. #LOL! archieboldthe2nd
  • Score: 1000

1:30pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Ichabod76 says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
Your common sense is that of a 16 year old girl

And as for children, I have them and I don't think I'd be happy for you to be responsible for looking after them.
Roads even ones with 20 MPH zones are not places for children to play about.
If one child is killed on a road that has been changed to a 20 zone because Anna Semlyen said it's a safer place for children, then she should be held personally responsible.


Someone can't do maths. I'm 17, not 16. And frankly, who's to say you'd be able to afford my babysitting services? ;)

Don't be daft about being held "personally responsible". She hasn't asked anyone to play in the roads. Accidents happen when people aren't playing in the roads. Cyclists, pedestrians... even... wait for it... car to car accidents happen. At 20 mph both likelihood and severity of accidents reduce, which is why I suppose a blanket 20mph in York.

Funnily enough I was driving through Acomb last night at 20mph in the 20mph zones... 4th gear... hardly felt the speed bumps at all (pretty sure my suspension didn't fall off, my wheels didn't crack and my steering wheel worked fine too!)... 20 is lovely speed to carefully go over speed bumps, no low gears, nice low revs, nice happy speed. Seemed like an excellent way to travel to me. Plus the speed bumps were small enough so that horses and cycles can easily get past without problems. Very good road design.
Wow I was a whole year off with my guess !
( no mathematics required as I never realised you had told us your year of birth )

As for affording your babysitting services, Im pretty sure I could with my 7 figure salary but now I'm just boasting. ( also my wife doesn't need to work so she can care for our children full time )

Anna Semlyen did actually say to me that the street would be a safer place for my children to play , I called her an idiot and she walked away.

My Ferrari certainly won't pootle along at 20mph in 4th gear, it struggles in 2nd but thats by the by, it's why I also have a range rover with an automatic gearbox for driving around town.

Your little fiesta may well run at 20mph in 4th but you do realise that you're using more fuel and pumping out more particulates because your under compressing the fuel mix in the cylinders forcing unburned fuel into the atmosphere, 3rd gear and slightly higher revs would be greener.

What position in local government is your mother employed ?
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote]Your common sense is that of a 16 year old girl And as for children, I have them and I don't think I'd be happy for you to be responsible for looking after them. Roads even ones with 20 MPH zones are not places for children to play about. If one child is killed on a road that has been changed to a 20 zone because Anna Semlyen said it's a safer place for children, then she should be held personally responsible.[/quote] Someone can't do maths. I'm 17, not 16. And frankly, who's to say you'd be able to afford my babysitting services? ;) Don't be daft about being held "personally responsible". She hasn't asked anyone to play in the roads. Accidents happen when people aren't playing in the roads. Cyclists, pedestrians... even... wait for it... car to car accidents happen. At 20 mph both likelihood and severity of accidents reduce, which is why I suppose a blanket 20mph in York. Funnily enough I was driving through Acomb last night at 20mph in the 20mph zones... 4th gear... hardly felt the speed bumps at all (pretty sure my suspension didn't fall off, my wheels didn't crack and my steering wheel worked fine too!)... 20 is lovely speed to carefully go over speed bumps, no low gears, nice low revs, nice happy speed. Seemed like an excellent way to travel to me. Plus the speed bumps were small enough so that horses and cycles can easily get past without problems. Very good road design.[/p][/quote]Wow I was a whole year off with my guess ! ( no mathematics required as I never realised you had told us your year of birth ) As for affording your babysitting services, Im pretty sure I could with my 7 figure salary but now I'm just boasting. ( also my wife doesn't need to work so she can care for our children full time ) Anna Semlyen did actually say to me that the street would be a safer place for my children to play , I called her an idiot and she walked away. My Ferrari certainly won't pootle along at 20mph in 4th gear, it struggles in 2nd but thats by the by, it's why I also have a range rover with an automatic gearbox for driving around town. Your little fiesta may well run at 20mph in 4th but you do realise that you're using more fuel and pumping out more particulates because your under compressing the fuel mix in the cylinders forcing unburned fuel into the atmosphere, 3rd gear and slightly higher revs would be greener. What position in local government is your mother employed ? Ichabod76
  • Score: 1414

1:33pm Thu 14 Aug 14

archieboldthe2nd says...

Ichabod76 wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
Your common sense is that of a 16 year old girl And as for children, I have them and I don't think I'd be happy for you to be responsible for looking after them. Roads even ones with 20 MPH zones are not places for children to play about. If one child is killed on a road that has been changed to a 20 zone because Anna Semlyen said it's a safer place for children, then she should be held personally responsible.
Someone can't do maths. I'm 17, not 16. And frankly, who's to say you'd be able to afford my babysitting services? ;) Don't be daft about being held "personally responsible". She hasn't asked anyone to play in the roads. Accidents happen when people aren't playing in the roads. Cyclists, pedestrians... even... wait for it... car to car accidents happen. At 20 mph both likelihood and severity of accidents reduce, which is why I suppose a blanket 20mph in York. Funnily enough I was driving through Acomb last night at 20mph in the 20mph zones... 4th gear... hardly felt the speed bumps at all (pretty sure my suspension didn't fall off, my wheels didn't crack and my steering wheel worked fine too!)... 20 is lovely speed to carefully go over speed bumps, no low gears, nice low revs, nice happy speed. Seemed like an excellent way to travel to me. Plus the speed bumps were small enough so that horses and cycles can easily get past without problems. Very good road design.
Wow I was a whole year off with my guess ! ( no mathematics required as I never realised you had told us your year of birth ) As for affording your babysitting services, Im pretty sure I could with my 7 figure salary but now I'm just boasting. ( also my wife doesn't need to work so she can care for our children full time ) Anna Semlyen did actually say to me that the street would be a safer place for my children to play , I called her an idiot and she walked away. My Ferrari certainly won't pootle along at 20mph in 4th gear, it struggles in 2nd but thats by the by, it's why I also have a range rover with an automatic gearbox for driving around town. Your little fiesta may well run at 20mph in 4th but you do realise that you're using more fuel and pumping out more particulates because your under compressing the fuel mix in the cylinders forcing unburned fuel into the atmosphere, 3rd gear and slightly higher revs would be greener. What position in local government is your mother employed ?
love it...
[quote][p][bold]Ichabod76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote]Your common sense is that of a 16 year old girl And as for children, I have them and I don't think I'd be happy for you to be responsible for looking after them. Roads even ones with 20 MPH zones are not places for children to play about. If one child is killed on a road that has been changed to a 20 zone because Anna Semlyen said it's a safer place for children, then she should be held personally responsible.[/quote] Someone can't do maths. I'm 17, not 16. And frankly, who's to say you'd be able to afford my babysitting services? ;) Don't be daft about being held "personally responsible". She hasn't asked anyone to play in the roads. Accidents happen when people aren't playing in the roads. Cyclists, pedestrians... even... wait for it... car to car accidents happen. At 20 mph both likelihood and severity of accidents reduce, which is why I suppose a blanket 20mph in York. Funnily enough I was driving through Acomb last night at 20mph in the 20mph zones... 4th gear... hardly felt the speed bumps at all (pretty sure my suspension didn't fall off, my wheels didn't crack and my steering wheel worked fine too!)... 20 is lovely speed to carefully go over speed bumps, no low gears, nice low revs, nice happy speed. Seemed like an excellent way to travel to me. Plus the speed bumps were small enough so that horses and cycles can easily get past without problems. Very good road design.[/p][/quote]Wow I was a whole year off with my guess ! ( no mathematics required as I never realised you had told us your year of birth ) As for affording your babysitting services, Im pretty sure I could with my 7 figure salary but now I'm just boasting. ( also my wife doesn't need to work so she can care for our children full time ) Anna Semlyen did actually say to me that the street would be a safer place for my children to play , I called her an idiot and she walked away. My Ferrari certainly won't pootle along at 20mph in 4th gear, it struggles in 2nd but thats by the by, it's why I also have a range rover with an automatic gearbox for driving around town. Your little fiesta may well run at 20mph in 4th but you do realise that you're using more fuel and pumping out more particulates because your under compressing the fuel mix in the cylinders forcing unburned fuel into the atmosphere, 3rd gear and slightly higher revs would be greener. What position in local government is your mother employed ?[/p][/quote]love it... archieboldthe2nd
  • Score: 1205

1:43pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Ichabod76 says...

BethFoxhunter96 says...
That's fine. All the education in the world's not going to stop an excited nine year old running out into the path of a car because he or she's playing tag. Because that's what kids do.

So you're saying it is safe to play in the road ?
BethFoxhunter96 says... That's fine. All the education in the world's not going to stop an excited nine year old running out into the path of a car because he or she's playing tag. Because that's what kids do. So you're saying it is safe to play in the road ? Ichabod76
  • Score: 1281

2:17pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Mr Udigawa says...

archieboldthe2nd wrote:
Mr Udigawa wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote: I'm going to ignore your fantasy railway P&R story and cut to this, in an attempt to get "back on topic".
Oh and it’s funny that as you are 17 you are driving around? Must have just passed your test? And yes driving over speed bumps for a day won’t make your car fall apart but maybe in 2 years time you will notice it? And 4th gear at 20mph? Yes very economical? oh but wait I’d like to point out that running in such a gear at that speed actually burns more fuel? Think of peddling on your bike in 21st gear when you are actually just crawling? it burns more energy yes? but anyway you can not drive a petrol car at 40mph in 4th gear without it stalling so I doubt you even drive if I’m being honest?
I don't know why you want to know so much information about me. But I passed my text in Feb, thanks, and drove through Acomb last night in 4th very happily. As for burning more petrol, the amount burned is a function of revs, my rev count was very low, sure I did not have a lot of power, but that was because I was going through Acomb, not on a motorway. No point trying to do 0 - 20 in under a second, really. http://www.20splenty forus.org.uk/rationa le_for_20_mph.htm Seems pretty legit and reasonable. Steady driving, fewer gear changes, lots of time to adjust for the road and plan ahead. And no stopping from Energise to my house!
Well Beth ignore it but I can guarantee in the next 5 years the plan will be there. But don't worry I’ll ignore you passed a driving text. Driving at low revs in 4th.. Right let me try explain this again. Just because your car is not revving as much does not mean it takes less energy to maintain that speed? i.e the most economical rev count in a car is jsut over 2000rpm. If you were in 4th at 20mph then you will have been below this... Fact.. So at such low revs the car has to try extra hard to power the gear using more fuel. If your are not peddling as quick on your bike do you save energy? Or indeed is it harder to pedal as the gear you are in requires more energy to move? To be fair beth i don't need to know you.. They were rhetorical questions. That’s where you say something but already know the answer. Oh I’m glad you pointed to a 20splenty site... Did you know Liverpool are the best football team in the world just head to their website? Everyone on this site already knows enough about you. You have a horse, like riding bikes and believe everything you say is correct yet you are only 17 and have no real knowledge of any of the subject matters discussed... You have no real arguments or indeed an idea of what the future of transport is. You believe propaganda sites and then relay this information back on here believing it must be true. Oh and you are 17 and instead of going out and having a youth you are on here trying to prove you are intelligent when really it's not working to well.. You are simply proving you are the next Anna. Silver spoon fed with no idea of the real world.
oh an no stopping from your energise to your house? thats dangerous as in every direction there is a roundabout?
Lol, how is not stopping at rounabouts dangerous? You maybe need to brush up on your driving techniques Archie, you'll be wasting even more fuel & causing accidents driving like that...
Well I would have thought that was obvious? If you pull out and a car is already on it, it goes into you? As its not your right of way you're liable? Especially on a mini roundabout where you can not see the road to your right until you are there?

Thank you though for your very intelligent comment Mr Udigawa. It’s good to know you always go to a roundabout and just carry on. Bit dangerous mind? especially to say it was you wanting a duel carriageway (a64) to have its speed reduced so your lad could cross over it (not using the bridge) to get to work easier? But yet you don’t stop at roundabouts ever? Excellent input. Now back to trying to fit the shapes in the right holes.

#LOL!
Ah Archie, getting your kecks in a twist there mate, you imply that Beth would definitely have to stop because she encounters at least one roundabout on her journey, I'm merely pointing out that there's a good possibility that she wouldn't have to stop as she sounds like an able and confident driver unlike yourself.......

Don't twist my words to suit your flawed arguments old bean.
[quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Udigawa[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: I'm going to ignore your fantasy railway P&R story and cut to this, in an attempt to get "back on topic". [quote]Oh and it’s funny that as you are 17 you are driving around? Must have just passed your test? And yes driving over speed bumps for a day won’t make your car fall apart but maybe in 2 years time you will notice it? And 4th gear at 20mph? Yes very economical? oh but wait I’d like to point out that running in such a gear at that speed actually burns more fuel? Think of peddling on your bike in 21st gear when you are actually just crawling? it burns more energy yes? but anyway you can not drive a petrol car at 40mph in 4th gear without it stalling so I doubt you even drive if I’m being honest?[/quote] I don't know why you want to know so much information about me. But I passed my text in Feb, thanks, and drove through Acomb last night in 4th very happily. As for burning more petrol, the amount burned is a function of revs, my rev count was very low, sure I did not have a lot of power, but that was because I was going through Acomb, not on a motorway. No point trying to do 0 - 20 in under a second, really. http://www.20splenty forus.org.uk/rationa le_for_20_mph.htm Seems pretty legit and reasonable. Steady driving, fewer gear changes, lots of time to adjust for the road and plan ahead. And no stopping from Energise to my house![/p][/quote]Well Beth ignore it but I can guarantee in the next 5 years the plan will be there. But don't worry I’ll ignore you passed a driving text. Driving at low revs in 4th.. Right let me try explain this again. Just because your car is not revving as much does not mean it takes less energy to maintain that speed? i.e the most economical rev count in a car is jsut over 2000rpm. If you were in 4th at 20mph then you will have been below this... Fact.. So at such low revs the car has to try extra hard to power the gear using more fuel. If your are not peddling as quick on your bike do you save energy? Or indeed is it harder to pedal as the gear you are in requires more energy to move? To be fair beth i don't need to know you.. They were rhetorical questions. That’s where you say something but already know the answer. Oh I’m glad you pointed to a 20splenty site... Did you know Liverpool are the best football team in the world just head to their website? Everyone on this site already knows enough about you. You have a horse, like riding bikes and believe everything you say is correct yet you are only 17 and have no real knowledge of any of the subject matters discussed... You have no real arguments or indeed an idea of what the future of transport is. You believe propaganda sites and then relay this information back on here believing it must be true. Oh and you are 17 and instead of going out and having a youth you are on here trying to prove you are intelligent when really it's not working to well.. You are simply proving you are the next Anna. Silver spoon fed with no idea of the real world.[/p][/quote]oh an no stopping from your energise to your house? thats dangerous as in every direction there is a roundabout?[/p][/quote]Lol, how is not stopping at rounabouts dangerous? You maybe need to brush up on your driving techniques Archie, you'll be wasting even more fuel & causing accidents driving like that...[/p][/quote]Well I would have thought that was obvious? If you pull out and a car is already on it, it goes into you? As its not your right of way you're liable? Especially on a mini roundabout where you can not see the road to your right until you are there? Thank you though for your very intelligent comment Mr Udigawa. It’s good to know you always go to a roundabout and just carry on. Bit dangerous mind? especially to say it was you wanting a duel carriageway (a64) to have its speed reduced so your lad could cross over it (not using the bridge) to get to work easier? But yet you don’t stop at roundabouts ever? Excellent input. Now back to trying to fit the shapes in the right holes. #LOL![/p][/quote]Ah Archie, getting your kecks in a twist there mate, you imply that Beth would definitely have to stop because she encounters at least one roundabout on her journey, I'm merely pointing out that there's a good possibility that she wouldn't have to stop as she sounds like an able and confident driver unlike yourself....... Don't twist my words to suit your flawed arguments old bean. Mr Udigawa
  • Score: 1200

2:30pm Thu 14 Aug 14

the original Homer says...

On the subject of stopping at roundabouts, I agree with the honorable representative of the pony club.

I very rarely need to stop at roundabouts, even at busy periods. I think that applies to most drivers.

I can't offhand think of anything else she's said tat I agree with though.
On the subject of stopping at roundabouts, I agree with the honorable representative of the pony club. I very rarely need to stop at roundabouts, even at busy periods. I think that applies to most drivers. I can't offhand think of anything else she's said tat I agree with though. the original Homer
  • Score: 721

2:31pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Haywire says...

archieboldthe2nd wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
Rail links on the outskirts. Infrastructure is already there. Train companies will even offer funding to open old stations to generate them more revenue. Not really rocket science is it.
So, we're replacing free (to CYC) bus services with a massive bill to provide train services. Whose houses are you going to knock down to build new stations and railway lines? There is a P&R bus stop just along from where I live. Given your cunning plan will presumably not have a station every 300 meters, can you tell me how I get into town please? #fail
Excellent and intelligent comments yet again beth. Let me address them. You do not need to knock houses down as there is more then enough railway land on the outskirts, indeed some are even still there and just need re-opening. Is the bus service free? I’m pretty sure CYC just spent 23m of p&r? Not really free is it? New railway lines? No we have one of the countries biggest stations with more then enough lines already? Good for you, you have a p&r near you. Congratulations. Ah so the p&r stops every 300meters? I was under the assumption it had like 1 stop in its way to town that no one used? Silly me. The idea of outskirt stations are the same as P&R you drive to them, park and then get to York station traffic free and this would then remove traffic from our roads and would be a lot greener. You could even cycle with less fear!

Ah hash tag... beth you might actually think you are smart with all the answers but your a daft 17 year old hippy with no clue about transport infrastructure or the future of transport. #mummymummycanihavea

unicorn.
Well, well 'Educating' Archie, I suspect that you may be losing the 'animated discussion' if you are resorting to personal abuse.
I think that you should apologise to Beth (despite the fox hunting).

As to stations on the outskirts of York, train operators are not that keen on extra stations because they play havoc with the timetable. There would be no chance of re-opening Copmanthorpe Station for example. Never mind the cost, it would just be impossible to fit the stops into the timetable.

I certainly won't say YOU are daft, but the jury is certainly still out regarding your knowledge of transport infrastructure.
[quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote]Rail links on the outskirts. Infrastructure is already there. Train companies will even offer funding to open old stations to generate them more revenue. Not really rocket science is it.[/quote] So, we're replacing free (to CYC) bus services with a massive bill to provide train services. Whose houses are you going to knock down to build new stations and railway lines? There is a P&R bus stop just along from where I live. Given your cunning plan will presumably not have a station every 300 meters, can you tell me how I get into town please? #fail[/p][/quote]Excellent and intelligent comments yet again beth. Let me address them. You do not need to knock houses down as there is more then enough railway land on the outskirts, indeed some are even still there and just need re-opening. Is the bus service free? I’m pretty sure CYC just spent 23m of p&r? Not really free is it? New railway lines? No we have one of the countries biggest stations with more then enough lines already? Good for you, you have a p&r near you. Congratulations. Ah so the p&r stops every 300meters? I was under the assumption it had like 1 stop in its way to town that no one used? Silly me. The idea of outskirt stations are the same as P&R you drive to them, park and then get to York station traffic free and this would then remove traffic from our roads and would be a lot greener. You could even cycle with less fear! Ah hash tag... beth you might actually think you are smart with all the answers but your a daft 17 year old hippy with no clue about transport infrastructure or the future of transport. #mummymummycanihavea unicorn.[/p][/quote]Well, well 'Educating' Archie, I suspect that you may be losing the 'animated discussion' if you are resorting to personal abuse. I think that you should apologise to Beth (despite the fox hunting). As to stations on the outskirts of York, train operators are not that keen on extra stations because they play havoc with the timetable. There would be no chance of re-opening Copmanthorpe Station for example. Never mind the cost, it would just be impossible to fit the stops into the timetable. I certainly won't say YOU are daft, but the jury is certainly still out regarding your knowledge of transport infrastructure. Haywire
  • Score: 1141

2:39pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Bo Jolly says...

Well this has been a great bunfight - top trolling Beth!

Meanwhile, the statistics show that 20mph zones seem to have no effect on road safety and there's at least the possibility that they result in more accidents.

So we have spent £600,000 for no other reason than to make Beth feel nice and give other people who don't like motor vehicles a warm glow. *NOT* a good deal.
Well this has been a great bunfight - top trolling Beth! Meanwhile, the statistics show that 20mph zones seem to have no effect on road safety and there's at least the possibility that they result in more accidents. So we have spent £600,000 for no other reason than to make Beth feel nice and give other people who don't like motor vehicles a warm glow. *NOT* a good deal. Bo Jolly
  • Score: 852

2:44pm Thu 14 Aug 14

archieboldthe2nd says...

