U-turn urged on York's residential 20mph zones (From York Press)

The cost and the monitoring of this scheme should make it prohibitive. The Councillors pushing this need to get more feedback before going any further. I think you will find most of York against the idea of the 20 limit and the cost to implement when we need so many other important things for the city, like a Youth Service or Leisure facilities.

Un-believable! Sounds about right tho, reject the idea just before the election day, and then start the process all over again when the elections have finished because they knew this would be unpopular. Very sly move dont you think?

I'm all in favour of 20mph in principal, but it's not clear to me exactly where this will be applied. It needs to be widespread in residential areas so we can avoid excessive speedbumps and complicated sign-posting.

Those who talk about 'cost' need to think of the cost of children getting injured and killed. Even in financial terms this is considerable - even if it comes into the NHS budget, not York City Council's.

Why do any of us need to travel at more than 20mph in built up areas?

This is all about safety. If you have children you should welcome this. Every child in York would be safer if this were to come in.

We are all in too much of a rush these days.

There is no reason why each side road off the main roads can not be turned into a 20mph limit.

Of course it will come down to the funding costs for sign posts and signs.

It also does not help when drivers are totally oblivious of other traffic around them including road signs showing 40MPH.

Yet they still drive around at 25MPH and carry on chatting with their front seat passengers who are showing them photos and other videos on their mobile phones.

It is the drivers and passengers which cause the problem through lack of attention and poor road and junction positioning.

Including the lack of experience of not knowing the width or length of their car.

You would be suprised what other drivers and their front seat passengers get up to when driving along.

Especially when you are in a van following them from behind.

How about enforcing the current 30mph limits?

I am sure everybody will agree that there should be some kind of speed reduction near schools.

This restriction however should only be on when required, ie, during the drop off and pick up times for the school.

These restrictions should be controlled by the school itself by means of signs that illuminated or flipped when required. People would be more tollerant of a 20mph limit if it wasn't in force when it wasn't required.

We are all in too much of a rush these days.

Tell me, do you work for a living?

Why do any of us need to travel at more than 20mph in built up areas?

Because we want to get to our destination, not spend unnecessary time travelling.

This is all about safety. If you have children you should welcome this. Every child in York would be safer if this were to come in.

If you have children, you should teach them not to play in the road; and if they're too young to learn that lesson, you should supervise them whenever they're anywhere near a road.

The safety argument is frequently used by lefties and envirofascists as a pretext for bossing people they disagree with about. It's all relative. If you want to live in perfect safety, I suggest that you refrain from getting out of bed in the morning. Most of us living in the real world accept that life requires taking risks, and that the benefits of taking those risks and managing them outweigh legislating those risks out of existence.

What a surprise. When are we going to be forced to employ someone with a red flag to walk in front of the car. (I'd like Galloway to do the job - it's about the only job he can do properly).

Mr Happy wrote:
Why do any of us need to travel at more than 20mph in built up areas? This is all about safety. If you have children you should welcome this. Every child in York would be safer if this were to come in. We are all in too much of a rush these days.

Agreed, from a non-Leftie/"envirofa
cist!"

:)

johnbibby wrote:
I'm all in favour of 20mph in principal, but it's not clear to me exactly where this will be applied. It needs to be widespread in residential areas so we can avoid excessive speedbumps and complicated sign-posting. Those who talk about 'cost' need to think of the cost of children getting injured and killed. Even in financial terms this is considerable - even if it comes into the NHS budget, not York City Council's.

OMG! How many children play in the road near you? The number should be directly proportionaly to the number of calls to social services that need to be made, LOL!! I grew up in the 80's (granted there weren't quite as many cars) yet I managed to walk over a mile to school from age 7 and that was in a busy Leeds suburb not sleepy York. If children are incapable of crossing a road safely, they should not be out alone. When will parents take responsibility for their own d*mn children instead of expecting the whole world to change for their little darlings?!

There are so many motorists who can't stick to the 30mph let alone a 20mph zone. Why don't the council take a clip-board and a speed gun and do a survey of how fast vehicles are currently travelling in 20mph areas. Then, once they have done their survey think through the options.
Oh, that would mean actually looking at a problem before imposing something and the council don't do that!

fate wrote:
There are so many motorists who can't stick to the 30mph let alone a 20mph zone. Why don't the council take a clip-board and a speed gun and do a survey of how fast vehicles are currently travelling in 20mph areas. Then, once they have done their survey think through the options. Oh, that would mean actually looking at a problem before imposing something and the council don't do that!

