20mph limit set for all York streets (From York Press)

And how is this going to be enforceable????

Even a pushbike can go faster than 20!

This whole scheme makes my blood boil!

I will completely ignore the whole thing and continue to drive at or around 30mph unless I see the old bill or a speed camera.

well there wont be many coppers to enforce this, the traffic wardens are also going on strike as they dont want to live in the real world and work all week they only want to work 4 days a week its just going to be a free for all. Unless the greens are going to ban all motor vehicles and give us all a horse and cart like the victorian times.

"routes which have average speeds of more than 24mph will need extra enforcement measures such as road narrowing and traffic islands. ". This us going to be the largest scale of road work ever seen! How is this to be funded?!?! Can't wait to see those irritating chicanes so popular in Heslingtin and Huntington foisted on the rest of the city. Final nail in the coffin of thus joke of a council. Only problem is they will have borrowed. £20m and wrought untold havic before they are consigned to the wilderness

I thought the council was suppose to be saving money?
Yes,it is tragic when someone is knocked down and killed/hurt bit even the police have said about previous schemes that they cannot enforce it.Why should York be different than other cities?
Save MY money and spend it on something more pertinent like schools.

at 18mph i get 11mpg, i know this the dash of the car has little numbers, and i have tried it etc....

at the cars normal running speed i get nearer 30mpg, so that makes this change cost me 3 times as much in fuel, so 3 times as much in pollution, way to go york council.....

so its safer to be hit by a car at 20mph for children..

tell that to anyone who has lost a child where a car was reversing etc or in a car park at only 4-5mph

maybe we should just set all limits to 2mph instead of more road safety teaching and making roads safer by not allowing all obstructions like on street parking reducing visibility and a few railings at know blind spots

Oh yes thats right, without any consultation or as far as i could find no planning permission the council REMOVED SAFETY RAILINGS around many roads in the city that were installed years ago to improve safety....

no doubt painting them costs more than a life is worth, after all if a life is lost the car insurance companys pay not the council.

Trust me YCC, I am waiting for an injury at those junctions I deem you have made ''less safe'' and i'll be running to tell the victims if the railings had still been in place then their accident may not have happened, then they can pass that info to there claim for the blame lawyers...

idiots.

As well as signs, routes which have average speeds of more than 24mph will need extra enforcement measures such as road narrowing and traffic islands.

Won't these measures increase vehicle emissions and reduce air quality? Isn't this the same council that's bringing in extra regulations in an attempt to force taxi drivers to use electric cars to try and improve it?

One rule for them and another for the self employed it would seem?

They are simply justifying their salaries using road safety, businesses who pay though the nose for this council don't want the roads in this town slowing down any more with concrete obstacles and flashing signs, York's buses do it so well as it is, you'd think the drivers were on commision.

This dumb scheme has a lot to do with a certain Green Party fanatic, who is presently masquerading as a Labour Party councilor simply to get her crackbrained scheme passed.
I hope there is sufficient backlash to get this stupid anti-motorist measure thrown out once and for all.

York Press should do a feedom of information enquiry to determine the cost of this.

Total waste of time and money. Un-enforceable. The only thing it will do is make the air quality of York even worse. My mpg at 30 in 4th is twice what it is at 20 in 3rd. Try contacting the safety department of CYC concerning any safety issue and they ignore you. I am not sure what CYC are trying to achieve for York by introducing this hair brained scheme

They're trying to kill off the city and doing a good job of it! What a joke this is!

‘cynic3 says... 10:40am Thu 24 May 12
York Press should do a feedom of information enquiry to determine the cost of this.’

Don’t expect any investigative journalism from the York press all they do is print or polish up PR and press releases.
The standards of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein are unknown to this lot!

Comment on the actual ‘Story’:
As usual any form of common sense has been overridden by the eco loons fantasies, with no thought at all for traffic movement or indeed anybody else’s wishes/ideas or impact.

‘Haxby, Wigginton, Strensall, Upper and Nether Poppleton, Bishopthorpe, Copmanthorpe and Dunnington, Copmanthorpe and Dunnington’ and ‘The policy will enable A, B and minor roads to become 20mph zones’.

Hhhhmmmmm.
Wigginton road, Strensall Road, the A1237, The A1079, the A64 all to become within 20 mph zones?
What are the criteria?
What actually is the benefit? Explain
Where are the boundaries of this scheme?
How will all the extra traffic backed up be managed?
How much mission creep will occur onto other major routes/roads within the York council area?
Will this eventually spread onto every road within the York council boundary?

If the greens want everyone to get onto public transport, which is their obvious aim by making it so difficult to drive anywhere then they had best invest in a better bus service along with an affordable shuttle train service from Haxby/Strensall and Poppleton, with suitable parking provision.
Have other major facilities e.g. River taxis, tram system been considered? There is no room/money for these either!

Do they think that first buses currently obey the existing 20 mph zones? If they do they are deluded!

The setting of 20mph zones is the cheapest and only option they have, that does not mean it is the best option!

The worrying thing is these people are elected, in so called power and can have a serious detrimental effect on your and my life.

The lunatics have finally taken over the asylum and are jangling the keys loudly.

How dumb is this?

Quess that means I won't be travelling into York anytime soon. Thank goodness for out of town shopping centres.

Message to Lib Dems and Conservatives: pledge to remove this nonsense and you've got a vote winner.

I HATE this council. I've said before those who voted them in should be ashamed of themselves!! They're a bunch of hair-brained lunatics. What a waste of money!! What exactly is this supposed to achieve? How many people are run over in York every year? It can't be that many. I'm with Woody Mellor, this whole thing makes my blood boil!!!

Is anyone going to start a petition against it? Not that it would do any good seeing as this council do whatever they like!

Funnily enough I've been thinking lately how York could do with more unnecessary signs and street clutter. Great minds and all that.

On the plus side, it's actually quite fun seeing how fast you can negotiate chicanes etc. Anything over 30mph is a good challenge. Accelerating hard to try and beat oncoming traffic also offers a bit of fun on an otherwise dull journey. So not all doom and gloom.

Like many folk, I'd have a few queries about this...like what defines a residential street. I assume it's 'side streets'. Also like many, I don't particularly enjoy traffic calming... I'd rather most reasonable people bought into the idea and went along with hit.

But, at the end of the day, I'd put children's safety above a few minutes on my journney every single time. I also think it will make side streets more pleasent generally and reduce traffic noise in houses and gardens.

The traffic calmed areas already seem like more pleasant places to live (if a bit more of a pain to drive through).

I've seen places in Europe where widespread 20mph (or 30 kph) zones are completely normal - it's seen as the obvious thing to do to protect children's safety and you would be seen as a bit odd not to agree with it.

Most reasonable people will support this and realise it really isn't the end of the world as we know it...in fact most reasonable people are probably sticking to that sort of speed in side streets anyway.

''I've seen places in Europe where widespread 20mph (or 30 kph) zones are completely normal - it's seen as the obvious thing to do to protect children's safety and you would be seen as a bit odd not to agree with it. ''

maybe we just need more intelligent teenagers and not to let little ones out on streets without an adult!

I have often seen 'small ones'' out in summer till like 9pm in little packs of 3/4 no doubt at leats half a mile from where they live and not a parent in sight, this is the problem, parents coming in home from work putting their feet up in front of one of them mind washing devices and drifting off into simon cowel land while there children roam, often with good road safety methodology....

who was forced at school to learn the green cross code, you never forget it!

If these eco loons had to live on the outskirts of York for a few months they'd soon change their tune. Try getting from one edge of York to the other and back without a car - eg. Fulford to Clifton Moor. The bus fares are crippling and you spend half your day travelling.

It'll be fine when cars are electric and driven by computers. Which they will be, you maaark moi words..

Anyway despite, despite the screams of those worried about being deprived of their toys, I've no doubt there is more support for lower speeds than it might appear from the above comments!

Wonderful!
Who will enforce this change?

This is nonsense. Spend the money on fixing the road surface instead.

STUPID IDEA ! may as well walk !

york_chap wrote:
If these eco loons had to live on the outskirts of York for a few months they'd soon change their tune. Try getting from one edge of York to the other and back without a car - eg. Fulford to Clifton Moor. The bus fares are crippling and you spend half your day travelling.

What's blocking you then if the 20mph zones have hardley even started? I suspect you'll find it's lots of other people in cars.

Whatever the 20-zones do I can't see them having any significant effect on across-York journey times. The buses are held up by traffic, not speed limits... it's why journey times are faster in the evening...less traffic but speed limits the same.

It won't be too long before they bring back the law where a person with a red flag has to walk in front your car while you're driving.

So the loony left /green control freaks as exemplified by the likes of Merrett and Semlyen have got their way ; that at least explains why the council is closing schools ,tips and social services in order to pay for this , the latest nail in York's coffin. And when the pollution rises due to the snail like progress of traffic it'll only add more grist to the mill of the planet saviours to impose a congestion charge.Councillors are public servants but this lot seem to have entered politics only to further their own motorist hating agenda. I don't believe they give a monkey's about anyones safety it's all about getting the citizens of York to bow to their will.

Torycouncil2015 wrote:
"routes which have average speeds of more than 24mph will need extra enforcement measures such as road narrowing and traffic islands. ". This us going to be the largest scale of road work ever seen! How is this to be funded?!?! Can't wait to see those irritating chicanes so popular in Heslingtin and Huntington foisted on the rest of the city. Final nail in the coffin of thus joke of a council. Only problem is they will have borrowed. £20m and wrought untold havic before they are consigned to the wilderness

I totally agree with your comments....complete madness !

erm havent the council just spent aload of money in widening the roads for those lovely ftr buses and now they are going to do this! They would be better spending the money on resurfacing the roads so when cars brake they have some surface to grip to and not the rubble that is caused by the constant patching of holes! If you want a example of this take a wander down 4th ave near the entrance to tanghall primary school and see the pot holes and mess that the roads in! And they are worried about kids safety!
It seems this councils idea of consultation is to put the idea in the press and then just say thats whats happening!

I already live in a 20mph street (Danebury Drive) and hardly anyone sticks to that speed!!

Why haven't the opinions of Betty's and Barnitts been quoted in the article?

You know how this will sound the death knell for city centre shopping blah blah.

And take a walk down Rawcliffe Drive out side Canon Lee School the road is a disgrace especially trying to cycle down it!! This is what speed humps and 20mph zones do to roads. Children should be taught the dangers of 'playing on roads' because these are what they are roads not playgrounds, not open fields ROADS!!!