Mr Udigawa wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
Mr Udigawa wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote: I'm going to ignore your fantasy railway P&R story and cut to this, in an attempt to get "back on topic".
Oh and it’s funny that as you are 17 you are driving around? Must have just passed your test? And yes driving over speed bumps for a day won’t make your car fall apart but maybe in 2 years time you will notice it? And 4th gear at 20mph? Yes very economical? oh but wait I’d like to point out that running in such a gear at that speed actually burns more fuel? Think of peddling on your bike in 21st gear when you are actually just crawling? it burns more energy yes? but anyway you can not drive a petrol car at 40mph in 4th gear without it stalling so I doubt you even drive if I’m being honest?
I don't know why you want to know so much information about me. But I passed my text in Feb, thanks, and drove through Acomb last night in 4th very happily. As for burning more petrol, the amount burned is a function of revs, my rev count was very low, sure I did not have a lot of power, but that was because I was going through Acomb, not on a motorway. No point trying to do 0 - 20 in under a second, really. http://www.20splenty forus.org.uk/rationa le_for_20_mph.htm Seems pretty legit and reasonable. Steady driving, fewer gear changes, lots of time to adjust for the road and plan ahead. And no stopping from Energise to my house!
Well Beth ignore it but I can guarantee in the next 5 years the plan will be there. But don't worry I’ll ignore you passed a driving text. Driving at low revs in 4th.. Right let me try explain this again. Just because your car is not revving as much does not mean it takes less energy to maintain that speed? i.e the most economical rev count in a car is jsut over 2000rpm. If you were in 4th at 20mph then you will have been below this... Fact.. So at such low revs the car has to try extra hard to power the gear using more fuel. If your are not peddling as quick on your bike do you save energy? Or indeed is it harder to pedal as the gear you are in requires more energy to move? To be fair beth i don't need to know you.. They were rhetorical questions. That’s where you say something but already know the answer. Oh I’m glad you pointed to a 20splenty site... Did you know Liverpool are the best football team in the world just head to their website? Everyone on this site already knows enough about you. You have a horse, like riding bikes and believe everything you say is correct yet you are only 17 and have no real knowledge of any of the subject matters discussed... You have no real arguments or indeed an idea of what the future of transport is. You believe propaganda sites and then relay this information back on here believing it must be true. Oh and you are 17 and instead of going out and having a youth you are on here trying to prove you are intelligent when really it's not working to well.. You are simply proving you are the next Anna. Silver spoon fed with no idea of the real world.
oh an no stopping from your energise to your house? thats dangerous as in every direction there is a roundabout?
Lol, how is not stopping at rounabouts dangerous? You maybe need to brush up on your driving techniques Archie, you'll be wasting even more fuel & causing accidents driving like that...
Well I would have thought that was obvious? If you pull out and a car is already on it, it goes into you? As its not your right of way you're liable? Especially on a mini roundabout where you can not see the road to your right until you are there? Thank you though for your very intelligent comment Mr Udigawa. It’s good to know you always go to a roundabout and just carry on. Bit dangerous mind? especially to say it was you wanting a duel carriageway (a64) to have its speed reduced so your lad could cross over it (not using the bridge) to get to work easier? But yet you don’t stop at roundabouts ever? Excellent input. Now back to trying to fit the shapes in the right holes. #LOL!
Ah Archie, getting your kecks in a twist there mate, you imply that Beth would definitely have to stop because she encounters at least one roundabout on her journey, I'm merely pointing out that there's a good possibility that she wouldn't have to stop as she sounds like an able and confident driver unlike yourself....... Don't twist my words to suit your flawed arguments old bean.
She would be in 4th gear? (well 3rd on a roundabout) are you actually trying to be stupid? How does going around 20mph in 4th gear make her confident? If she slowed for it and set off in 3rd (as she said above) then i'm pretty sure that’s dangerous.

That roundabout we are talking about from energise towards gale lane you are approaching blind until you get to about 5m from it. So ok maybe she slowed to about 5mph to see if it was clear... yes that’s non stop but is it any more efficient then stopping when setting off in 3rd? no.. I'd say realistically there is a slight possibility she may not come to a direct halt as gale lane believe it or not is busy. But she will definitely have to stop to a crawl..

I've not twisted any words? you said you dont have to stop at roundabouts and i've said your daft if you think that?
[quote][p][bold]Mr Udigawa[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Udigawa[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: I'm going to ignore your fantasy railway P&R story and cut to this, in an attempt to get "back on topic". [quote]Oh and it’s funny that as you are 17 you are driving around? Must have just passed your test? And yes driving over speed bumps for a day won’t make your car fall apart but maybe in 2 years time you will notice it? And 4th gear at 20mph? Yes very economical? oh but wait I’d like to point out that running in such a gear at that speed actually burns more fuel? Think of peddling on your bike in 21st gear when you are actually just crawling? it burns more energy yes? but anyway you can not drive a petrol car at 40mph in 4th gear without it stalling so I doubt you even drive if I’m being honest?[/quote] I don't know why you want to know so much information about me. But I passed my text in Feb, thanks, and drove through Acomb last night in 4th very happily. As for burning more petrol, the amount burned is a function of revs, my rev count was very low, sure I did not have a lot of power, but that was because I was going through Acomb, not on a motorway. No point trying to do 0 - 20 in under a second, really. http://www.20splenty forus.org.uk/rationa le_for_20_mph.htm Seems pretty legit and reasonable. Steady driving, fewer gear changes, lots of time to adjust for the road and plan ahead. And no stopping from Energise to my house![/p][/quote]Well Beth ignore it but I can guarantee in the next 5 years the plan will be there. But don't worry I’ll ignore you passed a driving text. Driving at low revs in 4th.. Right let me try explain this again. Just because your car is not revving as much does not mean it takes less energy to maintain that speed? i.e the most economical rev count in a car is jsut over 2000rpm. If you were in 4th at 20mph then you will have been below this... Fact.. So at such low revs the car has to try extra hard to power the gear using more fuel. If your are not peddling as quick on your bike do you save energy? Or indeed is it harder to pedal as the gear you are in requires more energy to move? To be fair beth i don't need to know you.. They were rhetorical questions. That’s where you say something but already know the answer. Oh I’m glad you pointed to a 20splenty site... Did you know Liverpool are the best football team in the world just head to their website? Everyone on this site already knows enough about you. You have a horse, like riding bikes and believe everything you say is correct yet you are only 17 and have no real knowledge of any of the subject matters discussed... You have no real arguments or indeed an idea of what the future of transport is. You believe propaganda sites and then relay this information back on here believing it must be true. Oh and you are 17 and instead of going out and having a youth you are on here trying to prove you are intelligent when really it's not working to well.. You are simply proving you are the next Anna. Silver spoon fed with no idea of the real world.[/p][/quote]oh an no stopping from your energise to your house? thats dangerous as in every direction there is a roundabout?[/p][/quote]Lol, how is not stopping at rounabouts dangerous? You maybe need to brush up on your driving techniques Archie, you'll be wasting even more fuel & causing accidents driving like that...[/p][/quote]Well I would have thought that was obvious? If you pull out and a car is already on it, it goes into you? As its not your right of way you're liable? Especially on a mini roundabout where you can not see the road to your right until you are there? Thank you though for your very intelligent comment Mr Udigawa. It’s good to know you always go to a roundabout and just carry on. Bit dangerous mind? especially to say it was you wanting a duel carriageway (a64) to have its speed reduced so your lad could cross over it (not using the bridge) to get to work easier? But yet you don’t stop at roundabouts ever? Excellent input. Now back to trying to fit the shapes in the right holes. #LOL![/p][/quote]Ah Archie, getting your kecks in a twist there mate, you imply that Beth would definitely have to stop because she encounters at least one roundabout on her journey, I'm merely pointing out that there's a good possibility that she wouldn't have to stop as she sounds like an able and confident driver unlike yourself....... Don't twist my words to suit your flawed arguments old bean.[/p][/quote]She would be in 4th gear? (well 3rd on a roundabout) are you actually trying to be stupid? How does going around 20mph in 4th gear make her confident? If she slowed for it and set off in 3rd (as she said above) then i'm pretty sure that’s dangerous. That roundabout we are talking about from energise towards gale lane you are approaching blind until you get to about 5m from it. So ok maybe she slowed to about 5mph to see if it was clear... yes that’s non stop but is it any more efficient then stopping when setting off in 3rd? no.. I'd say realistically there is a slight possibility she may not come to a direct halt as gale lane believe it or not is busy. But she will definitely have to stop to a crawl.. I've not twisted any words? you said you dont have to stop at roundabouts and i've said your daft if you think that? archieboldthe2nd
  • Score: 1364

2:48pm Thu 14 Aug 14

archieboldthe2nd says...

Haywire wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
Rail links on the outskirts. Infrastructure is already there. Train companies will even offer funding to open old stations to generate them more revenue. Not really rocket science is it.
So, we're replacing free (to CYC) bus services with a massive bill to provide train services. Whose houses are you going to knock down to build new stations and railway lines? There is a P&R bus stop just along from where I live. Given your cunning plan will presumably not have a station every 300 meters, can you tell me how I get into town please? #fail
Excellent and intelligent comments yet again beth. Let me address them. You do not need to knock houses down as there is more then enough railway land on the outskirts, indeed some are even still there and just need re-opening. Is the bus service free? I’m pretty sure CYC just spent 23m of p&r? Not really free is it? New railway lines? No we have one of the countries biggest stations with more then enough lines already? Good for you, you have a p&r near you. Congratulations. Ah so the p&r stops every 300meters? I was under the assumption it had like 1 stop in its way to town that no one used? Silly me. The idea of outskirt stations are the same as P&R you drive to them, park and then get to York station traffic free and this would then remove traffic from our roads and would be a lot greener. You could even cycle with less fear! Ah hash tag... beth you might actually think you are smart with all the answers but your a daft 17 year old hippy with no clue about transport infrastructure or the future of transport. #mummymummycanihavea unicorn.
Well, well 'Educating' Archie, I suspect that you may be losing the 'animated discussion' if you are resorting to personal abuse. I think that you should apologise to Beth (despite the fox hunting). As to stations on the outskirts of York, train operators are not that keen on extra stations because they play havoc with the timetable. There would be no chance of re-opening Copmanthorpe Station for example. Never mind the cost, it would just be impossible to fit the stops into the timetable. I certainly won't say YOU are daft, but the jury is certainly still out regarding your knowledge of transport infrastructure.
Why lie? I’ve sat in meetings with northern rail who actually have a budget to open more stations and are encouraging rail companies and stakeholders to do such a thing?

Its impossible to fit into the timetable? yeh capacity increases at York station have enabled more trains to run? Traffic management and the roc will further increase this capacity? Afterall companies are really bothered about changing a timetable when it means they get more revenue!!!!

Maybe an ideal location for a new station would have been the p&r area that’s just been built? slow line? easy access into york with spare capacity?

Please don’t try patronise me about an area i'm very familiar with.
[quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote]Rail links on the outskirts. Infrastructure is already there. Train companies will even offer funding to open old stations to generate them more revenue. Not really rocket science is it.[/quote] So, we're replacing free (to CYC) bus services with a massive bill to provide train services. Whose houses are you going to knock down to build new stations and railway lines? There is a P&R bus stop just along from where I live. Given your cunning plan will presumably not have a station every 300 meters, can you tell me how I get into town please? #fail[/p][/quote]Excellent and intelligent comments yet again beth. Let me address them. You do not need to knock houses down as there is more then enough railway land on the outskirts, indeed some are even still there and just need re-opening. Is the bus service free? I’m pretty sure CYC just spent 23m of p&r? Not really free is it? New railway lines? No we have one of the countries biggest stations with more then enough lines already? Good for you, you have a p&r near you. Congratulations. Ah so the p&r stops every 300meters? I was under the assumption it had like 1 stop in its way to town that no one used? Silly me. The idea of outskirt stations are the same as P&R you drive to them, park and then get to York station traffic free and this would then remove traffic from our roads and would be a lot greener. You could even cycle with less fear! Ah hash tag... beth you might actually think you are smart with all the answers but your a daft 17 year old hippy with no clue about transport infrastructure or the future of transport. #mummymummycanihavea unicorn.[/p][/quote]Well, well 'Educating' Archie, I suspect that you may be losing the 'animated discussion' if you are resorting to personal abuse. I think that you should apologise to Beth (despite the fox hunting). As to stations on the outskirts of York, train operators are not that keen on extra stations because they play havoc with the timetable. There would be no chance of re-opening Copmanthorpe Station for example. Never mind the cost, it would just be impossible to fit the stops into the timetable. I certainly won't say YOU are daft, but the jury is certainly still out regarding your knowledge of transport infrastructure.[/p][/quote]Why lie? I’ve sat in meetings with northern rail who actually have a budget to open more stations and are encouraging rail companies and stakeholders to do such a thing? Its impossible to fit into the timetable? yeh capacity increases at York station have enabled more trains to run? Traffic management and the roc will further increase this capacity? Afterall companies are really bothered about changing a timetable when it means they get more revenue!!!! Maybe an ideal location for a new station would have been the p&r area that’s just been built? slow line? easy access into york with spare capacity? Please don’t try patronise me about an area i'm very familiar with. archieboldthe2nd
  • Score: 962

3:06pm Thu 14 Aug 14

walpole says...

Strange, I believe there is a 20mph in beckfield lane in front of the small Sainsbury and my daughter has been caught speeding there and got 3 points... Obviously it appears she doesn't count.....
Strange, I believe there is a 20mph in beckfield lane in front of the small Sainsbury and my daughter has been caught speeding there and got 3 points... Obviously it appears she doesn't count..... walpole
  • Score: 498

3:15pm Thu 14 Aug 14

the original Homer says...

archieboldthe2nd wrote:
Mr Udigawa wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
Mr Udigawa wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote: I'm going to ignore your fantasy railway P&R story and cut to this, in an attempt to get "back on topic".
Oh and it’s funny that as you are 17 you are driving around? Must have just passed your test? And yes driving over speed bumps for a day won’t make your car fall apart but maybe in 2 years time you will notice it? And 4th gear at 20mph? Yes very economical? oh but wait I’d like to point out that running in such a gear at that speed actually burns more fuel? Think of peddling on your bike in 21st gear when you are actually just crawling? it burns more energy yes? but anyway you can not drive a petrol car at 40mph in 4th gear without it stalling so I doubt you even drive if I’m being honest?
I don't know why you want to know so much information about me. But I passed my text in Feb, thanks, and drove through Acomb last night in 4th very happily. As for burning more petrol, the amount burned is a function of revs, my rev count was very low, sure I did not have a lot of power, but that was because I was going through Acomb, not on a motorway. No point trying to do 0 - 20 in under a second, really. http://www.20splenty forus.org.uk/rationa le_for_20_mph.htm Seems pretty legit and reasonable. Steady driving, fewer gear changes, lots of time to adjust for the road and plan ahead. And no stopping from Energise to my house!
Well Beth ignore it but I can guarantee in the next 5 years the plan will be there. But don't worry I’ll ignore you passed a driving text. Driving at low revs in 4th.. Right let me try explain this again. Just because your car is not revving as much does not mean it takes less energy to maintain that speed? i.e the most economical rev count in a car is jsut over 2000rpm. If you were in 4th at 20mph then you will have been below this... Fact.. So at such low revs the car has to try extra hard to power the gear using more fuel. If your are not peddling as quick on your bike do you save energy? Or indeed is it harder to pedal as the gear you are in requires more energy to move? To be fair beth i don't need to know you.. They were rhetorical questions. That’s where you say something but already know the answer. Oh I’m glad you pointed to a 20splenty site... Did you know Liverpool are the best football team in the world just head to their website? Everyone on this site already knows enough about you. You have a horse, like riding bikes and believe everything you say is correct yet you are only 17 and have no real knowledge of any of the subject matters discussed... You have no real arguments or indeed an idea of what the future of transport is. You believe propaganda sites and then relay this information back on here believing it must be true. Oh and you are 17 and instead of going out and having a youth you are on here trying to prove you are intelligent when really it's not working to well.. You are simply proving you are the next Anna. Silver spoon fed with no idea of the real world.
oh an no stopping from your energise to your house? thats dangerous as in every direction there is a roundabout?
Lol, how is not stopping at rounabouts dangerous? You maybe need to brush up on your driving techniques Archie, you'll be wasting even more fuel & causing accidents driving like that...
Well I would have thought that was obvious? If you pull out and a car is already on it, it goes into you? As its not your right of way you're liable? Especially on a mini roundabout where you can not see the road to your right until you are there? Thank you though for your very intelligent comment Mr Udigawa. It’s good to know you always go to a roundabout and just carry on. Bit dangerous mind? especially to say it was you wanting a duel carriageway (a64) to have its speed reduced so your lad could cross over it (not using the bridge) to get to work easier? But yet you don’t stop at roundabouts ever? Excellent input. Now back to trying to fit the shapes in the right holes. #LOL!
Ah Archie, getting your kecks in a twist there mate, you imply that Beth would definitely have to stop because she encounters at least one roundabout on her journey, I'm merely pointing out that there's a good possibility that she wouldn't have to stop as she sounds like an able and confident driver unlike yourself....... Don't twist my words to suit your flawed arguments old bean.
She would be in 4th gear? (well 3rd on a roundabout) are you actually trying to be stupid? How does going around 20mph in 4th gear make her confident? If she slowed for it and set off in 3rd (as she said above) then i'm pretty sure that’s dangerous.

That roundabout we are talking about from energise towards gale lane you are approaching blind until you get to about 5m from it. So ok maybe she slowed to about 5mph to see if it was clear... yes that’s non stop but is it any more efficient then stopping when setting off in 3rd? no.. I'd say realistically there is a slight possibility she may not come to a direct halt as gale lane believe it or not is busy. But she will definitely have to stop to a crawl..

I've not twisted any words? you said you dont have to stop at roundabouts and i've said your daft if you think that?
In the language where you can "stop to a crawl", it is certainly true that you stop at every roundabout.

It's not how most of us define "stop" though.

For me, stopping is what I do at an octagonal "stop" sign, where I come to a complete standstill. Roundabout entrances are like give-ways and I only stop if I have to.
[quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Udigawa[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Udigawa[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: I'm going to ignore your fantasy railway P&R story and cut to this, in an attempt to get "back on topic". [quote]Oh and it’s funny that as you are 17 you are driving around? Must have just passed your test? And yes driving over speed bumps for a day won’t make your car fall apart but maybe in 2 years time you will notice it? And 4th gear at 20mph? Yes very economical? oh but wait I’d like to point out that running in such a gear at that speed actually burns more fuel? Think of peddling on your bike in 21st gear when you are actually just crawling? it burns more energy yes? but anyway you can not drive a petrol car at 40mph in 4th gear without it stalling so I doubt you even drive if I’m being honest?[/quote] I don't know why you want to know so much information about me. But I passed my text in Feb, thanks, and drove through Acomb last night in 4th very happily. As for burning more petrol, the amount burned is a function of revs, my rev count was very low, sure I did not have a lot of power, but that was because I was going through Acomb, not on a motorway. No point trying to do 0 - 20 in under a second, really. http://www.20splenty forus.org.uk/rationa le_for_20_mph.htm Seems pretty legit and reasonable. Steady driving, fewer gear changes, lots of time to adjust for the road and plan ahead. And no stopping from Energise to my house![/p][/quote]Well Beth ignore it but I can guarantee in the next 5 years the plan will be there. But don't worry I’ll ignore you passed a driving text. Driving at low revs in 4th.. Right let me try explain this again. Just because your car is not revving as much does not mean it takes less energy to maintain that speed? i.e the most economical rev count in a car is jsut over 2000rpm. If you were in 4th at 20mph then you will have been below this... Fact.. So at such low revs the car has to try extra hard to power the gear using more fuel. If your are not peddling as quick on your bike do you save energy? Or indeed is it harder to pedal as the gear you are in requires more energy to move? To be fair beth i don't need to know you.. They were rhetorical questions. That’s where you say something but already know the answer. Oh I’m glad you pointed to a 20splenty site... Did you know Liverpool are the best football team in the world just head to their website? Everyone on this site already knows enough about you. You have a horse, like riding bikes and believe everything you say is correct yet you are only 17 and have no real knowledge of any of the subject matters discussed... You have no real arguments or indeed an idea of what the future of transport is. You believe propaganda sites and then relay this information back on here believing it must be true. Oh and you are 17 and instead of going out and having a youth you are on here trying to prove you are intelligent when really it's not working to well.. You are simply proving you are the next Anna. Silver spoon fed with no idea of the real world.[/p][/quote]oh an no stopping from your energise to your house? thats dangerous as in every direction there is a roundabout?[/p][/quote]Lol, how is not stopping at rounabouts dangerous? You maybe need to brush up on your driving techniques Archie, you'll be wasting even more fuel & causing accidents driving like that...[/p][/quote]Well I would have thought that was obvious? If you pull out and a car is already on it, it goes into you? As its not your right of way you're liable? Especially on a mini roundabout where you can not see the road to your right until you are there? Thank you though for your very intelligent comment Mr Udigawa. It’s good to know you always go to a roundabout and just carry on. Bit dangerous mind? especially to say it was you wanting a duel carriageway (a64) to have its speed reduced so your lad could cross over it (not using the bridge) to get to work easier? But yet you don’t stop at roundabouts ever? Excellent input. Now back to trying to fit the shapes in the right holes. #LOL![/p][/quote]Ah Archie, getting your kecks in a twist there mate, you imply that Beth would definitely have to stop because she encounters at least one roundabout on her journey, I'm merely pointing out that there's a good possibility that she wouldn't have to stop as she sounds like an able and confident driver unlike yourself....... Don't twist my words to suit your flawed arguments old bean.[/p][/quote]She would be in 4th gear? (well 3rd on a roundabout) are you actually trying to be stupid? How does going around 20mph in 4th gear make her confident? If she slowed for it and set off in 3rd (as she said above) then i'm pretty sure that’s dangerous. That roundabout we are talking about from energise towards gale lane you are approaching blind until you get to about 5m from it. So ok maybe she slowed to about 5mph to see if it was clear... yes that’s non stop but is it any more efficient then stopping when setting off in 3rd? no.. I'd say realistically there is a slight possibility she may not come to a direct halt as gale lane believe it or not is busy. But she will definitely have to stop to a crawl.. I've not twisted any words? you said you dont have to stop at roundabouts and i've said your daft if you think that?[/p][/quote]In the language where you can "stop to a crawl", it is certainly true that you stop at every roundabout. It's not how most of us define "stop" though. For me, stopping is what I do at an octagonal "stop" sign, where I come to a complete standstill. Roundabout entrances are like give-ways and I only stop if I have to. the original Homer
  • Score: 726

3:18pm Thu 14 Aug 14

the original Homer says...

walpole wrote:
Strange, I believe there is a 20mph in beckfield lane in front of the small Sainsbury and my daughter has been caught speeding there and got 3 points... Obviously it appears she doesn't count.....
It depends how fast she was going.