Including buses and taxis (when empty) I'm all in favour of this so long as it is only side streets. But as said above, how will it be enforced - will this mean the introduction of speed camaras

Time was when children could play in the road safely, and interact with all the other children in the street, while parents kept a watchful eye on them.
Motor vehicle speeds have destroyed this ambience, and turned living streets into social barriers for their residents.
Time to turn back the clock a little, and compel motor vehicle drivers to behave with consideration.

Guy Fawkes wrote:

We are all in too much of a rush these days.

Tell me, do you work for a living?

Why do any of us need to travel at more than 20mph in built up areas?

Because we want to get to our destination, not spend unnecessary time travelling.

This is all about safety. If you have children you should welcome this. Every child in York would be safer if this were to come in.

If you have children, you should teach them not to play in the road; and if they're too young to learn that lesson, you should supervise them whenever they're anywhere near a road. The safety argument is frequently used by lefties and envirofascists as a pretext for bossing people they disagree with about. It's all relative. If you want to live in perfect safety, I suggest that you refrain from getting out of bed in the morning. Most of us living in the real world accept that life requires taking risks, and that the benefits of taking those risks and managing them outweigh legislating those risks out of existence.

Well said.

Why not go the whole hog and ban all motor vehicles? We can go back to the use of horse and cart. No danger of global warming just plenty of manure for the roses!!!!!

pedalling paul wrote:
Time was when children could play in the road safely, and interact with all the other children in the street, while parents kept a watchful eye on them. Motor vehicle speeds have destroyed this ambience, and turned living streets into social barriers for their residents. Time to turn back the clock a little, and compel motor vehicle drivers to behave with consideration.

Shut up.

name a time or date in history when children could safely play on Tadcaster Road.

Never.

Name a time or date in history when children could play on Gale Lane safely.

Never.

Huntington Road?
Fulford Road?
Bootham?
Gillygate?
Nunnery Lane?
The A64? (matter of time)
The A1237?

never never never.

The roads people are petitioning for are typically roads that run off arterial roads i.e. sleepy cul de sacs. They are proposing a sweeping "30mph is lethal" statement in order to not have to bother proving any point. Any parent stupid enough to allow their children to play on Fulford Road deserve all the trauma of cleaning them up from said road.

Tadcaster Road will be a standstill (permanent) is dropped to a 20mph limit. it will solve the expensive car park problem in York though.

As a child I used to play on the railway lines. I am not dead. As a child I used to play on the road. I am not dead. As an adult I am sick of people who have the opinion that H&S rules the world. Children who are wrapped in cotton wool are MORE likely to take stupid risks (i.e. thinking, I wonder what would happen if I mix this ecstacy tablet with this bottle of vodka with this line of coke), in an attempt to rebel against parents who, frankly, are pathetic.

People die. It happens. regardless of the speed people drive, the amount of vegetables people eat, people will always die. In York no one has died on the road for many many moons. Why fix what isn;t broken?

Incidentally, PedallingPaul, if a 20mph limit is introduced, I assume that cyclists will stick to it - after all, you can cause accidents too.

Some idiots exceed 30 mph on our estate, imposing a 20 mph will make no difference to their speed. Better enforcement of current speed limits, without fixed cameras is what is required. Imposing lower limits will make very little difference.

Anyone willing to break the law or risk seriously injuring innocent pedestrians because "they have to work for a living" has their priorities very wrong.

That excuse doesn't wash with the police and it wouldn't wash with your conscience.

chappers wrote:
How about enforcing the current 30mph limits?

Agreed.

Anyone willing to break the law or risk seriously injuring innocent pedestrians because "they have to work for a living" has their priorities very wrong.

You're twisting the issue. The story isn't about people breaking the existing law, but about a proposal to introduce a new and counterproductive one.

Typical socialist tactic - trying to turn law abiding taxpayers into criminals. Another attempt to twist the debate we've seen above is the argument that the problem of some motorists failing to obey the 30mph limit can be solved by lowering the limit to 20. If these people aren't prepared to obey an existing law, why will they suddenly start obeying a more restrictive one?

And as for 'the risk of seriously injuring innocent pedestrians': the vast majority of pedestrians who are seriously injured by motor vehicles aren't innocent - they've walked in the road when they shouldn't have done. As a more general point, we all take risks whenever we travel, by any method. Society takes a compromise approach, keeping those risks down to a practical minimum, but not to the point at which the risk reduction measures start to have a seriously negative effect on our quality of life.

Guy Fawkes wrote:

We are all in too much of a rush these days.

Tell me, do you work for a living?

Why do any of us need to travel at more than 20mph in built up areas?

Because we want to get to our destination, not spend unnecessary time travelling.

This is all about safety. If you have children you should welcome this. Every child in York would be safer if this were to come in.