I agree with Lezyork, perhaps children shouldn't be wandering around the streets on their own! Parents should take responsibility rather than forcing everyone to drive slower. There are always children playing in the street I live in and I don't understand it personally. They all have gardens, what's wrong with them? I never played in the street as a child. What is going to be classed as a residential street anyway? Beckfield Lane, Acomb Road, Fulford Road (not that you wouldn't be lucky to get up to 20mph down there!) It would be ridiculous to restrict people on main roads to 20mph but they are residential. Can't we have a vote of no confidence and kick this council out?!

MrsHoney wrote:
I HATE this council. I've said before those who voted them in should be ashamed of themselves!! They're a bunch of hair-brained lunatics. What a waste of money!! What exactly is this supposed to achieve? How many people are run over in York every year? It can't be that many. I'm with Woody Mellor, this whole thing makes my blood boil!!!

Is anyone going to start a petition against it? Not that it would do any good seeing as this council do whatever they like!

well put

JC42 wrote:
well there wont be many coppers to enforce this, the traffic wardens are also going on strike as they dont want to live in the real world and work all week they only want to work 4 days a week its just going to be a free for all. Unless the greens are going to ban all motor vehicles and give us all a horse and cart like the victorian times.

Think of the polution that would cause..........horse jobbies all over the roads and loads of them tethered on the roadside.

This is the true death knell for the city centre, where are the Mulberry Hall lot now?

yorkshirelad wrote:
Like many folk, I'd have a few queries about this...like what defines a residential street. I assume it's 'side streets'. Also like many, I don't particularly enjoy traffic calming... I'd rather most reasonable people bought into the idea and went along with hit.

But, at the end of the day, I'd put children's safety above a few minutes on my journney every single time. I also think it will make side streets more pleasent generally and reduce traffic noise in houses and gardens.

The traffic calmed areas already seem like more pleasant places to live (if a bit more of a pain to drive through).

I've seen places in Europe where widespread 20mph (or 30 kph) zones are completely normal - it's seen as the obvious thing to do to protect children's safety and you would be seen as a bit odd not to agree with it.

Most reasonable people will support this and realise it really isn't the end of the world as we know it...in fact most reasonable people are probably sticking to that sort of speed in side streets anyway.

Are you the children's road safety spokesperson?

Does anyone on here experience the same as yorkshirelad, whereby you're subjected to a journey filled with endless children popping out from behind bushes and sprinting across the road unseen from walled gardens in a sort of 'whack-a-mole' style game, causing endless near-misses?

Personally I don't come across many children swarming around residential streets in a perpetual state of almost being hit by vehicles. Sure there are the odd few kids here and there, but I just adjust my speed a bit in case they do something random.

There's no need to really start costing everyone a fortune and putting more hazards in the road by installing 'calming' measures; incidentally this may cause your attention to be spirited away from the task of watching out for all these children as you have to now focus on the wonderful new additions to the street jutting out every few yards....

What these kids need is a group of people that can be responsible for their safety, well being and education. I think we should start one. I've even got a name....we'll call them PARENTS...

BOOM - problem solved!!

On a less sarcastic note, whatever your thoughts on the scheme, it's all but pointless from a return on investment point of view. There may be some arbitrary difference in the death toll figures, but it'll more than likely be rather specious and when you weigh up the sheer cost of implementing the magic child-saving solution to all of the roads problems, it seems a bit daft.....

A petition is a great idea! Does anyone have the know how about setting one up? I'll be first to sign.

The word Hysteria springs to mind.

I would be hard pressed to get to 10 mph in rush hour!! also places like south bank wher they double park you would be hard pressed to get to 30 mph. All that it needs is as is 20 mph at schools & health facilities as Kids lives are far more important than 10 mph diffference. Remove all traffic lights too, its been proven than less accidents happen and traffic flow is better with out traffic lights.

Barfield24 wrote:
This is the true death knell for the city centre, where are the Mulberry Hall lot now?

Not sure what to say about this...

On the one hand most law abiding citizens to due care and attention when driving through residential streets.

During peak traffic times you'd dream of 'hurtling' along at 20mph on some roads into town.

The extra signs will be ignored - waste of money.

Most traffic calming doesn't work - especially chicanes.

Road narrowing does (see Scarcroft Road!), but at what cost?

Speed bumps kill more cars than anything. I've had countelss exhaust, suspension, electrical problems due to the inconsistent and poorly designed ramps. But they're not removing them.

I live on a 20mph stretch of B road, with bumps, narrowing and traffic islands and the speed limit is as ignored as much as it is followed.

The environmental argument is strained, to say the least.

I'm not sure what the cost of these 'measures' is, but I'd rather see more people fined for ignoring the existing limits and using those fines to money to reduce parking charges.

Speed cameras are more of a deterrent than chicanes.

Let the residents decide perhaps. The 20mph areas will be more desirable and house values will go up relative to the areas where speed is higher (think I read somehwre that there is some evidence for this...and no. I can't remebember where!).

Once this strikes home...others will want the zones too.

This is excellent news. We are all pedestrians at some time and there is no excuse for speeding...incredibl
y selfish.
I await a bus on Bish road (intheory a 40) and virtually everyone is doing 50+...with tricky blind junctions...how do I know? I have been driving for 40+ years...you can tell by tyre noise and just the overall woosh (not technical I know)...time it all stopped. Make people aware of it at test time.

caliwag wrote:
This is excellent news. We are all pedestrians at some time and there is no excuse for speeding...incredibl

y selfish.
I await a bus on Bish road (intheory a 40) and virtually everyone is doing 50+...with tricky blind junctions...how do I know? I have been driving for 40+ years...you can tell by tyre noise and just the overall woosh (not technical I know)...time it all stopped. Make people aware of it at test time.

Well I for one am certainly glad that that police use a better method than "tyre noise and just the overall woosh" method to detect speeders.

caliwag wrote:
This is excellent news. We are all pedestrians at some time and there is no excuse for speeding...incredibl

y selfish.
I await a bus on Bish road (intheory a 40) and virtually everyone is doing 50+...with tricky blind junctions...how do I know? I have been driving for 40+ years...you can tell by tyre noise and just the overall woosh (not technical I know)...time it all stopped. Make people aware of it at test time.

I live on Bishy Road and you are talking utter twaddle!

Casualties reduce by 22% in 20mph limit areas. Warrington found an 800% rate of return on investment in its pilots. Health inequalities decrease. Journey times are not significantly changed. Cars pack closer smoithing traffic flow. Fuel use and emmissions were 12% less when this was introduced in Germany. Cycling and walking levels increased by up to 12% in Bristol. House values increase by up to 11%.
73% of British people support 20 mph limits with only 11% against.
Over 8 million peoples authorities have agreed this policy. It has Dept for Transport and European Parliament support. Plus NHS, NICE and many more. See www.20splentyforus.o
rg.uk for the references.

3.8liter wrote:
This dumb scheme has a lot to do with a certain Green Party fanatic, who is presently masquerading as a Labour Party councilor simply to get her crackbrained scheme passed. I hope there is sufficient backlash to get this stupid anti-motorist measure thrown out once and for all.

Yes!

Anna Semlyen wrote:
Casualties reduce by 22% in 20mph limit areas. Warrington found an 800% rate of return on investment in its pilots. Health inequalities decrease. Journey times are not significantly changed. Cars pack closer smoithing traffic flow. Fuel use and emmissions were 12% less when this was introduced in Germany. Cycling and walking levels increased by up to 12% in Bristol. House values increase by up to 11%.
73% of British people support 20 mph limits with only 11% against.
Over 8 million peoples authorities have agreed this policy. It has Dept for Transport and European Parliament support. Plus NHS, NICE and many more. See www.20splentyforus.o

rg.uk for the references.

Fancy setting up your yoga classes in Warrington Anna?

Anna Semlyen wrote:
Casualties reduce by 22% in 20mph limit areas. Warrington found an 800% rate of return on investment in its pilots. Health inequalities decrease. Journey times are not significantly changed. Cars pack closer smoithing traffic flow. Fuel use and emmissions were 12% less when this was introduced in Germany. Cycling and walking levels increased by up to 12% in Bristol. House values increase by up to 11%.
73% of British people support 20 mph limits with only 11% against.
Over 8 million peoples authorities have agreed this policy. It has Dept for Transport and European Parliament support. Plus NHS, NICE and many more. See www.20splentyforus.o

rg.uk for the references.

Cycle helmets reduce the risk of head injury by 85% and of brain injury by 88% Do you wear one ? It would reduce your health inequality. If you're so concerned about casualties why don't you campaign for compulsory wearing of cycle helmets? Do you get paid to promote this or do you do it for free?

This will kill the City centre and add to pollution. Road narrrowing measures and sleeping policemen are very unwelcome. No one will bother to drive in and visitors and shoppers from surrounding areas will stick to the out of town shopping centres - can you blame them!!!. Is this really such a good idea?

It's obviously not very popular judging by the comments. So why are they suggesting it? Because of a handful of Green idiots who don't need to drive? Me thinks so.

Anna Semlyen wrote:
Casualties reduce by 22% in 20mph limit areas. Warrington found an 800% rate of return on investment in its pilots. Health inequalities decrease. Journey times are not significantly changed. Cars pack closer smoithing traffic flow. Fuel use and emmissions were 12% less when this was introduced in Germany. Cycling and walking levels increased by up to 12% in Bristol. House values increase by up to 11%.
73% of British people support 20 mph limits with only 11% against.
Over 8 million peoples authorities have agreed this policy. It has Dept for Transport and European Parliament support. Plus NHS, NICE and many more. See www.20splentyforus.o

rg.uk for the references.

You will find out the true figures when you loose your seat at the next election!

A clumsy and heavy-handed idea. 20mph zones work by drawing your attention to specific areas where it's critical to slow down - largely around schools etc. This has a good success rate, I'm sure. However, making *every* residential road 20mph will stop people making the difference. Very short-sighted indeed.

Anna Semlyen wrote:
Casualties reduce by 22% in 20mph limit areas. Warrington found an 800% rate of return on investment in its pilots. Health inequalities decrease. Journey times are not significantly changed. Cars pack closer smoithing traffic flow. Fuel use and emmissions were 12% less when this was introduced in Germany. Cycling and walking levels increased by up to 12% in Bristol. House values increase by up to 11%.
73% of British people support 20 mph limits with only 11% against.
Over 8 million peoples authorities have agreed this policy. It has Dept for Transport and European Parliament support. Plus NHS, NICE and many more. See www.20splentyforus.o

rg.uk for the references.

Does York have a high road casualty rate due to vehicles travelling at 30mph? In fact, when does a vehicle in York manage to travel at 30mph? Usually late at night when all the kiddies are safely tucked up in bed instead of playing on the roads.

stephen123 wrote:
This will kill the City centre and add to pollution. Road narrrowing measures and sleeping policemen are very unwelcome. No one will bother to drive in and visitors and shoppers from surrounding areas will stick to the out of town shopping centres - can you blame them!!!. Is this really such a good idea?