The 30 mph limit still applies, even if the signs say 20.
[quote][p][bold]walpole[/bold] wrote: Strange, I believe there is a 20mph in beckfield lane in front of the small Sainsbury and my daughter has been caught speeding there and got 3 points... Obviously it appears she doesn't count.....[/p][/quote]It depends how fast she was going. The 30 mph limit still applies, even if the signs say 20. the original Homer
  • Score: 642

3:37pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Von_Dutch says...

Ichabod76 wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
Your common sense is that of a 16 year old girl And as for children, I have them and I don't think I'd be happy for you to be responsible for looking after them. Roads even ones with 20 MPH zones are not places for children to play about. If one child is killed on a road that has been changed to a 20 zone because Anna Semlyen said it's a safer place for children, then she should be held personally responsible.
Someone can't do maths. I'm 17, not 16. And frankly, who's to say you'd be able to afford my babysitting services? ;) Don't be daft about being held "personally responsible". She hasn't asked anyone to play in the roads. Accidents happen when people aren't playing in the roads. Cyclists, pedestrians... even... wait for it... car to car accidents happen. At 20 mph both likelihood and severity of accidents reduce, which is why I suppose a blanket 20mph in York. Funnily enough I was driving through Acomb last night at 20mph in the 20mph zones... 4th gear... hardly felt the speed bumps at all (pretty sure my suspension didn't fall off, my wheels didn't crack and my steering wheel worked fine too!)... 20 is lovely speed to carefully go over speed bumps, no low gears, nice low revs, nice happy speed. Seemed like an excellent way to travel to me. Plus the speed bumps were small enough so that horses and cycles can easily get past without problems. Very good road design.
Wow I was a whole year off with my guess ! ( no mathematics required as I never realised you had told us your year of birth ) As for affording your babysitting services, Im pretty sure I could with my 7 figure salary but now I'm just boasting. ( also my wife doesn't need to work so she can care for our children full time ) Anna Semlyen did actually say to me that the street would be a safer place for my children to play , I called her an idiot and she walked away. My Ferrari certainly won't pootle along at 20mph in 4th gear, it struggles in 2nd but thats by the by, it's why I also have a range rover with an automatic gearbox for driving around town. Your little fiesta may well run at 20mph in 4th but you do realise that you're using more fuel and pumping out more particulates because your under compressing the fuel mix in the cylinders forcing unburned fuel into the atmosphere, 3rd gear and slightly higher revs would be greener. What position in local government is your mother employed ?
It does annoy me when people bring out the whole "i'll have to drive in 2nd gear" card as a reason these lower limits should not be there. Frankly i don't believe it. But whether you like it or not, it's a legally set speed limit. I'm with Beth on this one - I've had cause to drive several newish (petrol) cars round York, all of which were high powered (over 200bhp) and all of which comfortably did 20mph in 4th gear (without any struggling). 2nd gear at this speed would have these engines whining and revs up into the red!
[quote][p][bold]Ichabod76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote]Your common sense is that of a 16 year old girl And as for children, I have them and I don't think I'd be happy for you to be responsible for looking after them. Roads even ones with 20 MPH zones are not places for children to play about. If one child is killed on a road that has been changed to a 20 zone because Anna Semlyen said it's a safer place for children, then she should be held personally responsible.[/quote] Someone can't do maths. I'm 17, not 16. And frankly, who's to say you'd be able to afford my babysitting services? ;) Don't be daft about being held "personally responsible". She hasn't asked anyone to play in the roads. Accidents happen when people aren't playing in the roads. Cyclists, pedestrians... even... wait for it... car to car accidents happen. At 20 mph both likelihood and severity of accidents reduce, which is why I suppose a blanket 20mph in York. Funnily enough I was driving through Acomb last night at 20mph in the 20mph zones... 4th gear... hardly felt the speed bumps at all (pretty sure my suspension didn't fall off, my wheels didn't crack and my steering wheel worked fine too!)... 20 is lovely speed to carefully go over speed bumps, no low gears, nice low revs, nice happy speed. Seemed like an excellent way to travel to me. Plus the speed bumps were small enough so that horses and cycles can easily get past without problems. Very good road design.[/p][/quote]Wow I was a whole year off with my guess ! ( no mathematics required as I never realised you had told us your year of birth ) As for affording your babysitting services, Im pretty sure I could with my 7 figure salary but now I'm just boasting. ( also my wife doesn't need to work so she can care for our children full time ) Anna Semlyen did actually say to me that the street would be a safer place for my children to play , I called her an idiot and she walked away. My Ferrari certainly won't pootle along at 20mph in 4th gear, it struggles in 2nd but thats by the by, it's why I also have a range rover with an automatic gearbox for driving around town. Your little fiesta may well run at 20mph in 4th but you do realise that you're using more fuel and pumping out more particulates because your under compressing the fuel mix in the cylinders forcing unburned fuel into the atmosphere, 3rd gear and slightly higher revs would be greener. What position in local government is your mother employed ?[/p][/quote]It does annoy me when people bring out the whole "i'll have to drive in 2nd gear" card as a reason these lower limits should not be there. Frankly i don't believe it. But whether you like it or not, it's a legally set speed limit. I'm with Beth on this one - I've had cause to drive several newish (petrol) cars round York, all of which were high powered (over 200bhp) and all of which comfortably did 20mph in 4th gear (without any struggling). 2nd gear at this speed would have these engines whining and revs up into the red! Von_Dutch
  • Score: 871

3:53pm Thu 14 Aug 14

the original Homer says...

Von_Dutch wrote:
Ichabod76 wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
Your common sense is that of a 16 year old girl And as for children, I have them and I don't think I'd be happy for you to be responsible for looking after them. Roads even ones with 20 MPH zones are not places for children to play about. If one child is killed on a road that has been changed to a 20 zone because Anna Semlyen said it's a safer place for children, then she should be held personally responsible.
Someone can't do maths. I'm 17, not 16. And frankly, who's to say you'd be able to afford my babysitting services? ;) Don't be daft about being held "personally responsible". She hasn't asked anyone to play in the roads. Accidents happen when people aren't playing in the roads. Cyclists, pedestrians... even... wait for it... car to car accidents happen. At 20 mph both likelihood and severity of accidents reduce, which is why I suppose a blanket 20mph in York. Funnily enough I was driving through Acomb last night at 20mph in the 20mph zones... 4th gear... hardly felt the speed bumps at all (pretty sure my suspension didn't fall off, my wheels didn't crack and my steering wheel worked fine too!)... 20 is lovely speed to carefully go over speed bumps, no low gears, nice low revs, nice happy speed. Seemed like an excellent way to travel to me. Plus the speed bumps were small enough so that horses and cycles can easily get past without problems. Very good road design.
Wow I was a whole year off with my guess ! ( no mathematics required as I never realised you had told us your year of birth ) As for affording your babysitting services, Im pretty sure I could with my 7 figure salary but now I'm just boasting. ( also my wife doesn't need to work so she can care for our children full time ) Anna Semlyen did actually say to me that the street would be a safer place for my children to play , I called her an idiot and she walked away. My Ferrari certainly won't pootle along at 20mph in 4th gear, it struggles in 2nd but thats by the by, it's why I also have a range rover with an automatic gearbox for driving around town. Your little fiesta may well run at 20mph in 4th but you do realise that you're using more fuel and pumping out more particulates because your under compressing the fuel mix in the cylinders forcing unburned fuel into the atmosphere, 3rd gear and slightly higher revs would be greener. What position in local government is your mother employed ?
It does annoy me when people bring out the whole "i'll have to drive in 2nd gear" card as a reason these lower limits should not be there. Frankly i don't believe it. But whether you like it or not, it's a legally set speed limit. I'm with Beth on this one - I've had cause to drive several newish (petrol) cars round York, all of which were high powered (over 200bhp) and all of which comfortably did 20mph in 4th gear (without any struggling). 2nd gear at this speed would have these engines whining and revs up into the red!
I wouldn't expect a 17 year old to be able to get insurance for that type of car.

In my experience, higher powered cars do have enough torque to run at 20 mph in 4th, but the ones I drove could also do 80 mph in 2nd, without the revs going into the red.

A high powered car which is in the red at 20mph in 2nd has a very badly matched gearbox. You would be looking at squeezing a lot of gear changes into a 0-60 sprint of 4-5 seconds.
[quote][p][bold]Von_Dutch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ichabod76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote]Your common sense is that of a 16 year old girl And as for children, I have them and I don't think I'd be happy for you to be responsible for looking after them. Roads even ones with 20 MPH zones are not places for children to play about. If one child is killed on a road that has been changed to a 20 zone because Anna Semlyen said it's a safer place for children, then she should be held personally responsible.[/quote] Someone can't do maths. I'm 17, not 16. And frankly, who's to say you'd be able to afford my babysitting services? ;) Don't be daft about being held "personally responsible". She hasn't asked anyone to play in the roads. Accidents happen when people aren't playing in the roads. Cyclists, pedestrians... even... wait for it... car to car accidents happen. At 20 mph both likelihood and severity of accidents reduce, which is why I suppose a blanket 20mph in York. Funnily enough I was driving through Acomb last night at 20mph in the 20mph zones... 4th gear... hardly felt the speed bumps at all (pretty sure my suspension didn't fall off, my wheels didn't crack and my steering wheel worked fine too!)... 20 is lovely speed to carefully go over speed bumps, no low gears, nice low revs, nice happy speed. Seemed like an excellent way to travel to me. Plus the speed bumps were small enough so that horses and cycles can easily get past without problems. Very good road design.[/p][/quote]Wow I was a whole year off with my guess ! ( no mathematics required as I never realised you had told us your year of birth ) As for affording your babysitting services, Im pretty sure I could with my 7 figure salary but now I'm just boasting. ( also my wife doesn't need to work so she can care for our children full time ) Anna Semlyen did actually say to me that the street would be a safer place for my children to play , I called her an idiot and she walked away. My Ferrari certainly won't pootle along at 20mph in 4th gear, it struggles in 2nd but thats by the by, it's why I also have a range rover with an automatic gearbox for driving around town. Your little fiesta may well run at 20mph in 4th but you do realise that you're using more fuel and pumping out more particulates because your under compressing the fuel mix in the cylinders forcing unburned fuel into the atmosphere, 3rd gear and slightly higher revs would be greener. What position in local government is your mother employed ?[/p][/quote]It does annoy me when people bring out the whole "i'll have to drive in 2nd gear" card as a reason these lower limits should not be there. Frankly i don't believe it. But whether you like it or not, it's a legally set speed limit. I'm with Beth on this one - I've had cause to drive several newish (petrol) cars round York, all of which were high powered (over 200bhp) and all of which comfortably did 20mph in 4th gear (without any struggling). 2nd gear at this speed would have these engines whining and revs up into the red![/p][/quote]I wouldn't expect a 17 year old to be able to get insurance for that type of car. In my experience, higher powered cars do have enough torque to run at 20 mph in 4th, but the ones I drove could also do 80 mph in 2nd, without the revs going into the red. A high powered car which is in the red at 20mph in 2nd has a very badly matched gearbox. You would be looking at squeezing a lot of gear changes into a 0-60 sprint of 4-5 seconds. the original Homer
  • Score: -2713

4:09pm Thu 14 Aug 14

archieboldthe2nd says...

the original Homer wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
Mr Udigawa wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
Mr Udigawa wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote: I'm going to ignore your fantasy railway P&R story and cut to this, in an attempt to get "back on topic".
Oh and it’s funny that as you are 17 you are driving around? Must have just passed your test? And yes driving over speed bumps for a day won’t make your car fall apart but maybe in 2 years time you will notice it? And 4th gear at 20mph? Yes very economical? oh but wait I’d like to point out that running in such a gear at that speed actually burns more fuel? Think of peddling on your bike in 21st gear when you are actually just crawling? it burns more energy yes? but anyway you can not drive a petrol car at 40mph in 4th gear without it stalling so I doubt you even drive if I’m being honest?
I don't know why you want to know so much information about me. But I passed my text in Feb, thanks, and drove through Acomb last night in 4th very happily. As for burning more petrol, the amount burned is a function of revs, my rev count was very low, sure I did not have a lot of power, but that was because I was going through Acomb, not on a motorway. No point trying to do 0 - 20 in under a second, really. http://www.20splenty forus.org.uk/rationa le_for_20_mph.htm Seems pretty legit and reasonable. Steady driving, fewer gear changes, lots of time to adjust for the road and plan ahead. And no stopping from Energise to my house!
Well Beth ignore it but I can guarantee in the next 5 years the plan will be there. But don't worry I’ll ignore you passed a driving text. Driving at low revs in 4th.. Right let me try explain this again. Just because your car is not revving as much does not mean it takes less energy to maintain that speed? i.e the most economical rev count in a car is jsut over 2000rpm. If you were in 4th at 20mph then you will have been below this... Fact.. So at such low revs the car has to try extra hard to power the gear using more fuel. If your are not peddling as quick on your bike do you save energy? Or indeed is it harder to pedal as the gear you are in requires more energy to move? To be fair beth i don't need to know you.. They were rhetorical questions. That’s where you say something but already know the answer. Oh I’m glad you pointed to a 20splenty site... Did you know Liverpool are the best football team in the world just head to their website? Everyone on this site already knows enough about you. You have a horse, like riding bikes and believe everything you say is correct yet you are only 17 and have no real knowledge of any of the subject matters discussed... You have no real arguments or indeed an idea of what the future of transport is. You believe propaganda sites and then relay this information back on here believing it must be true. Oh and you are 17 and instead of going out and having a youth you are on here trying to prove you are intelligent when really it's not working to well.. You are simply proving you are the next Anna. Silver spoon fed with no idea of the real world.
oh an no stopping from your energise to your house? thats dangerous as in every direction there is a roundabout?
Lol, how is not stopping at rounabouts dangerous? You maybe need to brush up on your driving techniques Archie, you'll be wasting even more fuel & causing accidents driving like that...
Well I would have thought that was obvious? If you pull out and a car is already on it, it goes into you? As its not your right of way you're liable? Especially on a mini roundabout where you can not see the road to your right until you are there? Thank you though for your very intelligent comment Mr Udigawa. It’s good to know you always go to a roundabout and just carry on. Bit dangerous mind? especially to say it was you wanting a duel carriageway (a64) to have its speed reduced so your lad could cross over it (not using the bridge) to get to work easier? But yet you don’t stop at roundabouts ever? Excellent input. Now back to trying to fit the shapes in the right holes. #LOL!
Ah Archie, getting your kecks in a twist there mate, you imply that Beth would definitely have to stop because she encounters at least one roundabout on her journey, I'm merely pointing out that there's a good possibility that she wouldn't have to stop as she sounds like an able and confident driver unlike yourself....... Don't twist my words to suit your flawed arguments old bean.
She would be in 4th gear? (well 3rd on a roundabout) are you actually trying to be stupid? How does going around 20mph in 4th gear make her confident? If she slowed for it and set off in 3rd (as she said above) then i'm pretty sure that’s dangerous. That roundabout we are talking about from energise towards gale lane you are approaching blind until you get to about 5m from it. So ok maybe she slowed to about 5mph to see if it was clear... yes that’s non stop but is it any more efficient then stopping when setting off in 3rd? no.. I'd say realistically there is a slight possibility she may not come to a direct halt as gale lane believe it or not is busy. But she will definitely have to stop to a crawl.. I've not twisted any words? you said you dont have to stop at roundabouts and i've said your daft if you think that?
In the language where you can "stop to a crawl", it is certainly true that you stop at every roundabout. It's not how most of us define "stop" though. For me, stopping is what I do at an octagonal "stop" sign, where I come to a complete standstill. Roundabout entrances are like give-ways and I only stop if I have to.
Hey i was just pointing out that at that roundabout i'd say 80% of the time i have to stop to give way? the rest of the time i have to approach very slow to see if anything is coming.

I didn't like the statement saying "sort your driving out you dont have to stop at roundabouts." indeed i think you'd fail your test if you didnt? while people who do drive know you don't have to sometimes you are taught to stop.
[quote][p][bold]the original Homer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Udigawa[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Udigawa[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: I'm going to ignore your fantasy railway P&R story and cut to this, in an attempt to get "back on topic". [quote]Oh and it’s funny that as you are 17 you are driving around? Must have just passed your test? And yes driving over speed bumps for a day won’t make your car fall apart but maybe in 2 years time you will notice it? And 4th gear at 20mph? Yes very economical? oh but wait I’d like to point out that running in such a gear at that speed actually burns more fuel? Think of peddling on your bike in 21st gear when you are actually just crawling? it burns more energy yes? but anyway you can not drive a petrol car at 40mph in 4th gear without it stalling so I doubt you even drive if I’m being honest?[/quote] I don't know why you want to know so much information about me. But I passed my text in Feb, thanks, and drove through Acomb last night in 4th very happily. As for burning more petrol, the amount burned is a function of revs, my rev count was very low, sure I did not have a lot of power, but that was because I was going through Acomb, not on a motorway. No point trying to do 0 - 20 in under a second, really. http://www.20splenty forus.org.uk/rationa le_for_20_mph.htm Seems pretty legit and reasonable. Steady driving, fewer gear changes, lots of time to adjust for the road and plan ahead. And no stopping from Energise to my house![/p][/quote]Well Beth ignore it but I can guarantee in the next 5 years the plan will be there. But don't worry I’ll ignore you passed a driving text. Driving at low revs in 4th.. Right let me try explain this again. Just because your car is not revving as much does not mean it takes less energy to maintain that speed? i.e the most economical rev count in a car is jsut over 2000rpm. If you were in 4th at 20mph then you will have been below this... Fact.. So at such low revs the car has to try extra hard to power the gear using more fuel. If your are not peddling as quick on your bike do you save energy? Or indeed is it harder to pedal as the gear you are in requires more energy to move? To be fair beth i don't need to know you.. They were rhetorical questions. That’s where you say something but already know the answer. Oh I’m glad you pointed to a 20splenty site... Did you know Liverpool are the best football team in the world just head to their website? Everyone on this site already knows enough about you. You have a horse, like riding bikes and believe everything you say is correct yet you are only 17 and have no real knowledge of any of the subject matters discussed... You have no real arguments or indeed an idea of what the future of transport is. You believe propaganda sites and then relay this information back on here believing it must be true. Oh and you are 17 and instead of going out and having a youth you are on here trying to prove you are intelligent when really it's not working to well.. You are simply proving you are the next Anna. Silver spoon fed with no idea of the real world.[/p][/quote]oh an no stopping from your energise to your house? thats dangerous as in every direction there is a roundabout?[/p][/quote]Lol, how is not stopping at rounabouts dangerous? You maybe need to brush up on your driving techniques Archie, you'll be wasting even more fuel & causing accidents driving like that...[/p][/quote]Well I would have thought that was obvious? If you pull out and a car is already on it, it goes into you? As its not your right of way you're liable? Especially on a mini roundabout where you can not see the road to your right until you are there? Thank you though for your very intelligent comment Mr Udigawa. It’s good to know you always go to a roundabout and just carry on. Bit dangerous mind? especially to say it was you wanting a duel carriageway (a64) to have its speed reduced so your lad could cross over it (not using the bridge) to get to work easier? But yet you don’t stop at roundabouts ever? Excellent input. Now back to trying to fit the shapes in the right holes. #LOL![/p][/quote]Ah Archie, getting your kecks in a twist there mate, you imply that Beth would definitely have to stop because she encounters at least one roundabout on her journey, I'm merely pointing out that there's a good possibility that she wouldn't have to stop as she sounds like an able and confident driver unlike yourself....... Don't twist my words to suit your flawed arguments old bean.[/p][/quote]She would be in 4th gear? (well 3rd on a roundabout) are you actually trying to be stupid? How does going around 20mph in 4th gear make her confident? If she slowed for it and set off in 3rd (as she said above) then i'm pretty sure that’s dangerous. That roundabout we are talking about from energise towards gale lane you are approaching blind until you get to about 5m from it. So ok maybe she slowed to about 5mph to see if it was clear... yes that’s non stop but is it any more efficient then stopping when setting off in 3rd? no.. I'd say realistically there is a slight possibility she may not come to a direct halt as gale lane believe it or not is busy. But she will definitely have to stop to a crawl.. I've not twisted any words? you said you dont have to stop at roundabouts and i've said your daft if you think that?[/p][/quote]In the language where you can "stop to a crawl", it is certainly true that you stop at every roundabout. It's not how most of us define "stop" though. For me, stopping is what I do at an octagonal "stop" sign, where I come to a complete standstill. Roundabout entrances are like give-ways and I only stop if I have to.[/p][/quote]Hey i was just pointing out that at that roundabout i'd say 80% of the time i have to stop to give way? the rest of the time i have to approach very slow to see if anything is coming. I didn't like the statement saying "sort your driving out you dont have to stop at roundabouts." indeed i think you'd fail your test if you didnt? while people who do drive know you don't have to sometimes you are taught to stop. archieboldthe2nd
  • Score: 847

4:16pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Ignatius Lumpopo says...