If you have children, you should teach them not to play in the road; and if they're too young to learn that lesson, you should supervise them whenever they're anywhere near a road.

The safety argument is frequently used by lefties and envirofascists as a pretext for bossing people they disagree with about. It's all relative. If you want to live in perfect safety, I suggest that you refrain from getting out of bed in the morning. Most of us living in the real world accept that life requires taking risks, and that the benefits of taking those risks and managing them outweigh legislating those risks out of existence.

Yes I do work for a living. Full time!

I want to get to my destination too, but not in so much of a rush that I am prepared to endanger life.

I do have children and they were taught not to play in the road. However accidents do happen and children do get easily distracted.

You are correct to say there are risks in all walks of life but surely it is our duty to do all we can to minimise them?

If reducing the speed limit in built up areas of York saved just one life over the next decade I would consider it worthwile. Life is more important than even your work Guy Fawkes

Guy Fawkes wrote:

Anyone willing to break the law or risk seriously injuring innocent pedestrians because "they have to work for a living" has their priorities very wrong.

You're twisting the issue. The story isn't about people breaking the existing law, but about a proposal to introduce a new and counterproductive one. Typical socialist tactic - trying to turn law abiding taxpayers into criminals. Another attempt to twist the debate we've seen above is the argument that the problem of some motorists failing to obey the 30mph limit can be solved by lowering the limit to 20. If these people aren't prepared to obey an existing law, why will they suddenly start obeying a more restrictive one? And as for 'the risk of seriously injuring innocent pedestrians': the vast majority of pedestrians who are seriously injured by motor vehicles aren't innocent - they've walked in the road when they shouldn't have done. As a more general point, we all take risks whenever we travel, by any method. Society takes a compromise approach, keeping those risks down to a practical minimum, but not to the point at which the risk reduction measures start to have a seriously negative effect on our quality of life.

Here Here!

It's called natural selection isn't it?

Guy, you generalise far too much. Why do you assume that everyone you disagree with is a socialist or a beardy lefty?

A citywide implementation of 20mph limits is unworkable and impractical. My point was people's priorities are messed up if they think their job is more important than than the well being of the wider community. That attitude is just plain selfish.

Why not set of to work a little earlier, that's what I do to avoid queing. maybe they should enforce the rule's at school's like not parking on Zig-Zag lines or double yellows. One of the reasons for accuidents is because of inconsidarate parents illegaly parking and obstructing pedestrians views! by the way I drive a car and walk and cycle. I must be a socialist/communist GUY Fawkes by alot of your rantings

Roads are for vehicles, play parks are for kids! Simple!

mystic_genius wrote:

pedalling paul wrote: Time was when children could play in the road safely, and interact with all the other children in the street, while parents kept a watchful eye on them. Motor vehicle speeds have destroyed this ambience, and turned living streets into social barriers for their residents. Time to turn back the clock a little, and compel motor vehicle drivers to behave with consideration.

Shut up. name a time or date in history when children could safely play on Tadcaster Road. Never. Name a time or date in history when children could play on Gale Lane safely. Never. Huntington Road? Fulford Road? Bootham? Gillygate? Nunnery Lane? The A64? (matter of time) The A1237? never never never. The roads people are petitioning for are typically roads that run off arterial roads i.e. sleepy cul de sacs. They are proposing a sweeping "30mph is lethal" statement in order to not have to bother proving any point. Any parent stupid enough to allow their children to play on Fulford Road deserve all the trauma of cleaning them up from said road. Tadcaster Road will be a standstill (permanent) is dropped to a 20mph limit. it will solve the expensive car park problem in York though. As a child I used to play on the railway lines. I am not dead. As a child I used to play on the road. I am not dead. As an adult I am sick of people who have the opinion that H&S rules the world. Children who are wrapped in cotton wool are MORE likely to take stupid risks (i.e. thinking, I wonder what would happen if I mix this ecstacy tablet with this bottle of vodka with this line of coke), in an attempt to rebel against parents who, frankly, are pathetic. People die. It happens. regardless of the speed people drive, the amount of vegetables people eat, people will always die. In York no one has died on the road for many many moons. Why fix what isn;t broken? Incidentally, PedallingPaul, if a 20mph limit is introduced, I assume that cyclists will stick to it - after all, you can cause accidents too.

I can probably reach 20 mph downhill. But few hills in the City! Utility or leisure cycling I can manage 14-15 mph.

And I wasn't advocating a 20mph limit on most of the roads that you listed.