If I had a pound for every time I've read 'kill the city centre' over they years, I'd have enough pounds to buy Mulberry Hall and turn it into a YCFC merchandising outlet.
Wish people wouldn't use this ridiculous phrase without thought.

Just to help everyone out here, children being killed on the roads here is a quick tip, look left then look right. if it is safe cross whilst looking both ways. I was taught this at a reasonable age and I've not been hit by a car yet. Mainly because I learnt a car will hurt me if it hits me so I will not let a car hit me. It's incredibly simple. Now lets spread this message and we don't have to pay a fortune ruining driving. Can I have the money the council were going to spend on signage and people's time?

There has been a lot of tripe talked on here by a lot of people.On a serious note, if it's possible, where was the consultation? How will it be policed? What are the views of the emergency services? What are the views of the various bus companies and how will it effect their scedules? How much will it all cost? Has your local Councillor asked for your views? Will it really make any difference? Will there be any consultation on proposed chicanes etc. in the affected residential areas or are we just expected to bow to the whims of this dictatorial crackpot council?

Oh great words 'O' wise one.

As for the rest of you (us), stop talking tripe!

Woody Mellor wrote:

caliwag wrote:
This is excellent news. We are all pedestrians at some time and there is no excuse for speeding...incredibl


y selfish.
I await a bus on Bish road (intheory a 40) and virtually everyone is doing 50+...with tricky blind junctions...how do I know? I have been driving for 40+ years...you can tell by tyre noise and just the overall woosh (not technical I know)...time it all stopped. Make people aware of it at test time.

I live on Bishy Road and you are talking utter twaddle!

No he's not, I drive down this stretch at least a couple of times a week and usually end up being aggresively tailgated by someone anxious to get to the queue at the lights a few seconds earlier. This is a bad stretch of road, not suggesting it should be a 20 limit but 30 might be more appropriate, and 20 would definitely be better on the narrow road in and out of bish past the palace.

A few major issues to this in general.

How can new drivers be taught something in the highway code that residential areas with street lighting is 30mph, for then a local governing body to change that.

Also on the page of new drivers they get taught to drive up to the speed limit, this clearly wont be the case.

How will it be enforceable in York, will every road have a 20mph sign on it, as when this comes into force, if people travel between 20-30mph and there is no 20mph sign on every road, then the highway code applies. The only way around this would be if the City of York council applied for a amendment to the highway code stating residential areas are 30mph unless in the City of York.

If like some people suggested about dropping the rate of kids being run over, and killed/injured and for cyclists its not the speed limit thats the problem.

The problem is too many drivers drive above the speed limit and are careless drivers.

Also very young kids who play in the streets by themselves need more responsible parents to watch over them whilst out playing and educate them on there actions of running out into the roads.

Cyclists need educating. Now im not a anti cyclist person, but cyclists sometimes travel faster than speed limits on the road, and anyone with no highway code training can be a ROAD USER on cycle. This is highly dangerous and no wonder why some do get knocked down because they dont understand what road safety is as per the highway code.

Solution: Dont bring the speed limit down, the council needs to help educate people in the city for it to become a safer place.

nowthen wrote:

Anna Semlyen wrote:
Casualties reduce by 22% in 20mph limit areas. Warrington found an 800% rate of return on investment in its pilots. Health inequalities decrease. Journey times are not significantly changed. Cars pack closer smoithing traffic flow. Fuel use and emmissions were 12% less when this was introduced in Germany. Cycling and walking levels increased by up to 12% in Bristol. House values increase by up to 11%.
73% of British people support 20 mph limits with only 11% against.
Over 8 million peoples authorities have agreed this policy. It has Dept for Transport and European Parliament support. Plus NHS, NICE and many more. See www.20splentyforus.o


rg.uk for the references.

Cycle helmets reduce the risk of head injury by 85% and of brain injury by 88% Do you wear one ? It would reduce your health inequality. If you're so concerned about casualties why don't you campaign for compulsory wearing of cycle helmets? Do you get paid to promote this or do you do it for free?

She gets paid several thousand for it, it's the biggest conflict of interest since the same Anna Semelyn used ward funds to promote the solar panel business she got paid for!!

Anna Semlyen wrote:
Casualties reduce by 22% in 20mph limit areas. Warrington found an 800% rate of return on investment in its pilots. Health inequalities decrease. Journey times are not significantly changed. Cars pack closer smoithing traffic flow. Fuel use and emmissions were 12% less when this was introduced in Germany. Cycling and walking levels increased by up to 12% in Bristol. House values increase by up to 11%. 73% of British people support 20 mph limits with only 11% against. Over 8 million peoples authorities have agreed this policy. It has Dept for Transport and European Parliament support. Plus NHS, NICE and many more. See www.20splentyforus.o rg.uk for the references.

Yes, all that for the short term. Like, maybe, if the sources check out and everything.

So, just as a what if, after a while, once people's initiative and ability to think for themselves has been legislated away, the city sees a rise in strange and inexplicable accidents.
Transport planners are baffled, they were sure that imposing a restriction on one behaviour would cure a whole range of ills...
How they cringe with embarrassment when it dawns on them that they helped people forget how to measure safety/danger for themselves and taught them to expect some else/the law /council /etc to be responsible for their behaviour.

I can think for myself, thanks.

RoseD wrote:

3.8liter wrote: This dumb scheme has a lot to do with a certain Green Party fanatic, who is presently masquerading as a Labour Party councilor simply to get her crackbrained scheme passed. I hope there is sufficient backlash to get this stupid anti-motorist measure thrown out once and for all.

Yes!

Yes again.

Public comment managed to overturn the Clifton Green traffic fiasco, which had been masterminded by the Greens and anti motorist brigade. Compared with that, this is a much more serious issue, which has long term, far reaching, misery issues for most sensible drivers.
The Press need to get a proper consusus published now, of what the people really want and present that to the council before any real damage is done.
Lets nip all this rubbish in the bud now, and keep the traffic moving.
Councilor Semelyn should stick to what she knows best, making money from solar panels, and riding her bike.

yorkshirelad wrote:
Like many folk, I'd have a few queries about this...like what defines a residential street. I assume it's 'side streets'. Also like many, I don't particularly enjoy traffic calming... I'd rather most reasonable people bought into the idea and went along with hit.

But, at the end of the day, I'd put children's safety above a few minutes on my journney every single time. I also think it will make side streets more pleasent generally and reduce traffic noise in houses and gardens.

The traffic calmed areas already seem like more pleasant places to live (if a bit more of a pain to drive through).

I've seen places in Europe where widespread 20mph (or 30 kph) zones are completely normal - it's seen as the obvious thing to do to protect children's safety and you would be seen as a bit odd not to agree with it.

Most reasonable people will support this and realise it really isn't the end of the world as we know it...in fact most reasonable people are probably sticking to that sort of speed in side streets anyway.

Alas traffic noise will increase as a car running at 20 is running at higher revs in a lower gear. Also traffic calming tends to cause "accelerate - brake" driving as people speed up between traffic calming measures. Schemes like this can cause a noticeable increase in noise levels in residential areas.

yorkshirelad wrote:

york_chap wrote:
If these eco loons had to live on the outskirts of York for a few months they'd soon change their tune. Try getting from one edge of York to the other and back without a car - eg. Fulford to Clifton Moor. The bus fares are crippling and you spend half your day travelling.

What's blocking you then if the 20mph zones have hardley even started? I suspect you'll find it's lots of other people in cars.

Whatever the 20-zones do I can't see them having any significant effect on across-York journey times. The buses are held up by traffic, not speed limits... it's why journey times are faster in the evening...less traffic but speed limits the same.

More like the buses hold up the traffic!! Flaming things cause most of the congestion on Fulford Road!

Jazzper wrote:

Anna Semlyen wrote:
Casualties reduce by 22% in 20mph limit areas. Warrington found an 800% rate of return on investment in its pilots. Health inequalities decrease. Journey times are not significantly changed. Cars pack closer smoithing traffic flow. Fuel use and emmissions were 12% less when this was introduced in Germany. Cycling and walking levels increased by up to 12% in Bristol. House values increase by up to 11%.
73% of British people support 20 mph limits with only 11% against.
Over 8 million peoples authorities have agreed this policy. It has Dept for Transport and European Parliament support. Plus NHS, NICE and many more. See www.20splentyforus.o


rg.uk for the references.

You will find out the true figures when you loose your seat at the next election!

Indeed she will hopefully loose her seat at the next election, as people will realise that she is actually a Green Fanatic pretending to be a Labour Councillor.
Trouble is it will then be too late, all this rubbish may well have happened and it will take a hell of a lot of reversing.

Mr Udigawa wrote:

Woody Mellor wrote:

caliwag wrote:
This is excellent news. We are all pedestrians at some time and there is no excuse for speeding...incredibl



y selfish.
I await a bus on Bish road (intheory a 40) and virtually everyone is doing 50+...with tricky blind junctions...how do I know? I have been driving for 40+ years...you can tell by tyre noise and just the overall woosh (not technical I know)...time it all stopped. Make people aware of it at test time.

I live on Bishy Road and you are talking utter twaddle!

No he's not, I drive down this stretch at least a couple of times a week and usually end up being aggresively tailgated by someone anxious to get to the queue at the lights a few seconds earlier. This is a bad stretch of road, not suggesting it should be a 20 limit but 30 might be more appropriate, and 20 would definitely be better on the narrow road in and out of bish past the palace.

Well, I have lived facing Bishy road for the last nine years. And not just drive down it a couple of times a week, but several times a day.
Maybe once, and only maybe once do I ever recall being tail gated by an aggressive driver on Bishy road. And that was during the morning rush hour going around 10mph!

Ps You worry me that you don't even know what the existing speed limit is on Bishy road!

Anna Semlyen wrote:
Casualties reduce by 22% in 20mph limit areas. Warrington found an 800% rate of return on investment in its pilots. Health inequalities decrease. Journey times are not significantly changed. Cars pack closer smoithing traffic flow. Fuel use and emmissions were 12% less when this was introduced in Germany. Cycling and walking levels increased by up to 12% in Bristol. House values increase by up to 11%.
73% of British people support 20 mph limits with only 11% against.
Over 8 million peoples authorities have agreed this policy. It has Dept for Transport and European Parliament support. Plus NHS, NICE and many more. See www.20splentyforus.o

rg.uk for the references.

Please Please Please stops spouting your utter twaddle statistics.

How is a "casualty" defined?

800% return on investment, what investment, how did it produce this return and in what form?

You make it sound like all of Germany drives at 20mph and they don't, how was this reduction in emissions and fuel use measured because vehicle emissions rise at lower speeds and higher revs, do you have any qualifications in air quality measurement, because I do and I think you are a snake oil seller.