"Not a single motorist has been caught by police breaking the speed limit".
This would suggest that motorists will be caught if the police DON'T break the speed limit.

Or do you mean "Not a single motorist braking the speed limit has been caught by police"?
"Not a single motorist has been caught by police breaking the speed limit". This would suggest that motorists will be caught if the police DON'T break the speed limit. Or do you mean "Not a single motorist braking the speed limit has been caught by police"? Ignatius Lumpopo
  • Score: 687

5:15pm Thu 14 Aug 14

BethFoxhunter96 says...

Haha I go away for hours and still this nonsense continues!!

As for affording your babysitting services, Im pretty sure I could with my 7 figure salary but now I'm just boasting. ( also my wife doesn't need to work so she can care for our children full time )

My Ferrari certainly won't pootle along at 20mph in 4th gear, it struggles in 2nd but thats by the by, it's why I also have a range rover with an automatic gearbox for driving around town.


Great, made up boasts on the internet, did you invent the cure for cancer and write Shakespeare's plays for him too? Such online boasts don't impress me much.

Anna Semlyen did actually say to me that the street would be a safer place for my children to play , I called her an idiot and she walked away.


Probably because you called her an idiot.

Your little fiesta may well run at 20mph in 4th but you do realise that you're using more fuel and pumping out more particulates because your under compressing the fuel mix in the cylinders forcing unburned fuel into the atmosphere, 3rd gear and slightly higher revs would be greener.


I don't have a fiesta. But, sure, if you say so.

What position in local government is your mother employed ?


Creepy!! No thanks.

So you're saying it is safe to play in the road ?


No, the opposite. They are unsafe. Which is why I think everyone should slow down to 20mph.
Haha I go away for hours and still this nonsense continues!! [quote]As for affording your babysitting services, Im pretty sure I could with my 7 figure salary but now I'm just boasting. ( also my wife doesn't need to work so she can care for our children full time ) My Ferrari certainly won't pootle along at 20mph in 4th gear, it struggles in 2nd but thats by the by, it's why I also have a range rover with an automatic gearbox for driving around town.[/quote] Great, made up boasts on the internet, did you invent the cure for cancer and write Shakespeare's plays for him too? Such online boasts don't impress me much. [quote]Anna Semlyen did actually say to me that the street would be a safer place for my children to play , I called her an idiot and she walked away.[/quote] Probably because you called her an idiot. [quote]Your little fiesta may well run at 20mph in 4th but you do realise that you're using more fuel and pumping out more particulates because your under compressing the fuel mix in the cylinders forcing unburned fuel into the atmosphere, 3rd gear and slightly higher revs would be greener.[/quote] I don't have a fiesta. But, sure, if you say so. [quote]What position in local government is your mother employed ?[/quote] Creepy!! No thanks. [quote]So you're saying it is safe to play in the road ?[/quote] No, the opposite. They are unsafe. Which is why I think everyone should slow down to 20mph. BethFoxhunter96
  • Score: 849

6:31pm Thu 14 Aug 14

MorkofYork says...

The freedom of choice for the very many is more important than the safety of a very few, especially when we're trying to protect those very few from themselves.
The freedom of choice for the very many is more important than the safety of a very few, especially when we're trying to protect those very few from themselves. MorkofYork
  • Score: 1020

6:51pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Ichabod76 says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
Haha I go away for hours and still this nonsense continues!!

As for affording your babysitting services, Im pretty sure I could with my 7 figure salary but now I'm just boasting. ( also my wife doesn't need to work so she can care for our children full time )

My Ferrari certainly won't pootle along at 20mph in 4th gear, it struggles in 2nd but thats by the by, it's why I also have a range rover with an automatic gearbox for driving around town.


Great, made up boasts on the internet, did you invent the cure for cancer and write Shakespeare's plays for him too? Such online boasts don't impress me much.

Anna Semlyen did actually say to me that the street would be a safer place for my children to play , I called her an idiot and she walked away.


Probably because you called her an idiot.

Your little fiesta may well run at 20mph in 4th but you do realise that you're using more fuel and pumping out more particulates because your under compressing the fuel mix in the cylinders forcing unburned fuel into the atmosphere, 3rd gear and slightly higher revs would be greener.


I don't have a fiesta. But, sure, if you say so.

What position in local government is your mother employed ?


Creepy!! No thanks.

So you're saying it is safe to play in the road ?


No, the opposite. They are unsafe. Which is why I think everyone should slow down to 20mph.
Believe it or don't, idgaf, my days of trying to impress 17 year old girls are long gone . It was you who claimed I wouldn't be able to afford your babysitting services
I never claimed to be a healer or poet

It was you who said your mother worked for local government, how is my asking what position "creepy" ?
Is she a councillor, officer, cleaner ?

You claimed to be green yet have no idea how to run an internal combustion engine efficiently

So yeah whatever !
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: Haha I go away for hours and still this nonsense continues!! [quote]As for affording your babysitting services, Im pretty sure I could with my 7 figure salary but now I'm just boasting. ( also my wife doesn't need to work so she can care for our children full time ) My Ferrari certainly won't pootle along at 20mph in 4th gear, it struggles in 2nd but thats by the by, it's why I also have a range rover with an automatic gearbox for driving around town.[/quote] Great, made up boasts on the internet, did you invent the cure for cancer and write Shakespeare's plays for him too? Such online boasts don't impress me much. [quote]Anna Semlyen did actually say to me that the street would be a safer place for my children to play , I called her an idiot and she walked away.[/quote] Probably because you called her an idiot. [quote]Your little fiesta may well run at 20mph in 4th but you do realise that you're using more fuel and pumping out more particulates because your under compressing the fuel mix in the cylinders forcing unburned fuel into the atmosphere, 3rd gear and slightly higher revs would be greener.[/quote] I don't have a fiesta. But, sure, if you say so. [quote]What position in local government is your mother employed ?[/quote] Creepy!! No thanks. [quote]So you're saying it is safe to play in the road ?[/quote] No, the opposite. They are unsafe. Which is why I think everyone should slow down to 20mph.[/p][/quote]Believe it or don't, idgaf, my days of trying to impress 17 year old girls are long gone . It was you who claimed I wouldn't be able to afford your babysitting services I never claimed to be a healer or poet It was you who said your mother worked for local government, how is my asking what position "creepy" ? Is she a councillor, officer, cleaner ? You claimed to be green yet have no idea how to run an internal combustion engine efficiently So yeah whatever ! Ichabod76
  • Score: 1223

7:04pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Cheeky face says...

Bo Jolly wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
Bo Jolly wrote:
BethFoxHunter96 says: "Don't be daft about being held "personally responsible". She hasn't asked anyone to play in the roads."

Beth, that's horsemuck and you know it! The idea that children should play in the roads is a minor but persistent theme in the 20's Plenty's campaign.

"Place not Empty Space: A sense of ‘place’ rather than just an empty space results when drivers slow down. Streets are no longer just thoroughfares, but a quality environment to savour, meet and *even play.*"

"“Make 20mph or lower speed limits the norm for residential streets & those used by shoppers, tourists & others, close to schools or public buildings, or important for walking & cycling or *children’s play*"

It is a also part of York Council's campaign material, which we can assume meets with Anna's approval:

"On a 20mph street it’s easier to cross the road, ride bikes and *play out*"

To encourage parents to allow their children to play in the road in a blanket way is irresponsible. It may be one of the reasons that nationally accidents in 20mph zones have *risen by a quarter*, compared with a fall in accidents in non-20mph zones.

http://www.yorkpress



.co.uk/news/9874263.



Accidents____may_be_



more_likely____on_20



mph_zones/
Thanks for those quotes. I disagree that any of them encourage playing *in the road* per se, and agree with lots of the quotes.

I think of it this way: a group of children are playing tag, very excitedly, running home from school. Of of them gets a bit too excited (because that's what children do) and runs into the road. That's not "playing in the road" as in sitting down and playing with a tea set in the road, rather, playing in the street which unfortunately spills into the road. That scenario can happen outside a school gate or anywhere along a walk (or run!) home.

http://www.20splenty


forus.org.uk/rationa


le_for_20_mph.htm

Twenty's plenty for us suggests injuries have reduced by 22% with the 20mph zones which must be a good thing. And having been to Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium etc they do have much slower urban speeds and therefore the streets are much nicer to walk along or use... for everyone. The driver of my car (I was too young to drive in Germany!) said it was very pleasant.
'When I use a word,' Beth said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

Also, you need to be VERY careful with 20s Plenty 'statistics'. The 22% figure you quote is from a Department for Transport study in Portsmouth and is a result of blatant cherry-picking. In fact serious accidents in the Portsmouth 20mph zones have *increased* slightly, the 22% reduction only applies when minor accidents are included and has to be set against a 14% fall in similar incidents nationally.

Overall the DfT analysis concluded "casualty benefits greater than the national trend have not been demonstrated"
Daily Telegraph has had useful articles. See telegraph.co.uk/news
/uknews/road-and-rai
l-transport/8038821/
20mph-limit-has-not-
made-roads-safer.htm
l
[quote][p][bold]Bo Jolly[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bo Jolly[/bold] wrote: BethFoxHunter96 says: "Don't be daft about being held "personally responsible". She hasn't asked anyone to play in the roads." Beth, that's horsemuck and you know it! The idea that children should play in the roads is a minor but persistent theme in the 20's Plenty's campaign. "Place not Empty Space: A sense of ‘place’ rather than just an empty space results when drivers slow down. Streets are no longer just thoroughfares, but a quality environment to savour, meet and *even play.*" "“Make 20mph or lower speed limits the norm for residential streets & those used by shoppers, tourists & others, close to schools or public buildings, or important for walking & cycling or *children’s play*" It is a also part of York Council's campaign material, which we can assume meets with Anna's approval: "On a 20mph street it’s easier to cross the road, ride bikes and *play out*" To encourage parents to allow their children to play in the road in a blanket way is irresponsible. It may be one of the reasons that nationally accidents in 20mph zones have *risen by a quarter*, compared with a fall in accidents in non-20mph zones. http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/news/9874263. Accidents____may_be_ more_likely____on_20 mph_zones/[/p][/quote]Thanks for those quotes. I disagree that any of them encourage playing *in the road* per se, and agree with lots of the quotes. I think of it this way: a group of children are playing tag, very excitedly, running home from school. Of of them gets a bit too excited (because that's what children do) and runs into the road. That's not "playing in the road" as in sitting down and playing with a tea set in the road, rather, playing in the street which unfortunately spills into the road. That scenario can happen outside a school gate or anywhere along a walk (or run!) home. http://www.20splenty forus.org.uk/rationa le_for_20_mph.htm Twenty's plenty for us suggests injuries have reduced by 22% with the 20mph zones which must be a good thing. And having been to Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium etc they do have much slower urban speeds and therefore the streets are much nicer to walk along or use... for everyone. The driver of my car (I was too young to drive in Germany!) said it was very pleasant.[/p][/quote]'When I use a word,' Beth said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.' Also, you need to be VERY careful with 20s Plenty 'statistics'. The 22% figure you quote is from a Department for Transport study in Portsmouth and is a result of blatant cherry-picking. In fact serious accidents in the Portsmouth 20mph zones have *increased* slightly, the 22% reduction only applies when minor accidents are included and has to be set against a 14% fall in similar incidents nationally. Overall the DfT analysis concluded "casualty benefits greater than the national trend have not been demonstrated"[/p][/quote]Daily Telegraph has had useful articles. See telegraph.co.uk/news /uknews/road-and-rai l-transport/8038821/ 20mph-limit-has-not- made-roads-safer.htm l Cheeky face
  • Score: 1214

7:09pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Cheeky face says...

Ichabod76 wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
Your common sense is that of a 16 year old girl

And as for children, I have them and I don't think I'd be happy for you to be responsible for looking after them.
Roads even ones with 20 MPH zones are not places for children to play about.
If one child is killed on a road that has been changed to a 20 zone because Anna Semlyen said it's a safer place for children, then she should be held personally responsible.


Someone can't do maths. I'm 17, not 16. And frankly, who's to say you'd be able to afford my babysitting services? ;)

Don't be daft about being held "personally responsible". She hasn't asked anyone to play in the roads. Accidents happen when people aren't playing in the roads. Cyclists, pedestrians... even... wait for it... car to car accidents happen. At 20 mph both likelihood and severity of accidents reduce, which is why I suppose a blanket 20mph in York.

Funnily enough I was driving through Acomb last night at 20mph in the 20mph zones... 4th gear... hardly felt the speed bumps at all (pretty sure my suspension didn't fall off, my wheels didn't crack and my steering wheel worked fine too!)... 20 is lovely speed to carefully go over speed bumps, no low gears, nice low revs, nice happy speed. Seemed like an excellent way to travel to me. Plus the speed bumps were small enough so that horses and cycles can easily get past without problems. Very good road design.
Wow I was a whole year off with my guess !
( no mathematics required as I never realised you had told us your year of birth )

As for affording your babysitting services, Im pretty sure I could with my 7 figure salary but now I'm just boasting. ( also my wife doesn't need to work so she can care for our children full time )

Anna Semlyen did actually say to me that the street would be a safer place for my children to play , I called her an idiot and she walked away.

My Ferrari certainly won't pootle along at 20mph in 4th gear, it struggles in 2nd but thats by the by, it's why I also have a range rover with an automatic gearbox for driving around town.

Your little fiesta may well run at 20mph in 4th but you do realise that you're using more fuel and pumping out more particulates because your under compressing the fuel mix in the cylinders forcing unburned fuel into the atmosphere, 3rd gear and slightly higher revs would be greener.

What position in local government is your mother employed ?
Anna Semlyn walked away when you said she was an idiot-SHE WAS ANNOYED BECAUSE SHE HAS BEEN TRYING TO KEEP IT A SECRET!!
[quote][p][bold]Ichabod76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote]Your common sense is that of a 16 year old girl And as for children, I have them and I don't think I'd be happy for you to be responsible for looking after them. Roads even ones with 20 MPH zones are not places for children to play about. If one child is killed on a road that has been changed to a 20 zone because Anna Semlyen said it's a safer place for children, then she should be held personally responsible.[/quote] Someone can't do maths. I'm 17, not 16. And frankly, who's to say you'd be able to afford my babysitting services? ;) Don't be daft about being held "personally responsible". She hasn't asked anyone to play in the roads. Accidents happen when people aren't playing in the roads. Cyclists, pedestrians... even... wait for it... car to car accidents happen. At 20 mph both likelihood and severity of accidents reduce, which is why I suppose a blanket 20mph in York. Funnily enough I was driving through Acomb last night at 20mph in the 20mph zones... 4th gear... hardly felt the speed bumps at all (pretty sure my suspension didn't fall off, my wheels didn't crack and my steering wheel worked fine too!)... 20 is lovely speed to carefully go over speed bumps, no low gears, nice low revs, nice happy speed. Seemed like an excellent way to travel to me. Plus the speed bumps were small enough so that horses and cycles can easily get past without problems. Very good road design.[/p][/quote]Wow I was a whole year off with my guess ! ( no mathematics required as I never realised you had told us your year of birth ) As for affording your babysitting services, Im pretty sure I could with my 7 figure salary but now I'm just boasting. ( also my wife doesn't need to work so she can care for our children full time ) Anna Semlyen did actually say to me that the street would be a safer place for my children to play , I called her an idiot and she walked away. My Ferrari certainly won't pootle along at 20mph in 4th gear, it struggles in 2nd but thats by the by, it's why I also have a range rover with an automatic gearbox for driving around town. Your little fiesta may well run at 20mph in 4th but you do realise that you're using more fuel and pumping out more particulates because your under compressing the fuel mix in the cylinders forcing unburned fuel into the atmosphere, 3rd gear and slightly higher revs would be greener. What position in local government is your mother employed ?[/p][/quote]Anna Semlyn walked away when you said she was an idiot-SHE WAS ANNOYED BECAUSE SHE HAS BEEN TRYING TO KEEP IT A SECRET!! Cheeky face
  • Score: 980

7:15pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Cheeky face says...

the original Homer wrote:
walpole wrote:
Strange, I believe there is a 20mph in beckfield lane in front of the small Sainsbury and my daughter has been caught speeding there and got 3 points... Obviously it appears she doesn't count.....
It depends how fast she was going.

The 30 mph limit still applies, even if the signs say 20.
3 points is unusual. Speed awareness courses would normally apply for first speeding offences. If under say 42 in a 30 limit that is agreed by ACPO, unless speeding is contested.
[quote][p][bold]the original Homer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]walpole[/bold] wrote: Strange, I believe there is a 20mph in beckfield lane in front of the small Sainsbury and my daughter has been caught speeding there and got 3 points... Obviously it appears she doesn't count.....[/p][/quote]It depends how fast she was going. The 30 mph limit still applies, even if the signs say 20.[/p][/quote]3 points is unusual. Speed awareness courses would normally apply for first speeding offences. If under say 42 in a 30 limit that is agreed by ACPO, unless speeding is contested. Cheeky face
  • Score: 979

9:23pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Silver says...

TheTruthHurts wrote:
Silver wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
greenmonkey wrote:
robynd wrote: The more pertinant question is - have incidents and injuries decreased in the 20 mph zones. Probably not enough time to get enough data yet. And the data needs to be analysed carefully as the zones are likely to have been built in areas where accidents are more likely. If there have been a reduction in injuries, isn't that a good thing?
This is a very good point. Until it is implemented across the city there will be mixed messages about what the appropriate speed should be as you drive about. Getting the police to take action on any speed limits in York is difficult - only when people get injured or killed is it deemed a priority. No doubt the fact that its traffic cops who expect to drive around at speed themselves who get to comment on the limits has something to do with their attitude to 20mph. It would only take a few random speed traps to get the message over that the limit is there to be obeyed. However the bottom line for me is that if a driver hits someone when driving exceeding the speed limit the blame will be on them, and i would rather have most people driving down residential streets at 20 -30mph than at 35 -40mph as often happens with the present 30mph limit. Get hit by a car at 25mph and you have a good chance of surviving, at 35 -40mph you've little or no chance.
what are the breaking calcs between 20mph & 35mph? I always put this bluntly. If someone walks into a road without looking if there is a car, it is not the drivers fault. Yes they might have been going over the speed limit but the breaking distrances are like 2-5m extra (so 10-15m in total usually if dry) if you run out in front of a car that is 10-15m away then fool on you.
That's okay then, children always look and can judge breaking distances really well, in fact a two year old was explaining to me how stopping distances change according to weather and other conditions only last weekend. Survival of the fittest, after all, well, survival of the 4x4s against the menace of suicidal three year olds! Fool on them indeed.
Yes beth... maybe while you were having such an in-depth chat with this child who was two years old you should have asked it where its parents were. Or maybe they were too busy riding horses over speed bumps in a 20mph fantasy world? Also I’d like to say why was the child on about breaking calcs? does it think ah i'll run out into the road the car is doing 25mph and i'm 20m away so it can stop?
This is now some sort of bizarre alternative reality where parents can presumably stop a child falling into the road, tripping over, or just being a bit distracted and walking out anyway. What sort of child were you, a pudding baby who got pushed around in a pram until you were ten? Clearly not a parent nor someone who knows and youngsters or what they are like. Even an adult can fall into the road. But I guess because they fell it's their fault they died, so it's alright, speed away!