Incidentally if you played on railway lines as a kid, you are very lucky to have survived. I spent 40 years in the industry, with part of my time on track. I've seen at first hand the tragic consequences of trespass.

pedalling paul wrote:

mystic_genius wrote:

pedalling paul wrote: Time was when children could play in the road safely, and interact with all the other children in the street, while parents kept a watchful eye on them. Motor vehicle speeds have destroyed this ambience, and turned living streets into social barriers for their residents. Time to turn back the clock a little, and compel motor vehicle drivers to behave with consideration.

Shut up. name a time or date in history when children could safely play on Tadcaster Road. Never. Name a time or date in history when children could play on Gale Lane safely. Never. Huntington Road? Fulford Road? Bootham? Gillygate? Nunnery Lane? The A64? (matter of time) The A1237? never never never. The roads people are petitioning for are typically roads that run off arterial roads i.e. sleepy cul de sacs. They are proposing a sweeping "30mph is lethal" statement in order to not have to bother proving any point. Any parent stupid enough to allow their children to play on Fulford Road deserve all the trauma of cleaning them up from said road. Tadcaster Road will be a standstill (permanent) is dropped to a 20mph limit. it will solve the expensive car park problem in York though. As a child I used to play on the railway lines. I am not dead. As a child I used to play on the road. I am not dead. As an adult I am sick of people who have the opinion that H&S rules the world. Children who are wrapped in cotton wool are MORE likely to take stupid risks (i.e. thinking, I wonder what would happen if I mix this ecstacy tablet with this bottle of vodka with this line of coke), in an attempt to rebel against parents who, frankly, are pathetic. People die. It happens. regardless of the speed people drive, the amount of vegetables people eat, people will always die. In York no one has died on the road for many many moons. Why fix what isn;t broken? Incidentally, PedallingPaul, if a 20mph limit is introduced, I assume that cyclists will stick to it - after all, you can cause accidents too.

I can probably reach 20 mph downhill. But few hills in the City! Utility or leisure cycling I can manage 14-15 mph.

And I wasn't advocating a 20mph limit on most of the roads that you listed.

Incidentally if you played on railway lines as a kid, you are very lucky to have survived. I spent 40 years in the industry, with part of my time on track. I've seen at first hand the tragic consequences of trespass.

When someone starts their post with the words "Shut up" I think they've already lost the argument.

When they talk about playing on railway lines as though it's something to be proud of, I think they've lost their sanity.

I'll be doing business outside York along with other tradespeople, then. The council will step in to provide overpriced household services at inflated prices but at least it'll reduce everyone's council tax unless the councillors expenses go up!

I quite agree, where is the popularity growing? certainly not with the cities drivers, car, taxi or bus!!!cyclists usually IGNORE road rules anyway, jumping red lights & using the pavements unhindered, the police should tackle this first, before children get hit & badly injured by a cyclist (Like I beleive there was one last week somewhere). 20 mph will NOT improve the quality of the air in the city -indeed, do those wanting a blanket 20 realise the smog that would result? What people should be campagning for is a cleaner city, with LESS CO emission, IMPOSSIBLE with a 20mph speed limit. sensible drivers abiding by the 30 limit ARE safe, it is the idiots who ignore this limit that are the problem, AND They will IGNORE any lower limit anyway!
Sure, lets have small residential streets (in estates) at 20, but NOT all roads (ie Fulford Road, Tadcaster Road, Haxby Road, Hull road etc.) as are NEEDED to run smoothly (& do so now) at 20 they will NOT, do thses "do gooders" want Yprk to cease & clog up, the NO ONE will come, Ni money will be brought into the city & the city will DIE! Do these do-gooders want to KILL York? if so, go out & kill someone & get out of the city now and leave it to those who want to live/ work and enjoy it! and those who want to come and do the same (tourists) without them where would we be? a ghost town very quickly!!!

Mr Happy wrote:
Why do any of us need to travel at more than 20mph in built up areas? This is all about safety. If you have children you should welcome this. Every child in York would be safer if this were to come in. We are all in too much of a rush these days.

Mr Happy, you are wrong, anyone can drive safely at 30 (& indeed possibly safer!) Cars are not designed to drive that slowly for long periods (Yards yes, not miles) Too many would breakdown if driven too slowly, causing obstructions - dangers! to others as they will make blind spots (remember telling kids not to cross between parked cars!)Drivers tryig to keep to 20 for lonmg distances will also have to keep more of an eye on speedo & less on the road!

johnbibby wrote:
I'm all in favour of 20mph in principal, but it's not clear to me exactly where this will be applied. It needs to be widespread in residential areas so we can avoid excessive speedbumps and complicated sign-posting. Those who talk about 'cost' need to think of the cost of children getting injured and killed. Even in financial terms this is considerable - even if it comes into the NHS budget, not York City Council's.