How was the increase in house values related to traffic speeds, and against what control was that measured?

If 8 million PEOPLE'S local authority have this policy that means nearly a fifth of all local authorities have blanket 20mph speed limits. They don't so this statistic is complete BS.

If one of your statistics is false, it is likely they all are. And what the hell NICE have to do with traffic management??

bolero wrote:
There has been a lot of tripe talked on here by a lot of people.On a serious note, if it's possible, where was the consultation? How will it be policed? What are the views of the emergency services? What are the views of the various bus companies and how will it effect their scedules? How much will it all cost? Has your local Councillor asked for your views? Will it really make any difference? Will there be any consultation on proposed chicanes etc. in the affected residential areas or are we just expected to bow to the whims of this dictatorial crackpot council?

There was a consultation on the Water End cycle lane - the Council ignored the result. The emergency services expressed their views - the Council ignored them. My local councillor repeatedly ignored my attempts to communicate with her on the subject - because it had already been made clear to her which way she was expected to vote.

Now, here we go again , with people wailing that they'll never visit the city centre again if they're not allowed to drive straight into it at a speed that they can't achieve anyway because of the congestion that they themselves help to cause....and to hell with everyone else. But of course, as ever, it's all somebody else's fault. "Buses...cause most of the congestion on Fulford Road." No, they don't. Stand there and take a look some time.

The only 'issue' should be whether it is enforceable; I do have reservations there I admit. And speed bumps are certainly not the answer.
But to those who say kids should be taught to look left and right....what a load of nonsense. Accidents happen, attention wanders, who (even as an adult) hasn't had a near miss either as driver, pedestrian or cyclist? Any of us?
Accept that and you have to accept that an accident at lower speed will result in less injury and less chance of mortality. Its as simple as that.
I think we also have to accept that the car is there to serve us, not the other way round. I love driving, we have two vehicles, but I'm not blind to the fact that city-centres are now designed round the motor car, that it pollutes, leads to us exercising less and costs a fortune to run! Maybe its time that within our cities at least, the car takes more of a back seat. And in any case folks, this stance is coming, so you may as well accept it.

I think the main issue is having our freedom to make the right decisions for ourselves legislated away.
It may be well intentioned but I believe this will do more harm than good in the long run.

Positive social change can be achieved in many ways not just through imposition of law.
Surely it would be better to help people come to realise what is appropriate behaviour for themselves?

Even AndyD wrote:
The only 'issue' should be whether it is enforceable; I do have reservations there I admit. And speed bumps are certainly not the answer.
But to those who say kids should be taught to look left and right....what a load of nonsense. Accidents happen, attention wanders, who (even as an adult) hasn't had a near miss either as driver, pedestrian or cyclist? Any of us?
Accept that and you have to accept that an accident at lower speed will result in less injury and less chance of mortality. Its as simple as that.
I think we also have to accept that the car is there to serve us, not the other way round. I love driving, we have two vehicles, but I'm not blind to the fact that city-centres are now designed round the motor car, that it pollutes, leads to us exercising less and costs a fortune to run! Maybe its time that within our cities at least, the car takes more of a back seat. And in any case folks, this stance is coming, so you may as well accept it.

Andy, I can see that your intentions are good. But why should the many, suffer for the few? After all, I don't believe that York has a high casualty rate on our roads.

Even AndyD wrote:
The only 'issue' should be whether it is enforceable; I do have reservations there I admit. And speed bumps are certainly not the answer.
But to those who say kids should be taught to look left and right....what a load of nonsense. Accidents happen, attention wanders, who (even as an adult) hasn't had a near miss either as driver, pedestrian or cyclist? Any of us?
Accept that and you have to accept that an accident at lower speed will result in less injury and less chance of mortality. Its as simple as that.
I think we also have to accept that the car is there to serve us, not the other way round. I love driving, we have two vehicles, but I'm not blind to the fact that city-centres are now designed round the motor car, that it pollutes, leads to us exercising less and costs a fortune to run! Maybe its time that within our cities at least, the car takes more of a back seat. And in any case folks, this stance is coming, so you may as well accept it.

You say : But to those who say kids should be taught to look left and right....what a load of nonsense..... What an absolutely irresponsible thing to say ! You obviously come from the camp that abdicates responsibility for its own safety and expects the "state" to keep them wrapped up in cotton wool. You also say that " this stance is coming" as though it's a done deal , how do you know ? as you seem to be the chief council apologist on these forums I'm beginning to suspect something else.

Ignoring people, ignoring experts, ignoring logic - that doesn't sound like OUR council at all does it?

Driving through speculative ideas using political means at planning?

Where was the green masquerading as a Labour councillor (Merrett) last Thursday when the environMENTAL, traffic congestion and sustainability argument was being ignored? Hiding from the truth - hiding from having to vote to approve something his life's work is against because El Jamo called for a whip.

The truth - Labour are nannyists.

They think their ideaology allows their intellect to own the decision making process.

They are anti-nature.

Don't vote for them next time.

York was so much better when a coalition ruled.

Power corrupts.

I'm back.

Even AndyD wrote:
The only 'issue' should be whether it is enforceable; I do have reservations there I admit. And speed bumps are certainly not the answer. But to those who say kids should be taught to look left and right....what a load of nonsense. Accidents happen, attention wanders, who (even as an adult) hasn't had a near miss either as driver, pedestrian or cyclist? Any of us? Accept that and you have to accept that an accident at lower speed will result in less injury and less chance of mortality. Its as simple as that. I think we also have to accept that the car is there to serve us, not the other way round. I love driving, we have two vehicles, but I'm not blind to the fact that city-centres are now designed round the motor car, that it pollutes, leads to us exercising less and costs a fortune to run! Maybe its time that within our cities at least, the car takes more of a back seat. And in any case folks, this stance is coming, so you may as well accept it.

"Accidents happen, attention wanders, who (even as an adult) hasn't had a near miss either as driver, pedestrian or cyclist? Any of us?" Erm, me! I've never had a near miss with a responsible driver because I was actually paying attention. How can you say attention wanders?! You shouldn't be on the road if your attention is wandering and you certainly shouldn't expect everyone in York to have to change their driving simply because you've got a short attention span! That's ridiculous. The only time that someone sensible might have a near miss is if a lunatic comes speeding along over the limit and these idiots are not going to suddenly start obeying the law are they? How much is this all going to cost?! They close the recycling tip despite the amount of people who were against it closing, saying it was too expensive to run, but they have the money for his nonsence?!! How have such a bunch of brainless idiots managed to come together and get elected as our council? Have they done anything good yet?

Woody Mellor wrote:

Mr Udigawa wrote:

Woody Mellor wrote:

caliwag wrote: This is excellent news. We are all pedestrians at some time and there is no excuse for speeding...incredibl y selfish. I await a bus on Bish road (intheory a 40) and virtually everyone is doing 50+...with tricky blind junctions...how do I know? I have been driving for 40+ years...you can tell by tyre noise and just the overall woosh (not technical I know)...time it all stopped. Make people aware of it at test time.

I live on Bishy Road and you are talking utter twaddle!

No he's not, I drive down this stretch at least a couple of times a week and usually end up being aggresively tailgated by someone anxious to get to the queue at the lights a few seconds earlier. This is a bad stretch of road, not suggesting it should be a 20 limit but 30 might be more appropriate, and 20 would definitely be better on the narrow road in and out of bish past the palace.

Well, I have lived facing Bishy road for the last nine years. And not just drive down it a couple of times a week, but several times a day. Maybe once, and only maybe once do I ever recall being tail gated by an aggressive driver on Bishy road. And that was during the morning rush hour going around 10mph! Ps You worry me that you don't even know what the existing speed limit is on Bishy road!

Sorry Woody, I should have made it clear that i meant the stretch between Terrys & Bish, and yes, there is generally an example of tailgating, speeding, or aggressive overtaking on a daily basis.

Even AndyD wrote:
The only 'issue' should be whether it is enforceable; I do have reservations there I admit. And speed bumps are certainly not the answer. But to those who say kids should be taught to look left and right....what a load of nonsense. Accidents happen, attention wanders, who (even as an adult) hasn't had a near miss either as driver, pedestrian or cyclist? Any of us? Accept that and you have to accept that an accident at lower speed will result in less injury and less chance of mortality. Its as simple as that. I think we also have to accept that the car is there to serve us, not the other way round. I love driving, we have two vehicles, but I'm not blind to the fact that city-centres are now designed round the motor car, that it pollutes, leads to us exercising less and costs a fortune to run! Maybe its time that within our cities at least, the car takes more of a back seat. And in any case folks, this stance is coming, so you may as well accept it.

The voice of common sense as usual, I too enjoy driving, I'm just not that desperate to get to the back of the next queue as quickly as possible.

Mr Udigawa wrote:

Woody Mellor wrote:

Mr Udigawa wrote:

Woody Mellor wrote:

caliwag wrote: This is excellent news. We are all pedestrians at some time and there is no excuse for speeding...incredibl y selfish. I await a bus on Bish road (intheory a 40) and virtually everyone is doing 50+...with tricky blind junctions...how do I know? I have been driving for 40+ years...you can tell by tyre noise and just the overall woosh (not technical I know)...time it all stopped. Make people aware of it at test time.

I live on Bishy Road and you are talking utter twaddle!

No he's not, I drive down this stretch at least a couple of times a week and usually end up being aggresively tailgated by someone anxious to get to the queue at the lights a few seconds earlier. This is a bad stretch of road, not suggesting it should be a 20 limit but 30 might be more appropriate, and 20 would definitely be better on the narrow road in and out of bish past the palace.

Well, I have lived facing Bishy road for the last nine years. And not just drive down it a couple of times a week, but several times a day. Maybe once, and only maybe once do I ever recall being tail gated by an aggressive driver on Bishy road. And that was during the morning rush hour going around 10mph! Ps You worry me that you don't even know what the existing speed limit is on Bishy road!

Sorry Woody, I should have made it clear that i meant the stretch between Terrys & Bish, and yes, there is generally an example of tailgating, speeding, or aggressive overtaking on a daily basis.

Ah I see. You had me worried there for a minute.

yorkshirelad wrote:
Let the residents decide perhaps. The 20mph areas will be more desirable and house values will go up relative to the areas where speed is higher (think I read somehwre that there is some evidence for this...and no. I can't remebember where!).

Once this strikes home...others will want the zones too.

hahahahahahaha....se
riously? are we honestly going to start suggesting that someone's factors for buying a house include the speed limit outside?