In the real world people don't want to live in GTA, and drivers don't actually get points for hitting people. Just so you know.
Beth have you actually played GTA? There isn't a point system anywhere in that game unless you take your character to an arcade and play a videogame within a video game. The system of value in GTA is actually pretend money.
Now onto the sensible rebuttal, young children of a certain age such as 2 can be placed on reins to ensure they don't run off into the road. Also you teach your children to respect the road, you put some discipline into their upbringing regarding roads. I wasn't allowed to cross a road unattended until my parents were sure I fully understood the dangers. They even made a game of it for me to tell them if I thought it was safe to cross. And after I left reins I was held by a hand to make sure I understood how dangerous it was. A 20mph sign will not tell a small child anything and a 20mph collision with a car can still kill a small child in the right scenario even a 1mph collision can kill a child. We do live in a dangerous world and we need to ensure our children respect it.
Lol, well actually if i recall the very first GTA you would get points for running over pedestrians, double points if you were in a police car and a 5000 point bonus if you killed the whole group of hare krishnas in one move :-)
You are indeed quite right but the GTA you mention is from 1997, As to her age which I think she said she was 17, means I doubt she played the original one. It was GTA 3 and onwards that went onto the cash system instead of points. And if you ran over the hare krishnas the game shouted "Gouranga!" It's a feature the current series is sorely lacking. But I didn't want to be too flippant.
[quote][p][bold]TheTruthHurts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Silver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]robynd[/bold] wrote: The more pertinant question is - have incidents and injuries decreased in the 20 mph zones. Probably not enough time to get enough data yet. And the data needs to be analysed carefully as the zones are likely to have been built in areas where accidents are more likely. If there have been a reduction in injuries, isn't that a good thing?[/p][/quote]This is a very good point. Until it is implemented across the city there will be mixed messages about what the appropriate speed should be as you drive about. Getting the police to take action on any speed limits in York is difficult - only when people get injured or killed is it deemed a priority. No doubt the fact that its traffic cops who expect to drive around at speed themselves who get to comment on the limits has something to do with their attitude to 20mph. It would only take a few random speed traps to get the message over that the limit is there to be obeyed. However the bottom line for me is that if a driver hits someone when driving exceeding the speed limit the blame will be on them, and i would rather have most people driving down residential streets at 20 -30mph than at 35 -40mph as often happens with the present 30mph limit. Get hit by a car at 25mph and you have a good chance of surviving, at 35 -40mph you've little or no chance.[/p][/quote]what are the breaking calcs between 20mph & 35mph? I always put this bluntly. If someone walks into a road without looking if there is a car, it is not the drivers fault. Yes they might have been going over the speed limit but the breaking distrances are like 2-5m extra (so 10-15m in total usually if dry) if you run out in front of a car that is 10-15m away then fool on you.[/p][/quote]That's okay then, children always look and can judge breaking distances really well, in fact a two year old was explaining to me how stopping distances change according to weather and other conditions only last weekend. Survival of the fittest, after all, well, survival of the 4x4s against the menace of suicidal three year olds! Fool on them indeed.[/p][/quote]Yes beth... maybe while you were having such an in-depth chat with this child who was two years old you should have asked it where its parents were. Or maybe they were too busy riding horses over speed bumps in a 20mph fantasy world? Also I’d like to say why was the child on about breaking calcs? does it think ah i'll run out into the road the car is doing 25mph and i'm 20m away so it can stop?[/p][/quote]This is now some sort of bizarre alternative reality where parents can presumably stop a child falling into the road, tripping over, or just being a bit distracted and walking out anyway. What sort of child were you, a pudding baby who got pushed around in a pram until you were ten? Clearly not a parent nor someone who knows and youngsters or what they are like. Even an adult can fall into the road. But I guess because they fell it's their fault they died, so it's alright, speed away! In the real world people don't want to live in GTA, and drivers don't actually get points for hitting people. Just so you know.[/p][/quote]Beth have you actually played GTA? There isn't a point system anywhere in that game unless you take your character to an arcade and play a videogame within a video game. The system of value in GTA is actually pretend money. Now onto the sensible rebuttal, young children of a certain age such as 2 can be placed on reins to ensure they don't run off into the road. Also you teach your children to respect the road, you put some discipline into their upbringing regarding roads. I wasn't allowed to cross a road unattended until my parents were sure I fully understood the dangers. They even made a game of it for me to tell them if I thought it was safe to cross. And after I left reins I was held by a hand to make sure I understood how dangerous it was. A 20mph sign will not tell a small child anything and a 20mph collision with a car can still kill a small child in the right scenario even a 1mph collision can kill a child. We do live in a dangerous world and we need to ensure our children respect it.[/p][/quote]Lol, well actually if i recall the very first GTA you would get points for running over pedestrians, double points if you were in a police car and a 5000 point bonus if you killed the whole group of hare krishnas in one move :-)[/p][/quote]You are indeed quite right but the GTA you mention is from 1997, As to her age which I think she said she was 17, means I doubt she played the original one. It was GTA 3 and onwards that went onto the cash system instead of points. And if you ran over the hare krishnas the game shouted "Gouranga!" It's a feature the current series is sorely lacking. But I didn't want to be too flippant. Silver
  • Score: 1127

9:29pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Silver says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
Haha I go away for hours and still this nonsense continues!!

As for affording your babysitting services, Im pretty sure I could with my 7 figure salary but now I'm just boasting. ( also my wife doesn't need to work so she can care for our children full time )

My Ferrari certainly won't pootle along at 20mph in 4th gear, it struggles in 2nd but thats by the by, it's why I also have a range rover with an automatic gearbox for driving around town.


Great, made up boasts on the internet, did you invent the cure for cancer and write Shakespeare's plays for him too? Such online boasts don't impress me much.

Anna Semlyen did actually say to me that the street would be a safer place for my children to play , I called her an idiot and she walked away.


Probably because you called her an idiot.

Your little fiesta may well run at 20mph in 4th but you do realise that you're using more fuel and pumping out more particulates because your under compressing the fuel mix in the cylinders forcing unburned fuel into the atmosphere, 3rd gear and slightly higher revs would be greener.


I don't have a fiesta. But, sure, if you say so.

What position in local government is your mother employed ?


Creepy!! No thanks.

So you're saying it is safe to play in the road ?


No, the opposite. They are unsafe. Which is why I think everyone should slow down to 20mph.
You never answered my question if you'd actually played GTA?
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: Haha I go away for hours and still this nonsense continues!! [quote]As for affording your babysitting services, Im pretty sure I could with my 7 figure salary but now I'm just boasting. ( also my wife doesn't need to work so she can care for our children full time ) My Ferrari certainly won't pootle along at 20mph in 4th gear, it struggles in 2nd but thats by the by, it's why I also have a range rover with an automatic gearbox for driving around town.[/quote] Great, made up boasts on the internet, did you invent the cure for cancer and write Shakespeare's plays for him too? Such online boasts don't impress me much. [quote]Anna Semlyen did actually say to me that the street would be a safer place for my children to play , I called her an idiot and she walked away.[/quote] Probably because you called her an idiot. [quote]Your little fiesta may well run at 20mph in 4th but you do realise that you're using more fuel and pumping out more particulates because your under compressing the fuel mix in the cylinders forcing unburned fuel into the atmosphere, 3rd gear and slightly higher revs would be greener.[/quote] I don't have a fiesta. But, sure, if you say so. [quote]What position in local government is your mother employed ?[/quote] Creepy!! No thanks. [quote]So you're saying it is safe to play in the road ?[/quote] No, the opposite. They are unsafe. Which is why I think everyone should slow down to 20mph.[/p][/quote]You never answered my question if you'd actually played GTA? Silver
  • Score: 1305

12:15am Fri 15 Aug 14

eeoodares says...

Do not feed the TROLL!
Do not feed the TROLL! eeoodares
  • Score: 1059

8:33am Fri 15 Aug 14

greenmonkey says...

Bo Jolly wrote:
BethFoxHunter96 says: "Don't be daft about being held "personally responsible". She hasn't asked anyone to play in the roads."

Beth, that's horsemuck and you know it! The idea that children should play in the roads is a minor but persistent theme in the 20's Plenty's campaign.

"Place not Empty Space: A sense of ‘place’ rather than just an empty space results when drivers slow down. Streets are no longer just thoroughfares, but a quality environment to savour, meet and *even play.*"

"“Make 20mph or lower speed limits the norm for residential streets & those used by shoppers, tourists & others, close to schools or public buildings, or important for walking & cycling or *children’s play*"

It is a also part of York Council's campaign material, which we can assume meets with Anna's approval:

"On a 20mph street it’s easier to cross the road, ride bikes and *play out*"

To encourage parents to allow their children to play in the road in a blanket way is irresponsible. It may be one of the reasons that nationally accidents in 20mph zones have *risen by a quarter*, compared with a fall in accidents in non-20mph zones.

http://www.yorkpress

.co.uk/news/9874263.

Accidents____may_be_

more_likely____on_20

mph_zones/
This information below might be of interest re accident statistics. Of course the widely quoted tabloid figure about 'increased accidents in 20mph areas' is not considered in proportion to the lengths of 30mph roads that had the accidents before that have been changed to 20mph! If you treble or quadruple the range of 20mph limits there will obviously be more events that take place such a street.

In the WS Atkins final report on Portsmouth there is the statement “Comparing the 3 years before the scheme was implemented and the 2 years afterwards, the number of recorded road casualties has fallen by 22% from 183 per year to 142 per year. During that period casualty numbers fell nationally – by about 14% in comparable areas.” The study also says that KSI went up from 18.9 per year to 19.9 per year but with such small KSI numbers this is not one of the ‘best’ arguments against 20 mph

see http://assets.dft.go
v.uk/publications/sp
eed-limits-portsmout
h/speed-limits-ports
mouth.pdf
[quote][p][bold]Bo Jolly[/bold] wrote: BethFoxHunter96 says: "Don't be daft about being held "personally responsible". She hasn't asked anyone to play in the roads." Beth, that's horsemuck and you know it! The idea that children should play in the roads is a minor but persistent theme in the 20's Plenty's campaign. "Place not Empty Space: A sense of ‘place’ rather than just an empty space results when drivers slow down. Streets are no longer just thoroughfares, but a quality environment to savour, meet and *even play.*" "“Make 20mph or lower speed limits the norm for residential streets & those used by shoppers, tourists & others, close to schools or public buildings, or important for walking & cycling or *children’s play*" It is a also part of York Council's campaign material, which we can assume meets with Anna's approval: "On a 20mph street it’s easier to cross the road, ride bikes and *play out*" To encourage parents to allow their children to play in the road in a blanket way is irresponsible. It may be one of the reasons that nationally accidents in 20mph zones have *risen by a quarter*, compared with a fall in accidents in non-20mph zones. http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/news/9874263. Accidents____may_be_ more_likely____on_20 mph_zones/[/p][/quote]This information below might be of interest re accident statistics. Of course the widely quoted tabloid figure about 'increased accidents in 20mph areas' is not considered in proportion to the lengths of 30mph roads that had the accidents before that have been changed to 20mph! If you treble or quadruple the range of 20mph limits there will obviously be more events that take place such a street. In the WS Atkins final report on Portsmouth there is the statement “Comparing the 3 years before the scheme was implemented and the 2 years afterwards, the number of recorded road casualties has fallen by 22% from 183 per year to 142 per year. During that period casualty numbers fell nationally – by about 14% in comparable areas.” The study also says that KSI went up from 18.9 per year to 19.9 per year but with such small KSI numbers this is not one of the ‘best’ arguments against 20 mph see http://assets.dft.go v.uk/publications/sp eed-limits-portsmout h/speed-limits-ports mouth.pdf greenmonkey
  • Score: 980

8:42am Fri 15 Aug 14

greenmonkey says...

robynd wrote:
The more pertinant question is - have incidents and injuries decreased in the 20 mph zones. Probably not enough time to get enough data yet. And the data needs to be analysed carefully as the zones are likely to have been built in areas where accidents are more likely.

If there have been a reduction in injuries, isn't that a good thing?
With some idiots deliberately flouting the limit just for the sake of it there could be more accidents, but that doesn't mean they are not 'effective' Its about time the police made an example of someone behaving irresponsibly on our residential streets in a car before they collide with someone or something. And I don't mean someone doing 24mph in a 20 limit, more like the boy racers showing off to their mates, the bus drivers on the home run and the taxi drivers who continue through at 35mph- 40mph
[quote][p][bold]robynd[/bold] wrote: The more pertinant question is - have incidents and injuries decreased in the 20 mph zones. Probably not enough time to get enough data yet. And the data needs to be analysed carefully as the zones are likely to have been built in areas where accidents are more likely. If there have been a reduction in injuries, isn't that a good thing?[/p][/quote]With some idiots deliberately flouting the limit just for the sake of it there could be more accidents, but that doesn't mean they are not 'effective' Its about time the police made an example of someone behaving irresponsibly on our residential streets in a car before they collide with someone or something. And I don't mean someone doing 24mph in a 20 limit, more like the boy racers showing off to their mates, the bus drivers on the home run and the taxi drivers who continue through at 35mph- 40mph greenmonkey
  • Score: 1095

11:40am Fri 15 Aug 14

TheTruthHurts says...

archieboldthe2nd wrote:
Mr Udigawa wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote: I'm going to ignore your fantasy railway P&R story and cut to this, in an attempt to get "back on topic".
Oh and it’s funny that as you are 17 you are driving around? Must have just passed your test? And yes driving over speed bumps for a day won’t make your car fall apart but maybe in 2 years time you will notice it? And 4th gear at 20mph? Yes very economical? oh but wait I’d like to point out that running in such a gear at that speed actually burns more fuel? Think of peddling on your bike in 21st gear when you are actually just crawling? it burns more energy yes? but anyway you can not drive a petrol car at 40mph in 4th gear without it stalling so I doubt you even drive if I’m being honest?
I don't know why you want to know so much information about me. But I passed my text in Feb, thanks, and drove through Acomb last night in 4th very happily. As for burning more petrol, the amount burned is a function of revs, my rev count was very low, sure I did not have a lot of power, but that was because I was going through Acomb, not on a motorway. No point trying to do 0 - 20 in under a second, really. http://www.20splenty forus.org.uk/rationa le_for_20_mph.htm Seems pretty legit and reasonable. Steady driving, fewer gear changes, lots of time to adjust for the road and plan ahead. And no stopping from Energise to my house!
Well Beth ignore it but I can guarantee in the next 5 years the plan will be there. But don't worry I’ll ignore you passed a driving text. Driving at low revs in 4th.. Right let me try explain this again. Just because your car is not revving as much does not mean it takes less energy to maintain that speed? i.e the most economical rev count in a car is jsut over 2000rpm. If you were in 4th at 20mph then you will have been below this... Fact.. So at such low revs the car has to try extra hard to power the gear using more fuel. If your are not peddling as quick on your bike do you save energy? Or indeed is it harder to pedal as the gear you are in requires more energy to move? To be fair beth i don't need to know you.. They were rhetorical questions. That’s where you say something but already know the answer. Oh I’m glad you pointed to a 20splenty site... Did you know Liverpool are the best football team in the world just head to their website? Everyone on this site already knows enough about you. You have a horse, like riding bikes and believe everything you say is correct yet you are only 17 and have no real knowledge of any of the subject matters discussed... You have no real arguments or indeed an idea of what the future of transport is. You believe propaganda sites and then relay this information back on here believing it must be true. Oh and you are 17 and instead of going out and having a youth you are on here trying to prove you are intelligent when really it's not working to well.. You are simply proving you are the next Anna. Silver spoon fed with no idea of the real world.
oh an no stopping from your energise to your house? thats dangerous as in every direction there is a roundabout?
Lol, how is not stopping at rounabouts dangerous? You maybe need to brush up on your driving techniques Archie, you'll be wasting even more fuel & causing accidents driving like that...
Well I would have thought that was obvious? If you pull out and a car is already on it, it goes into you? As its not your right of way you're liable? Especially on a mini roundabout where you can not see the road to your right until you are there?

Thank you though for your very intelligent comment Mr Udigawa. It’s good to know you always go to a roundabout and just carry on. Bit dangerous mind? especially to say it was you wanting a duel carriageway (a64) to have its speed reduced so your lad could cross over it (not using the bridge) to get to work easier? But yet you don’t stop at roundabouts ever? Excellent input. Now back to trying to fit the shapes in the right holes.

#LOL!
It is a major fault in a driving test if you stop at a roundabout with good visibility and there is no other vehicles on it.
[quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Udigawa[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: I'm going to ignore your fantasy railway P&R story and cut to this, in an attempt to get "back on topic". [quote]Oh and it’s funny that as you are 17 you are driving around? Must have just passed your test? And yes driving over speed bumps for a day won’t make your car fall apart but maybe in 2 years time you will notice it? And 4th gear at 20mph? Yes very economical? oh but wait I’d like to point out that running in such a gear at that speed actually burns more fuel? Think of peddling on your bike in 21st gear when you are actually just crawling? it burns more energy yes? but anyway you can not drive a petrol car at 40mph in 4th gear without it stalling so I doubt you even drive if I’m being honest?[/quote] I don't know why you want to know so much information about me. But I passed my text in Feb, thanks, and drove through Acomb last night in 4th very happily. As for burning more petrol, the amount burned is a function of revs, my rev count was very low, sure I did not have a lot of power, but that was because I was going through Acomb, not on a motorway. No point trying to do 0 - 20 in under a second, really. http://www.20splenty forus.org.uk/rationa le_for_20_mph.htm Seems pretty legit and reasonable. Steady driving, fewer gear changes, lots of time to adjust for the road and plan ahead. And no stopping from Energise to my house![/p][/quote]Well Beth ignore it but I can guarantee in the next 5 years the plan will be there. But don't worry I’ll ignore you passed a driving text. Driving at low revs in 4th.. Right let me try explain this again. Just because your car is not revving as much does not mean it takes less energy to maintain that speed? i.e the most economical rev count in a car is jsut over 2000rpm. If you were in 4th at 20mph then you will have been below this... Fact.. So at such low revs the car has to try extra hard to power the gear using more fuel. If your are not peddling as quick on your bike do you save energy? Or indeed is it harder to pedal as the gear you are in requires more energy to move? To be fair beth i don't need to know you.. They were rhetorical questions. That’s where you say something but already know the answer. Oh I’m glad you pointed to a 20splenty site... Did you know Liverpool are the best football team in the world just head to their website? Everyone on this site already knows enough about you. You have a horse, like riding bikes and believe everything you say is correct yet you are only 17 and have no real knowledge of any of the subject matters discussed... You have no real arguments or indeed an idea of what the future of transport is. You believe propaganda sites and then relay this information back on here believing it must be true. Oh and you are 17 and instead of going out and having a youth you are on here trying to prove you are intelligent when really it's not working to well.. You are simply proving you are the next Anna. Silver spoon fed with no idea of the real world.[/p][/quote]oh an no stopping from your energise to your house? thats dangerous as in every direction there is a roundabout?[/p][/quote]Lol, how is not stopping at rounabouts dangerous? You maybe need to brush up on your driving techniques Archie, you'll be wasting even more fuel & causing accidents driving like that...[/p][/quote]Well I would have thought that was obvious? If you pull out and a car is already on it, it goes into you? As its not your right of way you're liable? Especially on a mini roundabout where you can not see the road to your right until you are there? Thank you though for your very intelligent comment Mr Udigawa. It’s good to know you always go to a roundabout and just carry on. Bit dangerous mind? especially to say it was you wanting a duel carriageway (a64) to have its speed reduced so your lad could cross over it (not using the bridge) to get to work easier? But yet you don’t stop at roundabouts ever? Excellent input. Now back to trying to fit the shapes in the right holes. #LOL![/p][/quote]It is a major fault in a driving test if you stop at a roundabout with good visibility and there is no other vehicles on it. TheTruthHurts
  • Score: 1362

1:19pm Fri 15 Aug 14

MorkofYork says...

I've been driving for 8 years, never once has there been a situation where driving at blanket 20 would have been safer, this is reflected by thousands upon thousands of others who decide what is safe between 20 and 30. There are so few accidents caused by speed it's ridiculous we should all be expected to drive around at 20.

Labour have made you criminals in your own streets over this.
I've been driving for 8 years, never once has there been a situation where driving at blanket 20 would have been safer, this is reflected by thousands upon thousands of others who decide what is safe between 20 and 30. There are so few accidents caused by speed it's ridiculous we should all be expected to drive around at 20. Labour have made you criminals in your own streets over this. MorkofYork
  • Score: 1044

2:24pm Fri 15 Aug 14

Haywire says...

archieboldthe2nd wrote:
Haywire wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
Rail links on the outskirts. Infrastructure is already there. Train companies will even offer funding to open old stations to generate them more revenue. Not really rocket science is it.
So, we're replacing free (to CYC) bus services with a massive bill to provide train services. Whose houses are you going to knock down to build new stations and railway lines? There is a P&R bus stop just along from where I live. Given your cunning plan will presumably not have a station every 300 meters, can you tell me how I get into town please? #fail
Excellent and intelligent comments yet again beth. Let me address them. You do not need to knock houses down as there is more then enough railway land on the outskirts, indeed some are even still there and just need re-opening. Is the bus service free? I’m pretty sure CYC just spent 23m of p&r? Not really free is it? New railway lines? No we have one of the countries biggest stations with more then enough lines already? Good for you, you have a p&r near you. Congratulations. Ah so the p&r stops every 300meters? I was under the assumption it had like 1 stop in its way to town that no one used? Silly me. The idea of outskirt stations are the same as P&R you drive to them, park and then get to York station traffic free and this would then remove traffic from our roads and would be a lot greener. You could even cycle with less fear! Ah hash tag... beth you might actually think you are smart with all the answers but your a daft 17 year old hippy with no clue about transport infrastructure or the future of transport. #mummymummycanihavea unicorn.
Well, well 'Educating' Archie, I suspect that you may be losing the 'animated discussion' if you are resorting to personal abuse. I think that you should apologise to Beth (despite the fox hunting). As to stations on the outskirts of York, train operators are not that keen on extra stations because they play havoc with the timetable. There would be no chance of re-opening Copmanthorpe Station for example. Never mind the cost, it would just be impossible to fit the stops into the timetable. I certainly won't say YOU are daft, but the jury is certainly still out regarding your knowledge of transport infrastructure.
Why lie? I’ve sat in meetings with northern rail who actually have a budget to open more stations and are encouraging rail companies and stakeholders to do such a thing?