Wrong JB, 20 is not safer than 30, drivers will have their eyes off the roads more looking at the speedo, it will though reduse the severity of the injury(s) but MORE childern are likely to be hit & suffer minor injuries. What would you prefer, 10 children hit with reasonable serious injuries or 100 childern with walking wounds? (or worse if an idiot driver ignores the limits (either 20 or 30) & kills 1 child!

mystic_genius wrote:

pedalling paul wrote: Time was when children could play in the road safely, and interact with all the other children in the street, while parents kept a watchful eye on them. Motor vehicle speeds have destroyed this ambience, and turned living streets into social barriers for their residents. Time to turn back the clock a little, and compel motor vehicle drivers to behave with consideration.

Shut up. name a time or date in history when children could safely play on Tadcaster Road. Never. Name a time or date in history when children could play on Gale Lane safely. Never. Huntington Road? Fulford Road? Bootham? Gillygate? Nunnery Lane? The A64? (matter of time) The A1237? never never never. The roads people are petitioning for are typically roads that run off arterial roads i.e. sleepy cul de sacs. They are proposing a sweeping "30mph is lethal" statement in order to not have to bother proving any point. Any parent stupid enough to allow their children to play on Fulford Road deserve all the trauma of cleaning them up from said road. Tadcaster Road will be a standstill (permanent) is dropped to a 20mph limit. it will solve the expensive car park problem in York though. As a child I used to play on the railway lines. I am not dead. As a child I used to play on the road. I am not dead. As an adult I am sick of people who have the opinion that H&S rules the world. Children who are wrapped in cotton wool are MORE likely to take stupid risks (i.e. thinking, I wonder what would happen if I mix this ecstacy tablet with this bottle of vodka with this line of coke), in an attempt to rebel against parents who, frankly, are pathetic. People die. It happens. regardless of the speed people drive, the amount of vegetables people eat, people will always die. In York no one has died on the road for many many moons. Why fix what isn;t broken? Incidentally, PedallingPaul, if a 20mph limit is introduced, I assume that cyclists will stick to it - after all, you can cause accidents too.

Shut up.

Did that feel nice...?

Get a grip man (or woman).

I can foresee somebody starting a campaign to sign up as many motorists as possible to pootle around at 20. I reckon getting the support of just 5 - 10% of drivers would do the trick. However, I wouldn't like to be accompanying Guy following behind in the slow moving cavalcade. The air would be blue!

Guy, you generalise far too much. Why do you assume that everyone you disagree with is a socialist or a beardy lefty?

Experience has shown that it's been a pretty reliable rule of thumb so far (with the possible exception of the beard)...

My point was people's priorities are messed up if they think their job is more important than than the well being of the wider community. That attitude is just plain selfish.

On the contrary, people's jobs are part of the wellbeing of the wider community. Where are people going to find the money to buy the houses in the idyllic cul-de-sacs for their children to play in if they either don't have a job or it doesn't pay enough? The more restrictions you impose on road transport to/from and within a city, the more businesses that can move out of that city will do.

What is genuinely a part of the socialist mindset is that wealth creation and wellbeing are two separate, divorced and in some cases opposed objectives. I gather that the roads in Pyongyang are remarkably free of congestion and the children can safely play in them all day long. Pity most of them don't get to eat properly, though...

Guy, your vision is skewed. The financial security and growth provided by good employment can exist without driving fast. Jobs can exist without cars. I remind you that you claimed that speed bumps create pollution. Not without cars they don't.

If employment and financial well-being require mobility, there's going to be a trade off. Is the benefit from provision of employment in proportion with the detriment caused by its vehicle usage?

Anyway, you are being specious. Investigating the wider sociological implications of employment/transport provision is very different to saying "I have to work for a living, I deserve to drive at a speed of at least 30mph through your neighbourhood". You know as well as I do that the extra 10 isn't really going to bring your company down. Unless you are a racing driver, you shouldn't lose your job for driving slowly. If you are pressured to do so, you are being abused, most likely voluntarily.

I know nothing of this socialist mindset you refer to, but I do know objective common sense.

Stick to your guns, Galloway. Blanket limits are stupid ideas, they don't take into account all matter of differences between roads.

I grew up in a 30mph street and played in the road and I'm still here. A 20 sign would make no difference in cul-de-sacs and terraces, and would be a huge irritation on arterial roads.

And I don't even drive. I just disagree with some of the anti motorist bile spewed out on these boards. Some people need to get to work quickly. In lieu of a semi-decent and affordable public transport system, we should make car (and bike) travel as easy as possible.