Sorry, I just can't believe that.....

caliwag wrote:
This is excellent news. We are all pedestrians at some time and there is no excuse for speeding...incredibl

y selfish.
I await a bus on Bish road (intheory a 40) and virtually everyone is doing 50+...with tricky blind junctions...how do I know? I have been driving for 40+ years...you can tell by tyre noise and just the overall woosh (not technical I know)...time it all stopped. Make people aware of it at test time.

I'm not condoning speeding, but how is speeding selfish?!?

You're quite right, we are all of us pedestrians at some point and when I'm being a pedestrian I tend to stick to that area off to the side of roads, often referred to as a 'pavement'; I'm not sure where you do your pedestrian-ing, but it might be worth having a rethink.

As for your ability to calculate speed based on such compelling and conclusive factors, well it's not the best superpower in the world, but even superman had to start somewhere....

...unless I've walked into an episode of Heroes....

...perhaps all folks who are foamin' at the mouth behind the wheel should study the evidence a drop of 10mph in speed from 30mph to 20mph increases the chances of stopping serious injury/saving life of any pedestrian , cyclist , car driver, many times over...so chill and enjoy the view as York is a lovely place

Does anyone know which roads are to be classed as residential or is it all roads within the boundaries of York city? To be honest if it is just roads that most of us would class residential (ie not main thoroughfares) then it's not so bad as 1. how much of your journey would be taken up driving down them and 2. You'd probably be going at 20 if not slower anyway with all the parked cars around. However if it includes main roads then I stand by my earlier criticism, complete madness.

MrsHoney wrote:
Does anyone know which roads are to be classed as residential or is it all roads within the boundaries of York city? To be honest if it is just roads that most of us would class residential (ie not main thoroughfares) then it's not so bad as 1. how much of your journey would be taken up driving down them and 2. You'd probably be going at 20 if not slower anyway with all the parked cars around. However if it includes main roads then I stand by my earlier criticism, complete madness.

ALL roads Mrs Honey.

Woody Mellor wrote:

MrsHoney wrote: Does anyone know which roads are to be classed as residential or is it all roads within the boundaries of York city? To be honest if it is just roads that most of us would class residential (ie not main thoroughfares) then it's not so bad as 1. how much of your journey would be taken up driving down them and 2. You'd probably be going at 20 if not slower anyway with all the parked cars around. However if it includes main roads then I stand by my earlier criticism, complete madness.

ALL roads Mrs Honey.

Well that's just stupid!! How can they justify that?! If a road has a designated crossing point then why is there any need to reduce the speed limit?

Nanny state strikes again! They must think we're all fools who can't drive and if so, no one should be allowed behind the wheel of a car.

MrsHoney wrote:

Woody Mellor wrote:

MrsHoney wrote: Does anyone know which roads are to be classed as residential or is it all roads within the boundaries of York city? To be honest if it is just roads that most of us would class residential (ie not main thoroughfares) then it's not so bad as 1. how much of your journey would be taken up driving down them and 2. You'd probably be going at 20 if not slower anyway with all the parked cars around. However if it includes main roads then I stand by my earlier criticism, complete madness.

ALL roads Mrs Honey.

Well that's just stupid!! How can they justify that?! If a road has a designated crossing point then why is there any need to reduce the speed limit?

Nanny state strikes again! They must think we're all fools who can't drive and if so, no one should be allowed behind the wheel of a car.

Exactly! We must fight this one to the bitter end.

cynic3 wrote:
York Press should do a feedom of information enquiry to determine the cost of this.

No need, 20 is Plenty's campaign manager Anna Semlyen (http://www.20splent
yforus.org.uk/contac
t_us.htm) has published the figures already here:

http://www.20splenty
forus.org.uk/Briefin
gSheets/20mph_Fundin
g.pdf

CoYC has budgeted to spend £250,000 on this, to be funded from "Prudential borrowing".

Of course it doesn't mean every road in York Woody Mellor. Where on earth do you get your information from? I wrote earlier about some of the tripe on this site and here we go again. And as for these people who live on `Bishy` Road, where is `Bishy` Road for goodness sake? I live in a residential street that has a name.

bolero wrote:
Of course it doesn't mean every road in York Woody Mellor. Where on earth do you get your information from? I wrote earlier about some of the tripe on this site and here we go again. And as for these people who live on `Bishy` Road, where is `Bishy` Road for goodness sake? I live in a residential street that has a name.

What a snob!

Pray tell which roads in York will not be affected by this pathetic 20's plenty tripe?

nowthen wrote:

Even AndyD wrote:
The only 'issue' should be whether it is enforceable; I do have reservations there I admit. And speed bumps are certainly not the answer.
But to those who say kids should be taught to look left and right....what a load of nonsense. Accidents happen, attention wanders, who (even as an adult) hasn't had a near miss either as driver, pedestrian or cyclist? Any of us?
Accept that and you have to accept that an accident at lower speed will result in less injury and less chance of mortality. Its as simple as that.
I think we also have to accept that the car is there to serve us, not the other way round. I love driving, we have two vehicles, but I'm not blind to the fact that city-centres are now designed round the motor car, that it pollutes, leads to us exercising less and costs a fortune to run! Maybe its time that within our cities at least, the car takes more of a back seat. And in any case folks, this stance is coming, so you may as well accept it.

You say : But to those who say kids should be taught to look left and right....what a load of nonsense..... What an absolutely irresponsible thing to say ! You obviously come from the camp that abdicates responsibility for its own safety and expects the "state" to keep them wrapped up in cotton wool. You also say that " this stance is coming" as though it's a done deal , how do you know ? as you seem to be the chief council apologist on these forums I'm beginning to suspect something else.

Nope - don't work for the Council- I'm just aware people make mistakes. Why the over-reaction?

MrsHoney wrote:

Even AndyD wrote:
The only 'issue' should be whether it is enforceable; I do have reservations there I admit. And speed bumps are certainly not the answer. But to those who say kids should be taught to look left and right....what a load of nonsense. Accidents happen, attention wanders, who (even as an adult) hasn't had a near miss either as driver, pedestrian or cyclist? Any of us? Accept that and you have to accept that an accident at lower speed will result in less injury and less chance of mortality. Its as simple as that. I think we also have to accept that the car is there to serve us, not the other way round. I love driving, we have two vehicles, but I'm not blind to the fact that city-centres are now designed round the motor car, that it pollutes, leads to us exercising less and costs a fortune to run! Maybe its time that within our cities at least, the car takes more of a back seat. And in any case folks, this stance is coming, so you may as well accept it.

"Accidents happen, attention wanders, who (even as an adult) hasn't had a near miss either as driver, pedestrian or cyclist? Any of us?" Erm, me! I've never had a near miss with a responsible driver because I was actually paying attention. How can you say attention wanders?! You shouldn't be on the road if your attention is wandering and you certainly shouldn't expect everyone in York to have to change their driving simply because you've got a short attention span! That's ridiculous. The only time that someone sensible might have a near miss is if a lunatic comes speeding along over the limit and these idiots are not going to suddenly start obeying the law are they? How much is this all going to cost?! They close the recycling tip despite the amount of people who were against it closing, saying it was too expensive to run, but they have the money for his nonsence?!! How have such a bunch of brainless idiots managed to come together and get elected as our council? Have they done anything good yet?

Totally OTT response. I wasn't just talking about drivers, I was talking about us all. Nearest I've come to an RTA was as a child when on my last day at Primary school I nearly walked under the wheels of a car. It was over 30yrs ago but I remember it well.
Before you go all pompous and start labelling people as lunatics or bad drivers, you may want to just sit back from your keyboard and reflect on what someone has written.

We live in a world which cannot factor out the mistake. Its why millions are killed each day accidentally. I just think that reducing speed is a good way of mitigating that, Mrs Honey. If you don't want to save lives, that is fine. You choice. But don't expect me to agree.

Whoops - sorry, meant to read 'thousands die each year accidentally' - not millions a day. Well, not yet... :-)

The whole idea is unworkable and a waste of scarce resources but Anna Semelyen must be applauded for commenting openly under her real name.

Even AndyD wrote:
We live in a world which cannot factor out the mistake. Its why millions are killed each day accidentally. I just think that reducing speed is a good way of mitigating that, Mrs Honey. If you don't want to save lives, that is fine. You choice. But don't expect me to agree.

Hey Andy. I think we both know that MrsHoney is NOT saying that she doesn't want to save lives. Just that we don't need wrapping in the councils cotton wool world.

We are all sick of being treated like irresponsible children. We have managed in York to live with motor vehicles with a very low casualty rate for many many years now. So why change it now that traffic is moving slower than ever? People like Anna need to get a grip on our progressing city. Not her arty **** bloody irealalistic clap trap! Grrrr....

Please note that Woody Mellor says if you live in a street with a name then you are a snob.He must be out on a limb then.

Please note that Woody Mellor says if you live in a street with a name then you are a snob.He must be out on a limb then.

bolero wrote:
Please note that Woody Mellor says if you live in a street with a name then you are a snob.He must be out on a limb then.

Bishy Road IS a name you snobby git! You will find that local people will give such names for a local place, globally. Get out more.

In fairness, Woody - Mrs H. took me entirely out of context, so it seemed only fair to return the compliment. :-)

I'm not sure its about 'wrapping people in cotton wool' its more about the sort of society you want to live in. I love driving, but I think the tide is turning, rightly, against the domination of cars in our inner cities/suburbs. At the moment, life as a pedestrian and cyclist is lived in the shadow of the car and (without wishing to be melodramatic) to a certain extent cowed by the car. I feel vulnerable on a cycle as I know that a driver doing (say) 40mph who doesn't see me WILL kill me at that speed. I think this as he speeds past barely a foot away. Ditto, I'm wary for my children sometimes - although our situation is different (they are disabled, so don't 'play out').
All I'm saying is if we are going to live side by side with these machines, maybe it would be better if they moved around at a speed which doesn't kill.

Where I do agree with Biologic is policing the thing. That to me is the nub; if it can't be done, then why spend £millions trying to achieve it? Nothing worse than 'seen to be done politics'. But the aim, were it achievable, is worth it IMHO.

Even AndyD wrote:
In fairness, Woody - Mrs H. took me entirely out of context, so it seemed only fair to return the compliment. :-) I'm not sure its about 'wrapping people in cotton wool' its more about the sort of society you want to live in. I love driving, but I think the tide is turning, rightly, against the domination of cars in our inner cities/suburbs. At the moment, life as a pedestrian and cyclist is lived in the shadow of the car and (without wishing to be melodramatic) to a certain extent cowed by the car. I feel vulnerable on a cycle as I know that a driver doing (say) 40mph who doesn't see me WILL kill me at that speed. I think this as he speeds past barely a foot away. Ditto, I'm wary for my children sometimes - although our situation is different (they are disabled, so don't 'play out'). All I'm saying is if we are going to live side by side with these machines, maybe it would be better if they moved around at a speed which doesn't kill. Where I do agree with Biologic is policing the thing. That to me is the nub; if it can't be done, then why spend £millions trying to achieve it? Nothing worse than 'seen to be done politics'. But the aim, were it achievable, is worth it IMHO.