Its impossible to fit into the timetable? yeh capacity increases at York station have enabled more trains to run? Traffic management and the roc will further increase this capacity? Afterall companies are really bothered about changing a timetable when it means they get more revenue!!!!

Maybe an ideal location for a new station would have been the p&r area that’s just been built? slow line? easy access into york with spare capacity?

Please don’t try patronise me about an area i'm very familiar with.
You may have sat in on meetings with Northern, but I think that you may have been taken in by the P.R. side of the company. Just ask East Coast, Cross Country, Grand Central, First Trans-Pennine and the freight companies what they would make of a re-opened station at Cop. As for the DoT and the ORR, etc., they haven't yet made a basket deep enough for where they would bury that correspondence. Network Rail would just laugh.
As to patronising, I would never do that, but could you explain how it might have been possible to slot the platforms into the Leeds Lines (not slow lines) at the P&R, never mind access them, and built to modern standards of course?
I have also sat in railway meetings where I had to be polite to people who came up with pipedreams of ideas for railway (sometimes known as blue sky) projects. I had to waste time explaining to them why their ideas were 'not very practicable' (that's a euphemism, by the way) or affordable.
Oh, and incidentally, the platforms at Cop. would have to be on the ECML, with a new road bridge constructed to give access to the island platform.
By the way, I may have missed it, but I'm still waiting for the explanation of 'breaking calcs.' and 'an unavailable situation'.
[quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote]Rail links on the outskirts. Infrastructure is already there. Train companies will even offer funding to open old stations to generate them more revenue. Not really rocket science is it.[/quote] So, we're replacing free (to CYC) bus services with a massive bill to provide train services. Whose houses are you going to knock down to build new stations and railway lines? There is a P&R bus stop just along from where I live. Given your cunning plan will presumably not have a station every 300 meters, can you tell me how I get into town please? #fail[/p][/quote]Excellent and intelligent comments yet again beth. Let me address them. You do not need to knock houses down as there is more then enough railway land on the outskirts, indeed some are even still there and just need re-opening. Is the bus service free? I’m pretty sure CYC just spent 23m of p&r? Not really free is it? New railway lines? No we have one of the countries biggest stations with more then enough lines already? Good for you, you have a p&r near you. Congratulations. Ah so the p&r stops every 300meters? I was under the assumption it had like 1 stop in its way to town that no one used? Silly me. The idea of outskirt stations are the same as P&R you drive to them, park and then get to York station traffic free and this would then remove traffic from our roads and would be a lot greener. You could even cycle with less fear! Ah hash tag... beth you might actually think you are smart with all the answers but your a daft 17 year old hippy with no clue about transport infrastructure or the future of transport. #mummymummycanihavea unicorn.[/p][/quote]Well, well 'Educating' Archie, I suspect that you may be losing the 'animated discussion' if you are resorting to personal abuse. I think that you should apologise to Beth (despite the fox hunting). As to stations on the outskirts of York, train operators are not that keen on extra stations because they play havoc with the timetable. There would be no chance of re-opening Copmanthorpe Station for example. Never mind the cost, it would just be impossible to fit the stops into the timetable. I certainly won't say YOU are daft, but the jury is certainly still out regarding your knowledge of transport infrastructure.[/p][/quote]Why lie? I’ve sat in meetings with northern rail who actually have a budget to open more stations and are encouraging rail companies and stakeholders to do such a thing? Its impossible to fit into the timetable? yeh capacity increases at York station have enabled more trains to run? Traffic management and the roc will further increase this capacity? Afterall companies are really bothered about changing a timetable when it means they get more revenue!!!! Maybe an ideal location for a new station would have been the p&r area that’s just been built? slow line? easy access into york with spare capacity? Please don’t try patronise me about an area i'm very familiar with.[/p][/quote]You may have sat in on meetings with Northern, but I think that you may have been taken in by the P.R. side of the company. Just ask East Coast, Cross Country, Grand Central, First Trans-Pennine and the freight companies what they would make of a re-opened station at Cop. As for the DoT and the ORR, etc., they haven't yet made a basket deep enough for where they would bury that correspondence. Network Rail would just laugh. As to patronising, I would never do that, but could you explain how it might have been possible to slot the platforms into the Leeds Lines (not slow lines) at the P&R, never mind access them, and built to modern standards of course? I have also sat in railway meetings where I had to be polite to people who came up with pipedreams of ideas for railway (sometimes known as blue sky) projects. I had to waste time explaining to them why their ideas were 'not very practicable' (that's a euphemism, by the way) or affordable. Oh, and incidentally, the platforms at Cop. would have to be on the ECML, with a new road bridge constructed to give access to the island platform. By the way, I may have missed it, but I'm still waiting for the explanation of 'breaking calcs.' and 'an unavailable situation'. Haywire
  • Score: 1217

2:29pm Fri 15 Aug 14

Haywire says...

archieboldthe2nd wrote:
Haywire wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
Rail links on the outskirts. Infrastructure is already there. Train companies will even offer funding to open old stations to generate them more revenue. Not really rocket science is it.
So, we're replacing free (to CYC) bus services with a massive bill to provide train services. Whose houses are you going to knock down to build new stations and railway lines? There is a P&R bus stop just along from where I live. Given your cunning plan will presumably not have a station every 300 meters, can you tell me how I get into town please? #fail
Excellent and intelligent comments yet again beth. Let me address them. You do not need to knock houses down as there is more then enough railway land on the outskirts, indeed some are even still there and just need re-opening. Is the bus service free? I’m pretty sure CYC just spent 23m of p&r? Not really free is it? New railway lines? No we have one of the countries biggest stations with more then enough lines already? Good for you, you have a p&r near you. Congratulations. Ah so the p&r stops every 300meters? I was under the assumption it had like 1 stop in its way to town that no one used? Silly me. The idea of outskirt stations are the same as P&R you drive to them, park and then get to York station traffic free and this would then remove traffic from our roads and would be a lot greener. You could even cycle with less fear! Ah hash tag... beth you might actually think you are smart with all the answers but your a daft 17 year old hippy with no clue about transport infrastructure or the future of transport. #mummymummycanihavea unicorn.
Well, well 'Educating' Archie, I suspect that you may be losing the 'animated discussion' if you are resorting to personal abuse. I think that you should apologise to Beth (despite the fox hunting). As to stations on the outskirts of York, train operators are not that keen on extra stations because they play havoc with the timetable. There would be no chance of re-opening Copmanthorpe Station for example. Never mind the cost, it would just be impossible to fit the stops into the timetable. I certainly won't say YOU are daft, but the jury is certainly still out regarding your knowledge of transport infrastructure.
Why lie? I’ve sat in meetings with northern rail who actually have a budget to open more stations and are encouraging rail companies and stakeholders to do such a thing?

Its impossible to fit into the timetable? yeh capacity increases at York station have enabled more trains to run? Traffic management and the roc will further increase this capacity? Afterall companies are really bothered about changing a timetable when it means they get more revenue!!!!

Maybe an ideal location for a new station would have been the p&r area that’s just been built? slow line? easy access into york with spare capacity?

Please don’t try patronise me about an area i'm very familiar with.
You may have sat in on meetings with Northern, but I think that you may have been taken in by the P.R. side of the company. Just ask East Coast, Cross Country, Grand Central, First Trans-Pennine and the freight companies what they would make of a re-opened station at Cop. As for the DoT and the ORR, etc., they haven't yet made a basket deep enough for where they would bury that correspondence. Network Rail would just laugh.
As to patronising, I would never do that, but could you explain how it might have been possible to slot the platforms into the Leeds Lines (not slow lines) at the P&R, never mind access them, and built to modern standards of course?
I have also sat in railway meetings where I had to be polite to people who came up with pipedreams of ideas for railway (sometimes known as blue sky) projects. I had to waste time explaining to them why their ideas were 'not very practicable' (that's a euphemism, by the way) or affordable.
Oh, and incidentally, the platforms at Cop. would have to be on the ECML, with a new road bridge constructed to give access to the island platform.
By the way, I may have missed it, but I'm still waiting for the explanation of 'breaking calcs.' and 'an unavailable situation'.
[quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote]Rail links on the outskirts. Infrastructure is already there. Train companies will even offer funding to open old stations to generate them more revenue. Not really rocket science is it.[/quote] So, we're replacing free (to CYC) bus services with a massive bill to provide train services. Whose houses are you going to knock down to build new stations and railway lines? There is a P&R bus stop just along from where I live. Given your cunning plan will presumably not have a station every 300 meters, can you tell me how I get into town please? #fail[/p][/quote]Excellent and intelligent comments yet again beth. Let me address them. You do not need to knock houses down as there is more then enough railway land on the outskirts, indeed some are even still there and just need re-opening. Is the bus service free? I’m pretty sure CYC just spent 23m of p&r? Not really free is it? New railway lines? No we have one of the countries biggest stations with more then enough lines already? Good for you, you have a p&r near you. Congratulations. Ah so the p&r stops every 300meters? I was under the assumption it had like 1 stop in its way to town that no one used? Silly me. The idea of outskirt stations are the same as P&R you drive to them, park and then get to York station traffic free and this would then remove traffic from our roads and would be a lot greener. You could even cycle with less fear! Ah hash tag... beth you might actually think you are smart with all the answers but your a daft 17 year old hippy with no clue about transport infrastructure or the future of transport. #mummymummycanihavea unicorn.[/p][/quote]Well, well 'Educating' Archie, I suspect that you may be losing the 'animated discussion' if you are resorting to personal abuse. I think that you should apologise to Beth (despite the fox hunting). As to stations on the outskirts of York, train operators are not that keen on extra stations because they play havoc with the timetable. There would be no chance of re-opening Copmanthorpe Station for example. Never mind the cost, it would just be impossible to fit the stops into the timetable. I certainly won't say YOU are daft, but the jury is certainly still out regarding your knowledge of transport infrastructure.[/p][/quote]Why lie? I’ve sat in meetings with northern rail who actually have a budget to open more stations and are encouraging rail companies and stakeholders to do such a thing? Its impossible to fit into the timetable? yeh capacity increases at York station have enabled more trains to run? Traffic management and the roc will further increase this capacity? Afterall companies are really bothered about changing a timetable when it means they get more revenue!!!! Maybe an ideal location for a new station would have been the p&r area that’s just been built? slow line? easy access into york with spare capacity? Please don’t try patronise me about an area i'm very familiar with.[/p][/quote]You may have sat in on meetings with Northern, but I think that you may have been taken in by the P.R. side of the company. Just ask East Coast, Cross Country, Grand Central, First Trans-Pennine and the freight companies what they would make of a re-opened station at Cop. As for the DoT and the ORR, etc., they haven't yet made a basket deep enough for where they would bury that correspondence. Network Rail would just laugh. As to patronising, I would never do that, but could you explain how it might have been possible to slot the platforms into the Leeds Lines (not slow lines) at the P&R, never mind access them, and built to modern standards of course? I have also sat in railway meetings where I had to be polite to people who came up with pipedreams of ideas for railway (sometimes known as blue sky) projects. I had to waste time explaining to them why their ideas were 'not very practicable' (that's a euphemism, by the way) or affordable. Oh, and incidentally, the platforms at Cop. would have to be on the ECML, with a new road bridge constructed to give access to the island platform. By the way, I may have missed it, but I'm still waiting for the explanation of 'breaking calcs.' and 'an unavailable situation'. Haywire
  • Score: 1067

2:31pm Fri 15 Aug 14

Haywire says...

Sorry about the double entendre!
Sorry about the double entendre! Haywire
  • Score: 1035

4:19pm Fri 15 Aug 14

Cheeky face says...

This looks interesting! www.telegraph.co.uk/
news/uknews/road-and
-rail-transport/1094
4459/rise-in-injurie
s-on-20mph-roads.htm
l.
It would be nice to see pollutions stats before and after 20 limit was introduced. But York council are broke!
This looks interesting! www.telegraph.co.uk/ news/uknews/road-and -rail-transport/1094 4459/rise-in-injurie s-on-20mph-roads.htm l. It would be nice to see pollutions stats before and after 20 limit was introduced. But York council are broke! Cheeky face
  • Score: 1021

4:28pm Fri 15 Aug 14

Cheeky face says...

TheTruthHurts wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
Mr Udigawa wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote: I'm going to ignore your fantasy railway P&R story and cut to this, in an attempt to get "back on topic".
Oh and it’s funny that as you are 17 you are driving around? Must have just passed your test? And yes driving over speed bumps for a day won’t make your car fall apart but maybe in 2 years time you will notice it? And 4th gear at 20mph? Yes very economical? oh but wait I’d like to point out that running in such a gear at that speed actually burns more fuel? Think of peddling on your bike in 21st gear when you are actually just crawling? it burns more energy yes? but anyway you can not drive a petrol car at 40mph in 4th gear without it stalling so I doubt you even drive if I’m being honest?
I don't know why you want to know so much information about me. But I passed my text in Feb, thanks, and drove through Acomb last night in 4th very happily. As for burning more petrol, the amount burned is a function of revs, my rev count was very low, sure I did not have a lot of power, but that was because I was going through Acomb, not on a motorway. No point trying to do 0 - 20 in under a second, really. http://www.20splenty forus.org.uk/rationa le_for_20_mph.htm Seems pretty legit and reasonable. Steady driving, fewer gear changes, lots of time to adjust for the road and plan ahead. And no stopping from Energise to my house!
Well Beth ignore it but I can guarantee in the next 5 years the plan will be there. But don't worry I’ll ignore you passed a driving text. Driving at low revs in 4th.. Right let me try explain this again. Just because your car is not revving as much does not mean it takes less energy to maintain that speed? i.e the most economical rev count in a car is jsut over 2000rpm. If you were in 4th at 20mph then you will have been below this... Fact.. So at such low revs the car has to try extra hard to power the gear using more fuel. If your are not peddling as quick on your bike do you save energy? Or indeed is it harder to pedal as the gear you are in requires more energy to move? To be fair beth i don't need to know you.. They were rhetorical questions. That’s where you say something but already know the answer. Oh I’m glad you pointed to a 20splenty site... Did you know Liverpool are the best football team in the world just head to their website? Everyone on this site already knows enough about you. You have a horse, like riding bikes and believe everything you say is correct yet you are only 17 and have no real knowledge of any of the subject matters discussed... You have no real arguments or indeed an idea of what the future of transport is. You believe propaganda sites and then relay this information back on here believing it must be true. Oh and you are 17 and instead of going out and having a youth you are on here trying to prove you are intelligent when really it's not working to well.. You are simply proving you are the next Anna. Silver spoon fed with no idea of the real world.
oh an no stopping from your energise to your house? thats dangerous as in every direction there is a roundabout?
Lol, how is not stopping at rounabouts dangerous? You maybe need to brush up on your driving techniques Archie, you'll be wasting even more fuel & causing accidents driving like that...
Well I would have thought that was obvious? If you pull out and a car is already on it, it goes into you? As its not your right of way you're liable? Especially on a mini roundabout where you can not see the road to your right until you are there?

Thank you though for your very intelligent comment Mr Udigawa. It’s good to know you always go to a roundabout and just carry on. Bit dangerous mind? especially to say it was you wanting a duel carriageway (a64) to have its speed reduced so your lad could cross over it (not using the bridge) to get to work easier? But yet you don’t stop at roundabouts ever? Excellent input. Now back to trying to fit the shapes in the right holes.

#LOL!
It is a major fault in a driving test if you stop at a roundabout with good visibility and there is no other vehicles on it.
Thetruthhurts,

Quite right. Of course some roundabouts have lights, that could easily become part/peak time only - switched off at midnight for 5 hours or so.

Near Nestle(Rowntrees) York still has a non standard roundabout with a give way sign on the road once you join it! Dates back to the time of allowing female Rowntrees workers a chance to get home to New Earswick to get the tea on!
[quote][p][bold]TheTruthHurts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Udigawa[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: I'm going to ignore your fantasy railway P&R story and cut to this, in an attempt to get "back on topic". [quote]Oh and it’s funny that as you are 17 you are driving around? Must have just passed your test? And yes driving over speed bumps for a day won’t make your car fall apart but maybe in 2 years time you will notice it? And 4th gear at 20mph? Yes very economical? oh but wait I’d like to point out that running in such a gear at that speed actually burns more fuel? Think of peddling on your bike in 21st gear when you are actually just crawling? it burns more energy yes? but anyway you can not drive a petrol car at 40mph in 4th gear without it stalling so I doubt you even drive if I’m being honest?[/quote] I don't know why you want to know so much information about me. But I passed my text in Feb, thanks, and drove through Acomb last night in 4th very happily. As for burning more petrol, the amount burned is a function of revs, my rev count was very low, sure I did not have a lot of power, but that was because I was going through Acomb, not on a motorway. No point trying to do 0 - 20 in under a second, really. http://www.20splenty forus.org.uk/rationa le_for_20_mph.htm Seems pretty legit and reasonable. Steady driving, fewer gear changes, lots of time to adjust for the road and plan ahead. And no stopping from Energise to my house![/p][/quote]Well Beth ignore it but I can guarantee in the next 5 years the plan will be there. But don't worry I’ll ignore you passed a driving text. Driving at low revs in 4th.. Right let me try explain this again. Just because your car is not revving as much does not mean it takes less energy to maintain that speed? i.e the most economical rev count in a car is jsut over 2000rpm. If you were in 4th at 20mph then you will have been below this... Fact.. So at such low revs the car has to try extra hard to power the gear using more fuel. If your are not peddling as quick on your bike do you save energy? Or indeed is it harder to pedal as the gear you are in requires more energy to move? To be fair beth i don't need to know you.. They were rhetorical questions. That’s where you say something but already know the answer. Oh I’m glad you pointed to a 20splenty site... Did you know Liverpool are the best football team in the world just head to their website? Everyone on this site already knows enough about you. You have a horse, like riding bikes and believe everything you say is correct yet you are only 17 and have no real knowledge of any of the subject matters discussed... You have no real arguments or indeed an idea of what the future of transport is. You believe propaganda sites and then relay this information back on here believing it must be true. Oh and you are 17 and instead of going out and having a youth you are on here trying to prove you are intelligent when really it's not working to well.. You are simply proving you are the next Anna. Silver spoon fed with no idea of the real world.[/p][/quote]oh an no stopping from your energise to your house? thats dangerous as in every direction there is a roundabout?[/p][/quote]Lol, how is not stopping at rounabouts dangerous? You maybe need to brush up on your driving techniques Archie, you'll be wasting even more fuel & causing accidents driving like that...[/p][/quote]Well I would have thought that was obvious? If you pull out and a car is already on it, it goes into you? As its not your right of way you're liable? Especially on a mini roundabout where you can not see the road to your right until you are there? Thank you though for your very intelligent comment Mr Udigawa. It’s good to know you always go to a roundabout and just carry on. Bit dangerous mind? especially to say it was you wanting a duel carriageway (a64) to have its speed reduced so your lad could cross over it (not using the bridge) to get to work easier? But yet you don’t stop at roundabouts ever? Excellent input. Now back to trying to fit the shapes in the right holes. #LOL![/p][/quote]It is a major fault in a driving test if you stop at a roundabout with good visibility and there is no other vehicles on it.[/p][/quote]Thetruthhurts, Quite right. Of course some roundabouts have lights, that could easily become part/peak time only - switched off at midnight for 5 hours or so. Near Nestle(Rowntrees) York still has a non standard roundabout with a give way sign on the road once you join it! Dates back to the time of allowing female Rowntrees workers a chance to get home to New Earswick to get the tea on! Cheeky face
  • Score: 485

5:48pm Fri 15 Aug 14

MorkofYork says...

I've seen and felt the aggravation people who drive at 20 everywhere cause to other road users, even a small increase of these people on the roads will increase accidents. The people that are aggravated can see the road is clear and there's no need to be doing 20 so you're never going to change this.

Only 9 months left, i say we all vote conservative, at least we won't have to put up with any authoritarian greens.
I've seen and felt the aggravation people who drive at 20 everywhere cause to other road users, even a small increase of these people on the roads will increase accidents. The people that are aggravated can see the road is clear and there's no need to be doing 20 so you're never going to change this. Only 9 months left, i say we all vote conservative, at least we won't have to put up with any authoritarian greens. MorkofYork
  • Score: 682

6:06pm Fri 15 Aug 14

Jack Ham says...

MorkofYork wrote:
I've seen and felt the aggravation people who drive at 20 everywhere cause to other road users, even a small increase of these people on the roads will increase accidents. The people that are aggravated can see the road is clear and there's no need to be doing 20 so you're never going to change this.

Only 9 months left, i say we all vote conservative, at least we won't have to put up with any authoritarian greens.
Whether you're a natural conservative voter or not it's the only sure fire way to be rid of this lot next year.