Maybe it can't be policed Andy, but it is likely to help bring a culture shift over time.

Very similar reaction to introducing the city centre pedestrianised areas years ago!

20 in residential streets seems absolutely fine...I'm assuming these are essentially the side streets. Even if not enforced...the reasonable majority will abide by it.

It will make the side streets more civilised, keep most through traffic on the main routes and calm down (at least to an extent) rat runs etc.

Thank goodness we've got some visionaries...just as we had in the past when (shock! horror!) the pedestrianised city centre was proposed.

yorkshirelad wrote:
Very similar reaction to introducing the city centre pedestrianised areas years ago!

20 in residential streets seems absolutely fine...I'm assuming these are essentially the side streets. Even if not enforced...the reasonable majority will abide by it.

It will make the side streets more civilised, keep most through traffic on the main routes and calm down (at least to an extent) rat runs etc.

Thank goodness we've got some visionaries...just as we had in the past when (shock! horror!) the pedestrianised city centre was proposed.

Sadly it means all streets. If it was just side streets I'd support it. But it means all the main roads too. York will grind to a near snails pace and business will suffer. I wonder what taxi drivers think about it as surely it will affect them.

As a driver/cyclist I have no issue with them making streets 20mph if the street is a cul-de-sac like many are, or a horse-shoe shaped street, as speeding along it doesnt get you anywhere faster, but its gonna be stupid if they do this to like major B roads and others.

To be honest if its a shot cul-de-sac it should be 10mph as those are the kind of streets where children do tend to play with toys outside due to low traffic flow.

then again, I can think of a few streets like that where driving down it at 20mph is likely to get your wheel trims stolen or windows bust....

york traffic is ruined by so many plans for so many reasons and none of them working together.

Please YCC start a new 'committee' thats not run by any party, is politically independent with the remit of simply sorting it out and give it the powers to do it, and also everyone on it should be representative of a field of transport with years in that field.

oh hang on that could work, so we know that wont happen...

who mentioned taxi drivers lol....

what it means is jobs taking 50% longer in time, and as its time over distance, the same money, so a 50% reduction in wages...

if the drivers themselves have any balls left as the 'represenatation' of them hasnt, they will be on a go slow round the city center every afternoon for a week to demonstrate whats coming...

i'm sure just after the 2nd day we will have a change of heart by the ferkin ejets that thought of this

If you look at this logically it's not going to make much difference to journey times around York, all that will happen is you'll reach the next queue at a more sedate pace.

not going to make much time around york, what you mean is it wont make much time difference across the city, but once your half a mile outside the walls, and going the opposite to the stalled flow, where yoou can usually get to thirty, now yoou wont be able to, do you want to drive all the way from the theatre royal to haxby at 20mph ?

admittedly 20mph would be an improvement for gillygate, but not for haxby road where its easy to do 30 all the way nearly all day

lezyork1966 wrote:
who mentioned taxi drivers lol....

what it means is jobs taking 50% longer in time, and as its time over distance, the same money, so a 50% reduction in wages...

if the drivers themselves have any balls left as the 'represenatation' of them hasnt, they will be on a go slow round the city center every afternoon for a week to demonstrate whats coming...

i'm sure just after the 2nd day we will have a change of heart by the ferkin ejets that thought of this

Jobs taking longer? Does it? Will the 30mph limit on Tadcaster Road tonight mean that jobs will be carried out at or below 30mph? No...it's race day so no holds barred eh?

(As ever, due apologies to those of our taxi drivers who actuially drive within the limits.. even on race days)

Can I suggest that Woody Mellor goes to the City of York Council website, `Roads and Transport` and then `Road Safety` and read what it says about the 20mph proposal. He might then learn what is actually involved and where and may even finish up as knowledgeable as us `Snobs`.At least I have a postcode, I can't find one for `Bishy Road`.

bolero wrote:
Can I suggest that Woody Mellor goes to the City of York Council website, `Roads and Transport` and then `Road Safety` and read what it says about the 20mph proposal. He might then learn what is actually involved and where and may even finish up as knowledgeable as us `Snobs`.At least I have a postcode, I can't find one for `Bishy Road`.

"Can I suggest blah blah la de bloody da".......what a total **** you are.

yorkshirelad wrote:

lezyork1966 wrote:
who mentioned taxi drivers lol....

what it means is jobs taking 50% longer in time, and as its time over distance, the same money, so a 50% reduction in wages...

if the drivers themselves have any balls left as the 'represenatation' of them hasnt, they will be on a go slow round the city center every afternoon for a week to demonstrate whats coming...

i'm sure just after the 2nd day we will have a change of heart by the ferkin ejets that thought of this

Jobs taking longer? Does it? Will the 30mph limit on Tadcaster Road tonight mean that jobs will be carried out at or below 30mph? No...it's race day so no holds barred eh?

(As ever, due apologies to those of our taxi drivers who actuially drive within the limits.. even on race days)

well lets see, if the job had mostly 30mph roads and then these turnd to 20mph roads, being a thick ex-cabbie I can /only/ guess they would take longer, but cost the same....


hope i'm not right, I mean no one wants to see people working for less by the councils improvements do they....

cynic3 wrote:
York Press should do a feedom of information enquiry to determine the cost of this.

It was suggested that it would cast around £750,000.

What a waste of OUR money !

Not a waste to those of us who are for it. Not a waste to those lives which will probably be saved. Nor a waste to those who will consider the taming of the car in our cities (see my comments above) to be a good thing. That is democracy for you - our Council tax is spent in various ways, not all of them you will agree with/make use of.

Micklegate wrote:

nowthen wrote:

Anna Semlyen wrote: Casualties reduce by 22% in 20mph limit areas. Warrington found an 800% rate of return on investment in its pilots. Health inequalities decrease. Journey times are not significantly changed. Cars pack closer smoithing traffic flow. Fuel use and emmissions were 12% less when this was introduced in Germany. Cycling and walking levels increased by up to 12% in Bristol. House values increase by up to 11%. 73% of British people support 20 mph limits with only 11% against. Over 8 million peoples authorities have agreed this policy. It has Dept for Transport and European Parliament support. Plus NHS, NICE and many more. See www.20splentyforus.o rg.uk for the references.

Cycle helmets reduce the risk of head injury by 85% and of brain injury by 88% Do you wear one ? It would reduce your health inequality. If you're so concerned about casualties why don't you campaign for compulsory wearing of cycle helmets? Do you get paid to promote this or do you do it for free?

She gets paid several thousand for it, it's the biggest conflict of interest since the same Anna Semelyn used ward funds to promote the solar panel business she got paid for!!

From '20Plenty For Us' Press release:-

After having recently received wide recognition for its success in its
campaigns, 20’s Plenty for Us are delighted to announce that Anna
Semlyen has joined the organisation as Campaign Manager.
Anna is well known for her work as a transport professional, and especially for her book
“Cutting your car use”. She has led the 20’s Plenty for York campaign and since 1998 has
been an activist for 20mph urban speed limits.
Anna’s own street has a 20mph limit thanks to her commitment and perseverance in gaining
support by asking the right questions. She knows that often campaigning is not an “easy win”
but that by presenting arguments coherently and building community support for change
then we can make our communities better places to live.
Asked what she will bring to the Campaign Anna said
“Perseverance, knowledge of transport activism and a sense of proportion. Plus insight into what
local campaigners need to help them be effective. As a cyclist I was run over by a car going too
fast when I was 21. This was a defining life moment as I joined road safety campaigns then. I am
excited about the challenge of working for 20s Plenty for Us.”
As well as her Cutting Your Car Use book which has sold over 110,000 copies, Anna has
written many articles on transport, school travel guides and has been an active volunteer in
the York Cycle Campaign, the World Carfree Network and recently as events organiser for
York in Transition.
A graduate of Oxford University and the University of York, and a yoga te

oh i see the woman behind it was ran over, explains why she feels that way, so its emotion not maybe logic leading the way.....

no argument from either side can win this, its gonna happen because its good for publicity and back slapping of the fat cats at the council, at street level (no pun) no one cares.

Even AndyD wrote:
Not a waste to those of us who are for it. Not a waste to those lives which will probably be saved. Nor a waste to those who will consider the taming of the car in our cities (see my comments above) to be a good thing. That is democracy for you - our Council tax is spent in various ways, not all of them you will agree with/make use of.

Accidents happen, and people exceed the speed limits, and I doubt that any lives will be saved.

Democracy ? For York Council, this word has a different definition, and is often the views of the minority imposed on an unwilling majority, by a handful of ideologically-driven
, single issue lunatics, hellbent on imposing their crackpot policies. I didn't vote for this, and like the majority on this tread, object to it.

Even AndyD wrote:
Not a waste to those of us who are for it. Not a waste to those lives which will probably be saved. Nor a waste to those who will consider the taming of the car in our cities (see my comments above) to be a good thing. That is democracy for you - our Council tax is spent in various ways, not all of them you will agree with/make use of.

Lives saved? Come on Andy, Yorks roads aren't exactly renowned as dangerous.

Even AndyD wrote:

nowthen wrote:

Even AndyD wrote: The only 'issue' should be whether it is enforceable; I do have reservations there I admit. And speed bumps are certainly not the answer. But to those who say kids should be taught to look left and right....what a load of nonsense. Accidents happen, attention wanders, who (even as an adult) hasn't had a near miss either as driver, pedestrian or cyclist? Any of us? Accept that and you have to accept that an accident at lower speed will result in less injury and less chance of mortality. Its as simple as that. I think we also have to accept that the car is there to serve us, not the other way round. I love driving, we have two vehicles, but I'm not blind to the fact that city-centres are now designed round the motor car, that it pollutes, leads to us exercising less and costs a fortune to run! Maybe its time that within our cities at least, the car takes more of a back seat. And in any case folks, this stance is coming, so you may as well accept it.

You say : But to those who say kids should be taught to look left and right....what a load of nonsense..... What an absolutely irresponsible thing to say ! You obviously come from the camp that abdicates responsibility for its own safety and expects the "state" to keep them wrapped up in cotton wool. You also say that " this stance is coming" as though it's a done deal , how do you know ? as you seem to be the chief council apologist on these forums I'm beginning to suspect something else.

Nope - don't work for the Council- I'm just aware people make mistakes. Why the over-reaction?