A conservative/libdem coalition might just be able to turn things around.

Cut the spin, end the vanity projects, change the senior staff and get back to the basic of running a council.
[quote][p][bold]MorkofYork[/bold] wrote: I've seen and felt the aggravation people who drive at 20 everywhere cause to other road users, even a small increase of these people on the roads will increase accidents. The people that are aggravated can see the road is clear and there's no need to be doing 20 so you're never going to change this. Only 9 months left, i say we all vote conservative, at least we won't have to put up with any authoritarian greens.[/p][/quote]Whether you're a natural conservative voter or not it's the only sure fire way to be rid of this lot next year. A conservative/libdem coalition might just be able to turn things around. Cut the spin, end the vanity projects, change the senior staff and get back to the basic of running a council. Jack Ham
  • Score: 945

10:33am Sat 16 Aug 14

dj4 says...

A plea from one middle-aged man To other middle-aged male drivers to consider the following:

- driving involves pushing pedals to move a metal box from one place to another for reasons of business or leisure. It is not a sport. There are no prizes for getting from A to B. No one really cares what your car is or where it's from. If you want to show off then write your name on your car in big letters, you could save thousands on a strange number plate which somehow relates to your name.

- everyone can use our roads whether they be in a high-performing sports car or a bicycle. Roads existed long before the motor car. Road building is funded from general taxation. There is not a "road tax". If you wouldn't threaten or abuse others walking down the street then don't do so in a metal box which gives you some spurious cover of security or superiority.

- 20 mph limits probably don't need active enforcement. The majority of responsible drivers who obey these limits will naturally enforce the limit during busy daylight hours when these limits are most important.
A plea from one middle-aged man To other middle-aged male drivers to consider the following: - driving involves pushing pedals to move a metal box from one place to another for reasons of business or leisure. It is not a sport. There are no prizes for getting from A to B. No one really cares what your car is or where it's from. If you want to show off then write your name on your car in big letters, you could save thousands on a strange number plate which somehow relates to your name. - everyone can use our roads whether they be in a high-performing sports car or a bicycle. Roads existed long before the motor car. Road building is funded from general taxation. There is not a "road tax". If you wouldn't threaten or abuse others walking down the street then don't do so in a metal box which gives you some spurious cover of security or superiority. - 20 mph limits probably don't need active enforcement. The majority of responsible drivers who obey these limits will naturally enforce the limit during busy daylight hours when these limits are most important. dj4
  • Score: 1256

2:01pm Sat 16 Aug 14

BethFoxhunter96 says...

MorkofYork wrote:
I've seen and felt the aggravation people who drive at 20 everywhere cause to other road users, even a small increase of these people on the roads will increase accidents. The people that are aggravated can see the road is clear and there's no need to be doing 20 so you're never going to change this.

Only 9 months left, i say we all vote conservative, at least we won't have to put up with any authoritarian greens.
I laughed when I read that - an obvious troll, but allow me to correct your errant thinking.

The tories are not more authoriatian than the greens. The greens are a left-libertarian party whilst the tories are a free-marketting authoritarian party.

Let's look at:

Party Democracy: the tories have a bizarre and ancient system of committee system which filters out anything the top leadership don't want to hear or have discussed. Leadership can use this to squash discussion on for example human rights, Europe etc. The green party don't have a committee system and will debate any policy. The only saving grace about the tory party's control system is that it is at least one person one vote, making labour look basically Maoist.

Law and order: under the tories / liberals, it is possible for someone tot be tried on charges they are not allowed to know, with evidence they are not allowed to know, in a courtroom they are not allowed to enter. The greens want to remove these stalinist kangaroo courts. The tories show their authoritarian roots here, the greens their libertarian.

Welfare: the tories' main scheme is forcing "benefits claimants" to do unpaid hours for multinaitonal corporations (authoritarian). The greens want a system of universal basic income to free the labour market as per a free-market left-libertarian model.

Europe: Greens are promising a referendum, tories won't promise that. In fact only UKIP and greens have a manefesto pledge to hold a referendum. Of that, it's interesting that only the greens are opposing TTIP, a super-authoritarian, pro-monopoly, pro-multinational corporation piece of rank garbage the EU wants to impose on memberstates. The Tories are loving it (it basically allows say an American or Indian company to sue the UK government if the UK government has a rule or market intervention that harms the company's interest. In secret. With secret, unlimited damages being awarded. So, an American company could sue the UK for running the NHS, in secret, against the democratic wishes of the UK population!).

Human rights: the Greens (with liberals and labour) want to remain a member of the ECHR. The tories want to take us out!

It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with the policies. You can't, however, claim that the tories aren't authoritarian and the greens aren't libertarian. You might like any of these policies, but be honest in describing them.

I could very easily go on. Out of the five main parties (Labour, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, United Kingdom Independence Party and Greens), only the greens resemble anything near a libertarian party.

I suspect you're upset that they are telling you to stop polluting. Good! We do not allow companies to dump arsenic into the water system. I don't really see why we allow people to pump CO2, CO and SO4, SOH2 etc into the atmosphere. Restrictions on pollution aren't authoritarian. They are libertarian as it means we all have the liberty to live lives free of pollution and cancer causing nasties. There is no right to pollute, no right to drive. There is a right however to clean water and healthy food and privacy and peaceful family life. If you believe in those, vote green, not Tory. Hell, if you believe in the NHS, decent state schooling, society or anything else that effectively makes us British and human... don't vote for the rich, tory elites. The Downtown Abbey party: rich, think they're born to rule, but are hopeless at it and exist solely to make themselves richer.

Lesson over. Thumbs up please. Bethany X
[quote][p][bold]MorkofYork[/bold] wrote: I've seen and felt the aggravation people who drive at 20 everywhere cause to other road users, even a small increase of these people on the roads will increase accidents. The people that are aggravated can see the road is clear and there's no need to be doing 20 so you're never going to change this. Only 9 months left, i say we all vote conservative, at least we won't have to put up with any authoritarian greens.[/p][/quote]I laughed when I read that - an obvious troll, but allow me to correct your errant thinking. The tories are not more authoriatian than the greens. The greens are a left-libertarian party whilst the tories are a free-marketting authoritarian party. Let's look at: Party Democracy: the tories have a bizarre and ancient system of committee system which filters out anything the top leadership don't want to hear or have discussed. Leadership can use this to squash discussion on for example human rights, Europe etc. The green party don't have a committee system and will debate any policy. The only saving grace about the tory party's control system is that it is at least one person one vote, making labour look basically Maoist. Law and order: under the tories / liberals, it is possible for someone tot be tried on charges they are not allowed to know, with evidence they are not allowed to know, in a courtroom they are not allowed to enter. The greens want to remove these stalinist kangaroo courts. The tories show their authoritarian roots here, the greens their libertarian. Welfare: the tories' main scheme is forcing "benefits claimants" to do unpaid hours for multinaitonal corporations (authoritarian). The greens want a system of universal basic income to free the labour market as per a free-market left-libertarian model. Europe: Greens are promising a referendum, tories won't promise that. In fact only UKIP and greens have a manefesto pledge to hold a referendum. Of that, it's interesting that only the greens are opposing TTIP, a super-authoritarian, pro-monopoly, pro-multinational corporation piece of rank garbage the EU wants to impose on memberstates. The Tories are loving it (it basically allows say an American or Indian company to sue the UK government if the UK government has a rule or market intervention that harms the company's interest. In secret. With secret, unlimited damages being awarded. So, an American company could sue the UK for running the NHS, in secret, against the democratic wishes of the UK population!). Human rights: the Greens (with liberals and labour) want to remain a member of the ECHR. The tories want to take us out! It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with the policies. You can't, however, claim that the tories aren't authoritarian and the greens aren't libertarian. You might like any of these policies, but be honest in describing them. I could very easily go on. Out of the five main parties (Labour, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, United Kingdom Independence Party and Greens), only the greens resemble anything near a libertarian party. I suspect you're upset that they are telling you to stop polluting. Good! We do not allow companies to dump arsenic into the water system. I don't really see why we allow people to pump CO2, CO and SO4, SOH2 etc into the atmosphere. Restrictions on pollution aren't authoritarian. They are libertarian as it means we all have the liberty to live lives free of pollution and cancer causing nasties. There is no right to pollute, no right to drive. There is a right however to clean water and healthy food and privacy and peaceful family life. If you believe in those, vote green, not Tory. Hell, if you believe in the NHS, decent state schooling, society or anything else that effectively makes us British and human... don't vote for the rich, tory elites. The Downtown Abbey party: rich, think they're born to rule, but are hopeless at it and exist solely to make themselves richer. Lesson over. Thumbs up please. Bethany X BethFoxhunter96
  • Score: -1317

2:04pm Sat 16 Aug 14

BethFoxhunter96 says...

dj4 wrote:
A plea from one middle-aged man To other middle-aged male drivers to consider the following:

- driving involves pushing pedals to move a metal box from one place to another for reasons of business or leisure. It is not a sport. There are no prizes for getting from A to B. No one really cares what your car is or where it's from. If you want to show off then write your name on your car in big letters, you could save thousands on a strange number plate which somehow relates to your name.

- everyone can use our roads whether they be in a high-performing sports car or a bicycle. Roads existed long before the motor car. Road building is funded from general taxation. There is not a "road tax". If you wouldn't threaten or abuse others walking down the street then don't do so in a metal box which gives you some spurious cover of security or superiority.

- 20 mph limits probably don't need active enforcement. The majority of responsible drivers who obey these limits will naturally enforce the limit during busy daylight hours when these limits are most important.
Beautiful, love that, endorsed as a very young female driver, rider, cyclist, pedestrian, too! Well said, DJ4.

I hate the notion that manliness somehow depends on having a big, fast car and driving at daft speeds round down breaking eardrums and helping the planet die a little each mile. Slow down, it's not a game. I think most women would rather someone who looks out for others, doesn't act like a dick to show off, and remembers his responsibilities to his family and to others! Much more attractive IMO. Bethany
[quote][p][bold]dj4[/bold] wrote: A plea from one middle-aged man To other middle-aged male drivers to consider the following: - driving involves pushing pedals to move a metal box from one place to another for reasons of business or leisure. It is not a sport. There are no prizes for getting from A to B. No one really cares what your car is or where it's from. If you want to show off then write your name on your car in big letters, you could save thousands on a strange number plate which somehow relates to your name. - everyone can use our roads whether they be in a high-performing sports car or a bicycle. Roads existed long before the motor car. Road building is funded from general taxation. There is not a "road tax". If you wouldn't threaten or abuse others walking down the street then don't do so in a metal box which gives you some spurious cover of security or superiority. - 20 mph limits probably don't need active enforcement. The majority of responsible drivers who obey these limits will naturally enforce the limit during busy daylight hours when these limits are most important.[/p][/quote]Beautiful, love that, endorsed as a very young female driver, rider, cyclist, pedestrian, too! Well said, DJ4. I hate the notion that manliness somehow depends on having a big, fast car and driving at daft speeds round down breaking eardrums and helping the planet die a little each mile. Slow down, it's not a game. I think most women would rather someone who looks out for others, doesn't act like a dick to show off, and remembers his responsibilities to his family and to others! Much more attractive IMO. Bethany BethFoxhunter96
  • Score: 2007

5:44pm Sat 16 Aug 14

eeoodares says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
MorkofYork wrote:
I've seen and felt the aggravation people who drive at 20 everywhere cause to other road users, even a small increase of these people on the roads will increase accidents. The people that are aggravated can see the road is clear and there's no need to be doing 20 so you're never going to change this.

Only 9 months left, i say we all vote conservative, at least we won't have to put up with any authoritarian greens.
I laughed when I read that - an obvious troll, but allow me to correct your errant thinking.

The tories are not more authoriatian than the greens. The greens are a left-libertarian party whilst the tories are a free-marketting authoritarian party.

Let's look at:

Party Democracy: the tories have a bizarre and ancient system of committee system which filters out anything the top leadership don't want to hear or have discussed. Leadership can use this to squash discussion on for example human rights, Europe etc. The green party don't have a committee system and will debate any policy. The only saving grace about the tory party's control system is that it is at least one person one vote, making labour look basically Maoist.

Law and order: under the tories / liberals, it is possible for someone tot be tried on charges they are not allowed to know, with evidence they are not allowed to know, in a courtroom they are not allowed to enter. The greens want to remove these stalinist kangaroo courts. The tories show their authoritarian roots here, the greens their libertarian.

Welfare: the tories' main scheme is forcing "benefits claimants" to do unpaid hours for multinaitonal corporations (authoritarian). The greens want a system of universal basic income to free the labour market as per a free-market left-libertarian model.

Europe: Greens are promising a referendum, tories won't promise that. In fact only UKIP and greens have a manefesto pledge to hold a referendum. Of that, it's interesting that only the greens are opposing TTIP, a super-authoritarian, pro-monopoly, pro-multinational corporation piece of rank garbage the EU wants to impose on memberstates. The Tories are loving it (it basically allows say an American or Indian company to sue the UK government if the UK government has a rule or market intervention that harms the company's interest. In secret. With secret, unlimited damages being awarded. So, an American company could sue the UK for running the NHS, in secret, against the democratic wishes of the UK population!).

Human rights: the Greens (with liberals and labour) want to remain a member of the ECHR. The tories want to take us out!

It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with the policies. You can't, however, claim that the tories aren't authoritarian and the greens aren't libertarian. You might like any of these policies, but be honest in describing them.

I could very easily go on. Out of the five main parties (Labour, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, United Kingdom Independence Party and Greens), only the greens resemble anything near a libertarian party.

I suspect you're upset that they are telling you to stop polluting. Good! We do not allow companies to dump arsenic into the water system. I don't really see why we allow people to pump CO2, CO and SO4, SOH2 etc into the atmosphere. Restrictions on pollution aren't authoritarian. They are libertarian as it means we all have the liberty to live lives free of pollution and cancer causing nasties. There is no right to pollute, no right to drive. There is a right however to clean water and healthy food and privacy and peaceful family life. If you believe in those, vote green, not Tory. Hell, if you believe in the NHS, decent state schooling, society or anything else that effectively makes us British and human... don't vote for the rich, tory elites. The Downtown Abbey party: rich, think they're born to rule, but are hopeless at it and exist solely to make themselves richer.

Lesson over. Thumbs up please. Bethany X
I always believed that you were a middle-aged councillor pretending to be a child. After reading this nonsense I have to admit, you are a child.
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MorkofYork[/bold] wrote: I've seen and felt the aggravation people who drive at 20 everywhere cause to other road users, even a small increase of these people on the roads will increase accidents. The people that are aggravated can see the road is clear and there's no need to be doing 20 so you're never going to change this. Only 9 months left, i say we all vote conservative, at least we won't have to put up with any authoritarian greens.[/p][/quote]I laughed when I read that - an obvious troll, but allow me to correct your errant thinking. The tories are not more authoriatian than the greens. The greens are a left-libertarian party whilst the tories are a free-marketting authoritarian party. Let's look at: Party Democracy: the tories have a bizarre and ancient system of committee system which filters out anything the top leadership don't want to hear or have discussed. Leadership can use this to squash discussion on for example human rights, Europe etc. The green party don't have a committee system and will debate any policy. The only saving grace about the tory party's control system is that it is at least one person one vote, making labour look basically Maoist. Law and order: under the tories / liberals, it is possible for someone tot be tried on charges they are not allowed to know, with evidence they are not allowed to know, in a courtroom they are not allowed to enter. The greens want to remove these stalinist kangaroo courts. The tories show their authoritarian roots here, the greens their libertarian. Welfare: the tories' main scheme is forcing "benefits claimants" to do unpaid hours for multinaitonal corporations (authoritarian). The greens want a system of universal basic income to free the labour market as per a free-market left-libertarian model. Europe: Greens are promising a referendum, tories won't promise that. In fact only UKIP and greens have a manefesto pledge to hold a referendum. Of that, it's interesting that only the greens are opposing TTIP, a super-authoritarian, pro-monopoly, pro-multinational corporation piece of rank garbage the EU wants to impose on memberstates. The Tories are loving it (it basically allows say an American or Indian company to sue the UK government if the UK government has a rule or market intervention that harms the company's interest. In secret. With secret, unlimited damages being awarded. So, an American company could sue the UK for running the NHS, in secret, against the democratic wishes of the UK population!). Human rights: the Greens (with liberals and labour) want to remain a member of the ECHR. The tories want to take us out! It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with the policies. You can't, however, claim that the tories aren't authoritarian and the greens aren't libertarian. You might like any of these policies, but be honest in describing them. I could very easily go on. Out of the five main parties (Labour, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, United Kingdom Independence Party and Greens), only the greens resemble anything near a libertarian party. I suspect you're upset that they are telling you to stop polluting. Good! We do not allow companies to dump arsenic into the water system. I don't really see why we allow people to pump CO2, CO and SO4, SOH2 etc into the atmosphere. Restrictions on pollution aren't authoritarian. They are libertarian as it means we all have the liberty to live lives free of pollution and cancer causing nasties. There is no right to pollute, no right to drive. There is a right however to clean water and healthy food and privacy and peaceful family life. If you believe in those, vote green, not Tory. Hell, if you believe in the NHS, decent state schooling, society or anything else that effectively makes us British and human... don't vote for the rich, tory elites. The Downtown Abbey party: rich, think they're born to rule, but are hopeless at it and exist solely to make themselves richer. Lesson over. Thumbs up please. Bethany X[/p][/quote]I always believed that you were a middle-aged councillor pretending to be a child. After reading this nonsense I have to admit, you are a child. eeoodares
  • Score: 1817

5:55pm Sat 16 Aug 14

HoofHearteds says...

It's true.. I tested this out today and managed 77mph with no one stopping me.

I think a few more speed ramps might have slowed me down a bit though
It's true.. I tested this out today and managed 77mph with no one stopping me. I think a few more speed ramps might have slowed me down a bit though HoofHearteds
  • Score: -2690

11:11pm Sun 17 Aug 14

Silver says...

Silver wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
Haha I go away for hours and still this nonsense continues!!

As for affording your babysitting services, Im pretty sure I could with my 7 figure salary but now I'm just boasting. ( also my wife doesn't need to work so she can care for our children full time )

My Ferrari certainly won't pootle along at 20mph in 4th gear, it struggles in 2nd but thats by the by, it's why I also have a range rover with an automatic gearbox for driving around town.


Great, made up boasts on the internet, did you invent the cure for cancer and write Shakespeare's plays for him too? Such online boasts don't impress me much.

Anna Semlyen did actually say to me that the street would be a safer place for my children to play , I called her an idiot and she walked away.


Probably because you called her an idiot.

Your little fiesta may well run at 20mph in 4th but you do realise that you're using more fuel and pumping out more particulates because your under compressing the fuel mix in the cylinders forcing unburned fuel into the atmosphere, 3rd gear and slightly higher revs would be greener.


I don't have a fiesta. But, sure, if you say so.

What position in local government is your mother employed ?


Creepy!! No thanks.

So you're saying it is safe to play in the road ?


No, the opposite. They are unsafe. Which is why I think everyone should slow down to 20mph.
You never answered my question if you'd actually played GTA?
Still no answer on if you've played GTA
[quote][p][bold]Silver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: Haha I go away for hours and still this nonsense continues!! [quote]As for affording your babysitting services, Im pretty sure I could with my 7 figure salary but now I'm just boasting. ( also my wife doesn't need to work so she can care for our children full time ) My Ferrari certainly won't pootle along at 20mph in 4th gear, it struggles in 2nd but thats by the by, it's why I also have a range rover with an automatic gearbox for driving around town.[/quote] Great, made up boasts on the internet, did you invent the cure for cancer and write Shakespeare's plays for him too? Such online boasts don't impress me much. [quote]Anna Semlyen did actually say to me that the street would be a safer place for my children to play , I called her an idiot and she walked away.[/quote] Probably because you called her an idiot. [quote]Your little fiesta may well run at 20mph in 4th but you do realise that you're using more fuel and pumping out more particulates because your under compressing the fuel mix in the cylinders forcing unburned fuel into the atmosphere, 3rd gear and slightly higher revs would be greener.[/quote] I don't have a fiesta. But, sure, if you say so. [quote]What position in local government is your mother employed ?[/quote] Creepy!! No thanks. [quote]So you're saying it is safe to play in the road ?[/quote] No, the opposite. They are unsafe. Which is why I think everyone should slow down to 20mph.[/p][/quote]You never answered my question if you'd actually played GTA?[/p][/quote]Still no answer on if you've played GTA Silver
  • Score: 1

11:21am Mon 18 Aug 14

archieboldthe2nd says...