Maybe you should reflect on how you come across on these threads ? You might then realise that people aren't over-reacting in thinking that you are at times over-defensive for other's, like the Council. Just because they made a dodgy planning decision in your team's favour, doesn't mean you have to become their chief apologist for every dodgy decision they make. Is it a public-sector empathy thing going on ?

Even AndyD wrote:
Not a waste to those of us who are for it. Not a waste to those lives which will probably be saved. Nor a waste to those who will consider the taming of the car in our cities (see my comments above) to be a good thing. That is democracy for you - our Council tax is spent in various ways, not all of them you will agree with/make use of.

Like the stadium, you mean ?

So Woody can't read eh! Ignorance is bliss old boy.

Buzz Light-year wrote:

RoseD wrote:

3.8liter wrote: This dumb scheme has a lot to do with a certain Green Party fanatic, who is presently masquerading as a Labour Party councilor simply to get her crackbrained scheme passed. I hope there is sufficient backlash to get this stupid anti-motorist measure thrown out once and for all.

Yes!

Yes again.

Yes, yes, and thrice YES !!!

For once, I agree with ,Buzz. ;-)

This can't be a real story, Pedalling Paul hasn't commented.

I'm not a slow driver, a blanket limit won't slow me down and fancy flashy signs are only there to inform you how fast you are going, surely?

throwing insults around is a bit pointless, the idea of the 'rule' is stupid - tantamount to an immature office bet. Probably was just that with our council.

Keep the roads as they are, they've worked perfectly fine in concept for decades. just fix the **** things and use the money to actually educate kids in schools not to cross infront of big metal boxes; they hurt!! cotton wool state is getting very old, really fast.

Mr Crabtree wrote:

Even AndyD wrote:

nowthen wrote:

Even AndyD wrote: The only 'issue' should be whether it is enforceable; I do have reservations there I admit. And speed bumps are certainly not the answer. But to those who say kids should be taught to look left and right....what a load of nonsense. Accidents happen, attention wanders, who (even as an adult) hasn't had a near miss either as driver, pedestrian or cyclist? Any of us? Accept that and you have to accept that an accident at lower speed will result in less injury and less chance of mortality. Its as simple as that. I think we also have to accept that the car is there to serve us, not the other way round. I love driving, we have two vehicles, but I'm not blind to the fact that city-centres are now designed round the motor car, that it pollutes, leads to us exercising less and costs a fortune to run! Maybe its time that within our cities at least, the car takes more of a back seat. And in any case folks, this stance is coming, so you may as well accept it.

You say : But to those who say kids should be taught to look left and right....what a load of nonsense..... What an absolutely irresponsible thing to say ! You obviously come from the camp that abdicates responsibility for its own safety and expects the "state" to keep them wrapped up in cotton wool. You also say that " this stance is coming" as though it's a done deal , how do you know ? as you seem to be the chief council apologist on these forums I'm beginning to suspect something else.

Nope - don't work for the Council- I'm just aware people make mistakes. Why the over-reaction?

Maybe you should reflect on how you come across on these threads ? You might then realise that people aren't over-reacting in thinking that you are at times over-defensive for other's, like the Council. Just because they made a dodgy planning decision in your team's favour, doesn't mean you have to become their chief apologist for every dodgy decision they make. Is it a public-sector empathy thing going on ?

If you say so. I think I just try and argue as I see it. But whatever.

I am lost for words -- They have all been used above . Where has common sense gone ??

OK, now I am confused... Last week the council were concerned about poor air quality in York as a result of congestion. A few weeks before that they were concerned about 'street clutter' through the use of excessive signage. The council also self-declares York as a cycle-friendly city (although my own experience states quite the opposite).... Now consider those factors and then add in that now the council will, without any sort of public consultation (not like they'd listen anyway, they aren't doing for Water End) forcibly reduce the speed of motor vehicles to an even less fuel-efficient speed of 20mph (so a normal hatchback will probably be getting around 15mpg instead of 20mpg) and will enforce this by, wait for it, even more signs, speed humps that cause vibrations and excessive noise to houses alongside the road, and things built out into the road that reduce the carriageway width so motorists try to squeeze through ahead of cyclists.

Is this council high on something or just plain stupid??

What worrys me is how much is this stupid idea going to cost to put back two years down the road when the cou

Just plain stupid.

Someone will doubtless explain, but I can never understand why speed cameras are too expensive to run. Surely they are cheaper than playing about with road infrastructure; narrowing, speed-humps etc? And don't the fines cover the running costs?
To me that would be utopia- people driving at 20mph without the awful clutter and suspension damaging bumps.
Doubtless someone can explain - am sure there is a good reason.

I would sincerely recommend that subscribers to these postings; if they have not already done so; take a look at the City of York website -`Streets and Transport` -`Road Safety`-`20 mph proposals`. It is indeed enlightening and frightening as regards cost; £500,000;. Whichever pot this money is coming from,at the end of the day it is taxpayers money which in these times can be ill-afforded and could be spent in better ways; care for the elderly and disabled; are just two examples. Just to examine the implications so far as South Bank and Clementhorpe are concerned are mind boggling. There must be at least one hundred additional signs/road roundels to be erected or painted in this area alone. So there will be an additional cost when some of these signs need to be refurbished. This all goes against the much spouted plans for a less cluttered, cleaner city. Is not this just a Government recommendation which need not necessarily be adopted by individual councils? In fact the website states that some erroneous information had already been published inasmuch that Manchester had adopted this idea when in fact it threw it out. I say that York should also throw it out and this ludicrous and costly idea should be abandoned immediately. Surely the vast majority of us are intelligent enough to drive in a sensible manner with consideration for other road users and pedestrians. This idea will not make one iota of difference to the careless, drunken, drug soaked idiots who hare around our streets regardless of signs or anything else. And particularly when the police have more or less indicated that they will not be policing the situation but expect it to be self policing. Why can't the full implications of this proposal be published for all to see before the whole thing gets completely out of hand. Please have a look at the aforementioned website.

North Yorkshire proudly remains to this day, one of the only counties both without speed cams of any real sort and a very low accident rate, particularly pedestrian.

WHY would people opt for cameras? They're unnatural, not required and wouldn't last very long.... are you's mad??!

Cameras only worry certain people because they are a virtually foolproof way of catching the offenders.

Not at all, they're pure revenue machines. Even been to Leeds? Why are there camera's on motorways? Pedestrians aren't legally allowed to cross there so cams are redundant. I travel at the speed of traffic, whether that's 10mph or 45. I use traffic to gauge my speed more than my speedo so when a cam comes about I may have to break for no reason, it's not a safety device if I'm traveling to conditions of the road and have to brake and get rear-ended!

You're just one of the sheep that believe the oppressive authorities sales pitch and stats at election time.

LOL, infact:
http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-15975720

Leeds (with cams):
From 1999-2010 408 people died on the roads in Leeds local authority - pedestrian box ticked.

York (no cams):
oh wait, no dots on the map.

I drive for a living, I can't afford to be silly on the roads and having cams gives me no disadvantage but introducing them 'for safety' when it's proven they're not needed isn't something il be quiet about, nobody should!!

We pay extortionate rates of fuel, tax, VED.. well, tax on EVERYTHING over and over, why should we line their pockets thru scamera's that clearly aren't needed?

I have learnt not to trust politicians like Coun Merrett, and to question their underlying motives for shaping policy as he and others do.

They hide behind half-truths and spin, and if found out or questioned on their deception, they either lie or remain silent. You can tell when they are lying - you see their lips moving !!!

Semlyen is a rookie politician, but, with a PPE degree from Oxford, she's a clever apprentice deception artist. Don't trust them, is my advice.

Isn't Steve typical of the type for which measures are having to be taken? He drives for a living, most of us live to drive but have to contend with careless, negligent drivers who flought the laws of the road without thought for anyone else. And yes I have experienced the consequences of speeding, albeit 33mph in a 30mph zone, caught by a camera. No ill feelings, I broke the law which is designed for the protection of us all. You're the one who will `rear end` someone with who knows what consequences. If your job requires you to break the law by whatever means it's time you had a change.

Mr Crabtree wrote:

Buzz Light-year wrote:

RoseD wrote:

3.8liter wrote: This dumb scheme has a lot to do with a certain Green Party fanatic, who is presently masquerading as a Labour Party councilor simply to get her crackbrained scheme passed. I hope there is sufficient backlash to get this stupid anti-motorist measure thrown out once and for all.

Yes!

Yes again.

Yes, yes, and thrice YES !!! For once, I agree with ,Buzz. ;-)

:D Rare indeed...

Steve, wrote:
LOL, infact:
http://www.bbc.co.uk

/news/uk-15975720

Leeds (with cams):
From 1999-2010 408 people died on the roads in Leeds local authority - pedestrian box ticked.

York (no cams):
oh wait, no dots on the map.

I drive for a living, I can't afford to be silly on the roads and having cams gives me no disadvantage but introducing them 'for safety' when it's proven they're not needed isn't something il be quiet about, nobody should!!

We pay extortionate rates of fuel, tax, VED.. well, tax on EVERYTHING over and over, why should we line their pockets thru scamera's that clearly aren't needed?

You don't have to pay a penny; don't speed. Simple. Never understand why people complain about cameras - these are doubtless the same people who want shop-lifters to be strung up. Its all the same, don't break the law, you don't have to pay the price! Can't pick and choose which laws you fancy keeping and which you don't.

haha, I've had my licences 6 years - car and full bike and im yet to have a fault accident. Is that luck? I've only driven for a living since the start of this year but I drive socially a lot too, are you stereotyping me as a white van man type of driver without knowing what I actually do? very naive of you, and nothing you say is an actual point "against" my facts, all what I said stands valid but you don't have a solid debate back so you resort to cheap half-dig insults..

comical.
Your time might be better invested doing something productive off the internet rather than fighting a dead debate on the local rag's site. just sayin' :)

oh Andy, did you actually read that back to yourself? My complaint isn't camera's themselves, I'm all for them where there are regular casualties due to speeding motorists, but York has none and Leeds has camera's placed on motorways where people are prohibited! how's that "in the name of safety"?? put camera's outside schools where kids have been knocked over in the last 5 years.. oh wait, there's none here.


Infact, this last 12month CoYC have taken down all the road railings in the city and guess what.. - there's still been no pedestrian Vs vehicle injuries; shocker.

So Steve's had licences for six years. Still a learner eh? I don't know or care what colour vehicle you propel around the roads breaking all the rules of the road but I do know that there are many more and too many like you. You haven't had a fault accident but I wonder how many accidents you've caused during your madcap driving. I don't intend to insult as there is no need, facts speak for themselves.

Steve, wrote:
oh Andy, did you actually read that back to yourself? My complaint isn't camera's themselves, I'm all for them where there are regular casualties due to speeding motorists, but York has none and Leeds has camera's placed on motorways where people are prohibited! how's that "in the name of safety"?? put camera's outside schools where kids have been knocked over in the last 5 years.. oh wait, there's none here.


Infact, this last 12month CoYC have taken down all the road railings in the city and guess what.. - there's still been no pedestrian Vs vehicle injuries; shocker.

You talked of 'lining pockets' and 'scameras' - my point is there is no scam, no enforced payment - there is a choice. IF you don't break the law.

Have I ever been stung by one? Yes. Did I cry to mum or bleat in the Press? Nah - my fault.

Even AndyD wrote:

Steve, wrote:
oh Andy, did you actually read that back to yourself? My complaint isn't camera's themselves, I'm all for them where there are regular casualties due to speeding motorists, but York has none and Leeds has camera's placed on motorways where people are prohibited! how's that "in the name of safety"?? put camera's outside schools where kids have been knocked over in the last 5 years.. oh wait, there's none here.


Infact, this last 12month CoYC have taken down all the road railings in the city and guess what.. - there's still been no pedestrian Vs vehicle injuries; shocker.

You talked of 'lining pockets' and 'scameras' - my point is there is no scam, no enforced payment - there is a choice. IF you don't break the law.

Have I ever been stung by one? Yes. Did I cry to mum or bleat in the Press? Nah - my fault.

Never thought you as a conformist Andy.

Democracy in action ? Green zealot Merrett has a 2 minute meeting on his own which will mean spending £500,000 of council tax payers money to slow down York's traffic circulation , increase pollution and do absolutely nothing to address the problem of accident causing reckless road users ......... City of York Council Committee Minutes
MEETING DECISION SESSION - CABINET MEMBER
FOR TRANSPORT, PLANNING &
SUSTAINABILITY
DATE 21 MAY 2012
PRESENT COUNCILLOR MERRETT (CABINET
MEMBER)
52. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
At this point in the meeting the Cabinet Member was asked to
declare any personal or prejudicial interests that he might have
had in the business on the agenda.
The Cabinet Member declared personal non prejudicial interests
in Agenda Items 4(20 mph Speed Limit Policy Approach) and 5
(Strategic Cycle Route Prioritisation) as an Honorary Member of
the Cyclists’ Touring Club and as a Member of York Cycle
Campaign.
No other interests were declared.
53. MINUTES
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the last meeting held on
12 April 2012 be approved and signed by the
Cabinet Member as a correct record.
54. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION - DECISION SESSION
It was reported that there had been no registrations to speak
under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme.
55. 20MPH SPEED LIMIT POLICY APPROACH.
The Cabinet Member for City Strategy considered a report
which asked him to agree to a policy approach for 20mph speed
limits, a provisional city wide programme of 20mph speed limits
on residential roads, and note the progress made on two pilot
schemes.
RESOLVED: That a policy approach to delivering
20mph speed limits across the city be
agreed.
Reason: To provide a consistent and transparent
approach to implementation.
RESOLVED: That the provisional programme for roll
out and therefore the response to the
petitions in relation to implementation be
agreed.
Reason: So that residents can be made aware of
the order of delivery and enable the
petitions to be considered as part of a
wider area rather than new or extensions
to an existing scheme.
RESOLVED: That larger villages be included in the roll
out but that implementation in the
smaller villages be delayed until further
into the process.
Reason: To enable evidence to determine
whether a signed only limit or another
traffic management approach is most
appropriate in the small villages.
RESOLVED: That the progress on the South Bank
scheme be noted and that the trial in
Murton Village be put on hold until
additional funding can be identified.
Reason: To enable the programme to trial
affordable additional speed reduction
measures that would be replicable
across the city and that also work to
reduce average speeds close to 20mph.
56. STRATEGIC CYCLE ROUTE PRIORITISATION.
The Cabinet Member considered a report which presented him
with a draft revised strategic cycling network and prioritised list
of strategic cycle schemes for consideration and adoption by the
Council.
Officers informed the Cabinet Member of the omission of the
James Street Link Road Phase 2 cycle scheme from the original
Annex B, to their report. This was subsequently attached to the
original agenda, which was republished after the meeting.
RESOLVED: That Option B, to adopt a more up to
date and evidence-based network and
scheme prioritisation method with future
schemes better prioritised against set
criteria, be approved.
REASON: To help achieve an effective future
cycling network, to ensure future
developments take into account and
contribute towards it, and to shape future
Transport Capital Programmes.
57. HOW TO BETTER PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT IN YORK.
The Cabinet Member received a report which asked him to
agree to specific actions to promote higher standards of
sustainable development through the planning system across
the City, following the publication of the National Planning Policy
Framework.
RESOLVED: That Option 2, to undertake specific targeted
actions as set out in the Officer’s report be
agreed.
REASON: To improve the chances of delivering the City’s
aspirations in relation to sustainable
development.
Councillor D Merrett, Cabinet Member
.

Conformist? Interesting though! Sort of. I'm not good at doing what I'm told if I think its stupid, ill-advised - but I think that comes with age and a bit of wisdom. But in terms of the law I tend to obey, its all that 'freedom' stuff isn't it? To be free in a society you ironically have to obey its rules. In other words, I'm free to walk the streets as murder is illegal. I can own things because others cannot steal them. And finally, I can cross the road because some idiot should not be driving 70mph down Coney St!! :-)

I've been having a look at the proposals on the council website seeing as some people think being against the idea is OTT. According to the map showing the pilot area this includes Scarcroft Road and Bishopthorpe Road, both of which I would consider main routes and both of which it's very easy to drive at 30mph for a length of time ie you're not crawling along at 20 anyway so it will impact negatively on drivers. Just because there are some houses around I don't think these kinds of roads should be classed as residential. There are crossing points on these roads also so perhaps people should use them rather than running across in the traffic. As for cyclists well it's the same old same old, they should ALL be made to take lessons as there are too many don't seem to know how to cycle safely. It just seems to me that drivers are repeatedly penalised without pedestrians and cyclists taking ownership of their own welfare. The information states 'Good drivers should not have difficulty in adapting their driving style to reflect the lower speed limit and will experience little
difference in journey times. Fewer vehicles on the road would lead to a reduction in delays for all road users and less pollution.' For a start why would good drivers have no difficulty? What are they on about? It's not about difficulty it's about inconvience and extra fuel costs. The fact that they end the paragraph by pointing out the benefits to less traffic means they know this will **** off drivers and hope it will reduce traffic. Like I said, drivers yet again penalised. Having read all the information my opinion hasn't changed.

Mrs Honey has sensibly looked at the Cof Y website and is now in a position to pass an opinion and make sensible comments about the proposals based on fact. Whether you agree or disagree is immaterial, the important thing is to be in a position to comment on what is factually stated and not some absurd idea that is plucked out of the air. So much has been written here based on personal ideas of what the proposals mean but bear little resemblance to actualities. Like MrsHoney I am puzzled by some of the jargon but feel that a lot of it is just there to fill out the document without any real substance. I still feel that this is a sinful waste of half a million pounds of taxpayers money that will not necessarily bring any real and lasting benefits. If we all adopted a sensible approach when driving around and obeyed the laws already in force then there should not be a problem. Can we not adapt David Cameron's infamous remark and `SLOW DOWN DEAR`. How much would it cost to place a suitable notice on the rear of the buses reminding drivers of their responsibilities to other road users, not £500,000 I doubt and no clutter around our streets.

Before I am criticised for my comment, perhaps I should not have said "whether you agree or disagree is immaterial". I meant that whether you agree or not with the proposal, yes your comments like anyone elses should be heard but any arguments should be based on fact.

york_chap wrote:
Funnily enough I've been thinking lately how York could do with more unnecessary signs and street clutter. Great minds and all that.

On the plus side, it's actually quite fun seeing how fast you can negotiate chicanes etc. Anything over 30mph is a good challenge. Accelerating hard to try and beat oncoming traffic also offers a bit of fun on an otherwise dull journey. So not all doom and gloom.

".................Ac
celerating hard to try and beat oncoming traffic also offers a bit of fun on an otherwise dull journey. So not all doom and gloom."

Yes. And I find that it's perfectly safe as long as you put your headlights on full beam and maybe sound your horn, to let the oncoming traffic know that you're coming through regardless.

Even AndyD wrote:
Whoops - sorry, meant to read 'thousands die each year accidentally' - not millions a day. Well, not yet... :-)

Darn! Should have carried on reading down to this. Just spent ten minutes trying to find "worldwide fatal accidents" statistics 'cos "millions a day" seemed erm....rather high, to say the least. :-D

Press should have an edit function! Wine and posting don't mix either! :-)

York is going to be Disneyland without the rides

What a feeling of depression as once more Councillor Merritt and his gang skewer Yorks commerce once more. No point any more in voting in an election when York Transport Dept are facing only one way....into a cul de sac.
Every time I go down Huntington Road I reflect at each road bump and each chicane how much I detest York Council

The toytown rubber humps in Fulford have no effect if you do 50mph over them.

You can get onto the pavement to avoid the chicanes in Heslington, if you're in a smaller car; I've seen it happen, looks like great fun.

what a load of balls. Rather than an expensive re-signage perhaps education is the answer bring back the Tufty club I say. no 20mph zones around schools in my day and were children being run over and killed in their thousands ?. No because they knew how to cross the road properly and were not plugged into mp3 players or tapping away on mobile phones. wrap the little buggers up in cotton wool and when they become adults they will be a danger to all

I think that sums it up nicely Waspie. They're all sat in the cars that are causing the problem in the first place.You know `The school run`.

Anna Semlyen wrote:
Casualties reduce by 22% in 20mph limit areas. Warrington found an 800% rate of return on investment in its pilots. Health inequalities decrease. Journey times are not significantly changed. Cars pack closer smoithing traffic flow. Fuel use and emmissions were 12% less when this was introduced in Germany. Cycling and walking levels increased by up to 12% in Bristol. House values increase by up to 11%. 73% of British people support 20 mph limits with only 11% against. Over 8 million peoples authorities have agreed this policy. It has Dept for Transport and European Parliament support. Plus NHS, NICE and many more. See www.20splentyforus.o rg.uk for the references.

Try reducing the speed to 20mph on the A64 and see if the traffic flows better then? Accidents at chicanes and speed bumps increase as drivers spend more time concentrating on these, or racing to get through.

Hardly a learner and frankly having passed my tests and being a driver in recent years means I might well be more 'fresh' and adapt at road-based situations and qualified for comments than you - eh? I'm not aiming to be pedantic or silly about this, my points haven't been made redundant and Waspie backed them in that post. These new limits are not required.

What we do need is new representatives with an ounce of common sense and understanding how the city actually works. As has been suggested a few times, a panel of impartial professional drivers as a consulate.