Haywire wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
Haywire wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
Rail links on the outskirts. Infrastructure is already there. Train companies will even offer funding to open old stations to generate them more revenue. Not really rocket science is it.
So, we're replacing free (to CYC) bus services with a massive bill to provide train services. Whose houses are you going to knock down to build new stations and railway lines? There is a P&R bus stop just along from where I live. Given your cunning plan will presumably not have a station every 300 meters, can you tell me how I get into town please? #fail
Excellent and intelligent comments yet again beth. Let me address them. You do not need to knock houses down as there is more then enough railway land on the outskirts, indeed some are even still there and just need re-opening. Is the bus service free? I’m pretty sure CYC just spent 23m of p&r? Not really free is it? New railway lines? No we have one of the countries biggest stations with more then enough lines already? Good for you, you have a p&r near you. Congratulations. Ah so the p&r stops every 300meters? I was under the assumption it had like 1 stop in its way to town that no one used? Silly me. The idea of outskirt stations are the same as P&R you drive to them, park and then get to York station traffic free and this would then remove traffic from our roads and would be a lot greener. You could even cycle with less fear! Ah hash tag... beth you might actually think you are smart with all the answers but your a daft 17 year old hippy with no clue about transport infrastructure or the future of transport. #mummymummycanihavea unicorn.
Well, well 'Educating' Archie, I suspect that you may be losing the 'animated discussion' if you are resorting to personal abuse. I think that you should apologise to Beth (despite the fox hunting). As to stations on the outskirts of York, train operators are not that keen on extra stations because they play havoc with the timetable. There would be no chance of re-opening Copmanthorpe Station for example. Never mind the cost, it would just be impossible to fit the stops into the timetable. I certainly won't say YOU are daft, but the jury is certainly still out regarding your knowledge of transport infrastructure.
Why lie? I’ve sat in meetings with northern rail who actually have a budget to open more stations and are encouraging rail companies and stakeholders to do such a thing? Its impossible to fit into the timetable? yeh capacity increases at York station have enabled more trains to run? Traffic management and the roc will further increase this capacity? Afterall companies are really bothered about changing a timetable when it means they get more revenue!!!! Maybe an ideal location for a new station would have been the p&r area that’s just been built? slow line? easy access into york with spare capacity? Please don’t try patronise me about an area i'm very familiar with.
You may have sat in on meetings with Northern, but I think that you may have been taken in by the P.R. side of the company. Just ask East Coast, Cross Country, Grand Central, First Trans-Pennine and the freight companies what they would make of a re-opened station at Cop. As for the DoT and the ORR, etc., they haven't yet made a basket deep enough for where they would bury that correspondence. Network Rail would just laugh. As to patronising, I would never do that, but could you explain how it might have been possible to slot the platforms into the Leeds Lines (not slow lines) at the P&R, never mind access them, and built to modern standards of course? I have also sat in railway meetings where I had to be polite to people who came up with pipedreams of ideas for railway (sometimes known as blue sky) projects. I had to waste time explaining to them why their ideas were 'not very practicable' (that's a euphemism, by the way) or affordable. Oh, and incidentally, the platforms at Cop. would have to be on the ECML, with a new road bridge constructed to give access to the island platform. By the way, I may have missed it, but I'm still waiting for the explanation of 'breaking calcs.' and 'an unavailable situation'.
I can assure you it was not the PR section of northern. But why would I ask the other companies as the specialise in long distance? It wouldn’t benefit them? Ok you make your point about cop platform which i never mentioned? (ps could still build a bridge for less then 23m!)I would have said for that area the new p&r would have been the best location. As for other lines such as the harrogate line etc are these at capacity? Yes it does have an up slow into york. Northern already runs on it. So what would a 2 min stop do to the "timetable". I also think the area of the 23m p&r would be a good area. An extra stop for the northern train past pop wouldn’t do much harm at all.

Breaking calcs for a car to stop? i.e speed vs distance? (car)

Unavoidable situation as I said previously a girl running from behind a bus? You can not avoid hitting her if its 3m in front of you?

Ok i will explain the p&r area as this. Build a station at the location, build a footbridge with access to the other side. This would then allow trains to stop there? Minor signal updates required and as you mention previously the leeds line (i call it the slow line as grand central or east coast use the faster line) is mainly used by freight. So if you can not make a 4min gap in headway there with the new technology (which is being implemented on the ecml btw!) then we have real rail capacity issues (which there isn't).

I love the fact that you can write off such ideas straight away? Even if it cost millions it would be worth it for yorks traffic and expansion issues. The fact is it can be done. The trains already run slow on the existing lines. A timetable chance is not the end of the world.
[quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote]Rail links on the outskirts. Infrastructure is already there. Train companies will even offer funding to open old stations to generate them more revenue. Not really rocket science is it.[/quote] So, we're replacing free (to CYC) bus services with a massive bill to provide train services. Whose houses are you going to knock down to build new stations and railway lines? There is a P&R bus stop just along from where I live. Given your cunning plan will presumably not have a station every 300 meters, can you tell me how I get into town please? #fail[/p][/quote]Excellent and intelligent comments yet again beth. Let me address them. You do not need to knock houses down as there is more then enough railway land on the outskirts, indeed some are even still there and just need re-opening. Is the bus service free? I’m pretty sure CYC just spent 23m of p&r? Not really free is it? New railway lines? No we have one of the countries biggest stations with more then enough lines already? Good for you, you have a p&r near you. Congratulations. Ah so the p&r stops every 300meters? I was under the assumption it had like 1 stop in its way to town that no one used? Silly me. The idea of outskirt stations are the same as P&R you drive to them, park and then get to York station traffic free and this would then remove traffic from our roads and would be a lot greener. You could even cycle with less fear! Ah hash tag... beth you might actually think you are smart with all the answers but your a daft 17 year old hippy with no clue about transport infrastructure or the future of transport. #mummymummycanihavea unicorn.[/p][/quote]Well, well 'Educating' Archie, I suspect that you may be losing the 'animated discussion' if you are resorting to personal abuse. I think that you should apologise to Beth (despite the fox hunting). As to stations on the outskirts of York, train operators are not that keen on extra stations because they play havoc with the timetable. There would be no chance of re-opening Copmanthorpe Station for example. Never mind the cost, it would just be impossible to fit the stops into the timetable. I certainly won't say YOU are daft, but the jury is certainly still out regarding your knowledge of transport infrastructure.[/p][/quote]Why lie? I’ve sat in meetings with northern rail who actually have a budget to open more stations and are encouraging rail companies and stakeholders to do such a thing? Its impossible to fit into the timetable? yeh capacity increases at York station have enabled more trains to run? Traffic management and the roc will further increase this capacity? Afterall companies are really bothered about changing a timetable when it means they get more revenue!!!! Maybe an ideal location for a new station would have been the p&r area that’s just been built? slow line? easy access into york with spare capacity? Please don’t try patronise me about an area i'm very familiar with.[/p][/quote]You may have sat in on meetings with Northern, but I think that you may have been taken in by the P.R. side of the company. Just ask East Coast, Cross Country, Grand Central, First Trans-Pennine and the freight companies what they would make of a re-opened station at Cop. As for the DoT and the ORR, etc., they haven't yet made a basket deep enough for where they would bury that correspondence. Network Rail would just laugh. As to patronising, I would never do that, but could you explain how it might have been possible to slot the platforms into the Leeds Lines (not slow lines) at the P&R, never mind access them, and built to modern standards of course? I have also sat in railway meetings where I had to be polite to people who came up with pipedreams of ideas for railway (sometimes known as blue sky) projects. I had to waste time explaining to them why their ideas were 'not very practicable' (that's a euphemism, by the way) or affordable. Oh, and incidentally, the platforms at Cop. would have to be on the ECML, with a new road bridge constructed to give access to the island platform. By the way, I may have missed it, but I'm still waiting for the explanation of 'breaking calcs.' and 'an unavailable situation'.[/p][/quote]I can assure you it was not the PR section of northern. But why would I ask the other companies as the specialise in long distance? It wouldn’t benefit them? Ok you make your point about cop platform which i never mentioned? (ps could still build a bridge for less then 23m!)I would have said for that area the new p&r would have been the best location. As for other lines such as the harrogate line etc are these at capacity? Yes it does have an up slow into york. Northern already runs on it. So what would a 2 min stop do to the "timetable". I also think the area of the 23m p&r would be a good area. An extra stop for the northern train past pop wouldn’t do much harm at all. Breaking calcs for a car to stop? i.e speed vs distance? (car) Unavoidable situation as I said previously a girl running from behind a bus? You can not avoid hitting her if its 3m in front of you? Ok i will explain the p&r area as this. Build a station at the location, build a footbridge with access to the other side. This would then allow trains to stop there? Minor signal updates required and as you mention previously the leeds line (i call it the slow line as grand central or east coast use the faster line) is mainly used by freight. So if you can not make a 4min gap in headway there with the new technology (which is being implemented on the ecml btw!) then we have real rail capacity issues (which there isn't). I love the fact that you can write off such ideas straight away? Even if it cost millions it would be worth it for yorks traffic and expansion issues. The fact is it can be done. The trains already run slow on the existing lines. A timetable chance is not the end of the world. archieboldthe2nd
  • Score: 0

11:29am Mon 18 Aug 14

archieboldthe2nd says...

TheTruthHurts wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
Mr Udigawa wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote: I'm going to ignore your fantasy railway P&R story and cut to this, in an attempt to get "back on topic".
Oh and it’s funny that as you are 17 you are driving around? Must have just passed your test? And yes driving over speed bumps for a day won’t make your car fall apart but maybe in 2 years time you will notice it? And 4th gear at 20mph? Yes very economical? oh but wait I’d like to point out that running in such a gear at that speed actually burns more fuel? Think of peddling on your bike in 21st gear when you are actually just crawling? it burns more energy yes? but anyway you can not drive a petrol car at 40mph in 4th gear without it stalling so I doubt you even drive if I’m being honest?
I don't know why you want to know so much information about me. But I passed my text in Feb, thanks, and drove through Acomb last night in 4th very happily. As for burning more petrol, the amount burned is a function of revs, my rev count was very low, sure I did not have a lot of power, but that was because I was going through Acomb, not on a motorway. No point trying to do 0 - 20 in under a second, really. http://www.20splenty forus.org.uk/rationa le_for_20_mph.htm Seems pretty legit and reasonable. Steady driving, fewer gear changes, lots of time to adjust for the road and plan ahead. And no stopping from Energise to my house!
Well Beth ignore it but I can guarantee in the next 5 years the plan will be there. But don't worry I’ll ignore you passed a driving text. Driving at low revs in 4th.. Right let me try explain this again. Just because your car is not revving as much does not mean it takes less energy to maintain that speed? i.e the most economical rev count in a car is jsut over 2000rpm. If you were in 4th at 20mph then you will have been below this... Fact.. So at such low revs the car has to try extra hard to power the gear using more fuel. If your are not peddling as quick on your bike do you save energy? Or indeed is it harder to pedal as the gear you are in requires more energy to move? To be fair beth i don't need to know you.. They were rhetorical questions. That’s where you say something but already know the answer. Oh I’m glad you pointed to a 20splenty site... Did you know Liverpool are the best football team in the world just head to their website? Everyone on this site already knows enough about you. You have a horse, like riding bikes and believe everything you say is correct yet you are only 17 and have no real knowledge of any of the subject matters discussed... You have no real arguments or indeed an idea of what the future of transport is. You believe propaganda sites and then relay this information back on here believing it must be true. Oh and you are 17 and instead of going out and having a youth you are on here trying to prove you are intelligent when really it's not working to well.. You are simply proving you are the next Anna. Silver spoon fed with no idea of the real world.
oh an no stopping from your energise to your house? thats dangerous as in every direction there is a roundabout?
Lol, how is not stopping at rounabouts dangerous? You maybe need to brush up on your driving techniques Archie, you'll be wasting even more fuel & causing accidents driving like that...
Well I would have thought that was obvious? If you pull out and a car is already on it, it goes into you? As its not your right of way you're liable? Especially on a mini roundabout where you can not see the road to your right until you are there? Thank you though for your very intelligent comment Mr Udigawa. It’s good to know you always go to a roundabout and just carry on. Bit dangerous mind? especially to say it was you wanting a duel carriageway (a64) to have its speed reduced so your lad could cross over it (not using the bridge) to get to work easier? But yet you don’t stop at roundabouts ever? Excellent input. Now back to trying to fit the shapes in the right holes. #LOL!
It is a major fault in a driving test if you stop at a roundabout with good visibility and there is no other vehicles on it.
To which i'll go back to my main point it hasn't got good visability heading from energise?
[quote][p][bold]TheTruthHurts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Udigawa[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: I'm going to ignore your fantasy railway P&R story and cut to this, in an attempt to get "back on topic". [quote]Oh and it’s funny that as you are 17 you are driving around? Must have just passed your test? And yes driving over speed bumps for a day won’t make your car fall apart but maybe in 2 years time you will notice it? And 4th gear at 20mph? Yes very economical? oh but wait I’d like to point out that running in such a gear at that speed actually burns more fuel? Think of peddling on your bike in 21st gear when you are actually just crawling? it burns more energy yes? but anyway you can not drive a petrol car at 40mph in 4th gear without it stalling so I doubt you even drive if I’m being honest?[/quote] I don't know why you want to know so much information about me. But I passed my text in Feb, thanks, and drove through Acomb last night in 4th very happily. As for burning more petrol, the amount burned is a function of revs, my rev count was very low, sure I did not have a lot of power, but that was because I was going through Acomb, not on a motorway. No point trying to do 0 - 20 in under a second, really. http://www.20splenty forus.org.uk/rationa le_for_20_mph.htm Seems pretty legit and reasonable. Steady driving, fewer gear changes, lots of time to adjust for the road and plan ahead. And no stopping from Energise to my house![/p][/quote]Well Beth ignore it but I can guarantee in the next 5 years the plan will be there. But don't worry I’ll ignore you passed a driving text. Driving at low revs in 4th.. Right let me try explain this again. Just because your car is not revving as much does not mean it takes less energy to maintain that speed? i.e the most economical rev count in a car is jsut over 2000rpm. If you were in 4th at 20mph then you will have been below this... Fact.. So at such low revs the car has to try extra hard to power the gear using more fuel. If your are not peddling as quick on your bike do you save energy? Or indeed is it harder to pedal as the gear you are in requires more energy to move? To be fair beth i don't need to know you.. They were rhetorical questions. That’s where you say something but already know the answer. Oh I’m glad you pointed to a 20splenty site... Did you know Liverpool are the best football team in the world just head to their website? Everyone on this site already knows enough about you. You have a horse, like riding bikes and believe everything you say is correct yet you are only 17 and have no real knowledge of any of the subject matters discussed... You have no real arguments or indeed an idea of what the future of transport is. You believe propaganda sites and then relay this information back on here believing it must be true. Oh and you are 17 and instead of going out and having a youth you are on here trying to prove you are intelligent when really it's not working to well.. You are simply proving you are the next Anna. Silver spoon fed with no idea of the real world.[/p][/quote]oh an no stopping from your energise to your house? thats dangerous as in every direction there is a roundabout?[/p][/quote]Lol, how is not stopping at rounabouts dangerous? You maybe need to brush up on your driving techniques Archie, you'll be wasting even more fuel & causing accidents driving like that...[/p][/quote]Well I would have thought that was obvious? If you pull out and a car is already on it, it goes into you? As its not your right of way you're liable? Especially on a mini roundabout where you can not see the road to your right until you are there? Thank you though for your very intelligent comment Mr Udigawa. It’s good to know you always go to a roundabout and just carry on. Bit dangerous mind? especially to say it was you wanting a duel carriageway (a64) to have its speed reduced so your lad could cross over it (not using the bridge) to get to work easier? But yet you don’t stop at roundabouts ever? Excellent input. Now back to trying to fit the shapes in the right holes. #LOL![/p][/quote]It is a major fault in a driving test if you stop at a roundabout with good visibility and there is no other vehicles on it.[/p][/quote]To which i'll go back to my main point it hasn't got good visability heading from energise? archieboldthe2nd
  • Score: 1

11:40am Mon 18 Aug 14

archieboldthe2nd says...

archieboldthe2nd wrote:
Haywire wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
Haywire wrote:
archieboldthe2nd wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
Rail links on the outskirts. Infrastructure is already there. Train companies will even offer funding to open old stations to generate them more revenue. Not really rocket science is it.
So, we're replacing free (to CYC) bus services with a massive bill to provide train services. Whose houses are you going to knock down to build new stations and railway lines? There is a P&R bus stop just along from where I live. Given your cunning plan will presumably not have a station every 300 meters, can you tell me how I get into town please? #fail
Excellent and intelligent comments yet again beth. Let me address them. You do not need to knock houses down as there is more then enough railway land on the outskirts, indeed some are even still there and just need re-opening. Is the bus service free? I’m pretty sure CYC just spent 23m of p&r? Not really free is it? New railway lines? No we have one of the countries biggest stations with more then enough lines already? Good for you, you have a p&r near you. Congratulations. Ah so the p&r stops every 300meters? I was under the assumption it had like 1 stop in its way to town that no one used? Silly me. The idea of outskirt stations are the same as P&R you drive to them, park and then get to York station traffic free and this would then remove traffic from our roads and would be a lot greener. You could even cycle with less fear! Ah hash tag... beth you might actually think you are smart with all the answers but your a daft 17 year old hippy with no clue about transport infrastructure or the future of transport. #mummymummycanihavea unicorn.
Well, well 'Educating' Archie, I suspect that you may be losing the 'animated discussion' if you are resorting to personal abuse. I think that you should apologise to Beth (despite the fox hunting). As to stations on the outskirts of York, train operators are not that keen on extra stations because they play havoc with the timetable. There would be no chance of re-opening Copmanthorpe Station for example. Never mind the cost, it would just be impossible to fit the stops into the timetable. I certainly won't say YOU are daft, but the jury is certainly still out regarding your knowledge of transport infrastructure.
Why lie? I’ve sat in meetings with northern rail who actually have a budget to open more stations and are encouraging rail companies and stakeholders to do such a thing? Its impossible to fit into the timetable? yeh capacity increases at York station have enabled more trains to run? Traffic management and the roc will further increase this capacity? Afterall companies are really bothered about changing a timetable when it means they get more revenue!!!! Maybe an ideal location for a new station would have been the p&r area that’s just been built? slow line? easy access into york with spare capacity? Please don’t try patronise me about an area i'm very familiar with.
You may have sat in on meetings with Northern, but I think that you may have been taken in by the P.R. side of the company. Just ask East Coast, Cross Country, Grand Central, First Trans-Pennine and the freight companies what they would make of a re-opened station at Cop. As for the DoT and the ORR, etc., they haven't yet made a basket deep enough for where they would bury that correspondence. Network Rail would just laugh. As to patronising, I would never do that, but could you explain how it might have been possible to slot the platforms into the Leeds Lines (not slow lines) at the P&R, never mind access them, and built to modern standards of course? I have also sat in railway meetings where I had to be polite to people who came up with pipedreams of ideas for railway (sometimes known as blue sky) projects. I had to waste time explaining to them why their ideas were 'not very practicable' (that's a euphemism, by the way) or affordable. Oh, and incidentally, the platforms at Cop. would have to be on the ECML, with a new road bridge constructed to give access to the island platform. By the way, I may have missed it, but I'm still waiting for the explanation of 'breaking calcs.' and 'an unavailable situation'.
I can assure you it was not the PR section of northern. But why would I ask the other companies as the specialise in long distance? It wouldn’t benefit them? Ok you make your point about cop platform which i never mentioned? (ps could still build a bridge for less then 23m!)I would have said for that area the new p&r would have been the best location. As for other lines such as the harrogate line etc are these at capacity? Yes it does have an up slow into york. Northern already runs on it. So what would a 2 min stop do to the "timetable". I also think the area of the 23m p&r would be a good area. An extra stop for the northern train past pop wouldn’t do much harm at all. Breaking calcs for a car to stop? i.e speed vs distance? (car) Unavoidable situation as I said previously a girl running from behind a bus? You can not avoid hitting her if its 3m in front of you? Ok i will explain the p&r area as this. Build a station at the location, build a footbridge with access to the other side. This would then allow trains to stop there? Minor signal updates required and as you mention previously the leeds line (i call it the slow line as grand central or east coast use the faster line) is mainly used by freight. So if you can not make a 4min gap in headway there with the new technology (which is being implemented on the ecml btw!) then we have real rail capacity issues (which there isn't). I love the fact that you can write off such ideas straight away? Even if it cost millions it would be worth it for yorks traffic and expansion issues. The fact is it can be done. The trains already run slow on the existing lines. A timetable chance is not the end of the world.
ps as stated previously why would NR the ORR etc be bothered if Northern had a pot of money to fund it? If it made them money in the future and was worth it why not? If it didnt effect the running of trains from other companies why not? Garforth & crossgates seem to generate enough money to justify stopping there?
[quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]archieboldthe2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote]Rail links on the outskirts. Infrastructure is already there. Train companies will even offer funding to open old stations to generate them more revenue. Not really rocket science is it.[/quote] So, we're replacing free (to CYC) bus services with a massive bill to provide train services. Whose houses are you going to knock down to build new stations and railway lines? There is a P&R bus stop just along from where I live. Given your cunning plan will presumably not have a station every 300 meters, can you tell me how I get into town please? #fail[/p][/quote]Excellent and intelligent comments yet again beth. Let me address them. You do not need to knock houses down as there is more then enough railway land on the outskirts, indeed some are even still there and just need re-opening. Is the bus service free? I’m pretty sure CYC just spent 23m of p&r? Not really free is it? New railway lines? No we have one of the countries biggest stations with more then enough lines already? Good for you, you have a p&r near you. Congratulations. Ah so the p&r stops every 300meters? I was under the assumption