Campaigners back new 20mph area (From York Press)

if you applied this way of thinking to everything then noone would be allowed to do anything.if the law was enforced properly then we wouldn t need these further restrictions.

The majority of people ignore the 30 limits everywhere as it stands because there's no police to enforce it. What makes people think that a 20 zone will help? You can chop and change limits all you like but you actually have to enforce them. I've been overtaken many times in 30 zones when I've been sticking to the limit, the reckless driving is out of control, especially among the Audi and Bmw business car crowd, this is completely pointless.

Tom6187 wrote:
The majority of people ignore the 30 limits everywhere as it stands because there's no police to enforce it. What makes people think that a 20 zone will help? You can chop and change limits all you like but you actually have to enforce them. I've been overtaken many times in 30 zones when I've been sticking to the limit, the reckless driving is out of control, especially among the Audi and Bmw business car crowd, this is completely pointless.

I would agree entirely with your comments Tom. Signs are used to inform or advise on restrictions...but without active enforcement are a total waste of time and money. Sensible considerate drivers will continue to be so, and ignorant morons will just ignore these restrictions, safe in the knowledge that there will be NO enforcement.

Nobody is against 20mph restrictions where appropriate such as outside schools, what I find wrong here is a council which has admitted to being millions over budget and is unable to provide basic care services to the needy spending millions on banket speed limits which can't and won't be enforced.

I'd be very interested to see just how many people would have been for the proposal if the question had been worded more like this:

Would you prefer us to buy signs and employ road crews to erect them and build obstacles in your road to theoretically slow down cars with no guarentee of sucess or continue to provide essential care to your elderly relatives.

I don't care which political party is doing it either, it just seems wrong.

I'd be interested to know how many people have been killed in the area over say the last five years as a result of being hit by a vehicle travelling at over 20mph. If the answer is none than there can be no evidence that lives are being saved if no-one dies over the next five years. It would be a facetious argument without any base.

And if someone does die in the restricted area what next, 10mph?

About time the Red Flag Act was reintroduced. It should never have been repealed in 1896.

20 is fine outside schools whilst they are open, but it should not apply for the 13 weeks they are shut or for the 16 hours a day when there are no pupils.
As for 20 everywhere else, its ridiculous. Vehicles will have to grind around in second or third gear, increasing wear and tear, noise and 'heaven forbid', pollution; so the poor little kiddies will have to breathe in all theses extra fumes.

pedalling paul wrote:
About time the Red Flag Act was reintroduced. It should never have been repealed in 1896.

Wouldn't impact on those tour buses, they crawl around at 10mph!

After reading the head teacher's comments in the article - perhaps if school children were taught a bit of road-sense and didn't wander out without looking from between parked cars/hang about in the roads then these draconian measures wouldn't be considered necessary.

Slowing the traffic further is only going to increase pedestrians' (particularly children's) apparent sense of invincibility/bravad
o when it comes to our roads.

As other people have suggested, 20mph would be quite appropriate in areas with proven speeding problems and where there have been (or where there's an accute risk of) casualties caused by speeding vehicles. A blanket ban is not the answer. It's this kind of knee-jerk nannying nonsense that leads to ridiculous situations such as it being illegal for 15 year olds to buy Christmas crackers, for example.

pedalling paul wrote:
About time the Red Flag Act was reintroduced. It should never have been repealed in 1896.

Quite, the last accident involving a pedestrian being struck by something moving in excess of 20mph near the area we are debating was that poor old woman minding her own business, walking along the pavement who was almost killed by a helmetless thug, clad in black on a pedal cycle.

post contains sarcasm

Jazzper wrote:

Tom6187 wrote:
The majority of people ignore the 30 limits everywhere as it stands because there's no police to enforce it. What makes people think that a 20 zone will help? You can chop and change limits all you like but you actually have to enforce them. I've been overtaken many times in 30 zones when I've been sticking to the limit, the reckless driving is out of control, especially among the Audi and Bmw business car crowd, this is completely pointless.

I would agree entirely with your comments Tom. Signs are used to inform or advise on restrictions...but without active enforcement are a total waste of time and money. Sensible considerate drivers will continue to be so, and ignorant morons will just ignore these restrictions, safe in the knowledge that there will be NO enforcement.

Consider me an ignorant moron. I live in South Bank, I didn't ask for this pathetic speed restriction and I don't want it. Also, there is no need for it!

Pete the Brickie wrote:

pedalling paul wrote:
About time the Red Flag Act was reintroduced. It should never have been repealed in 1896.

Quite, the last accident involving a pedestrian being struck by something moving in excess of 20mph near the area we are debating was that poor old woman minding her own business, walking along the pavement who was almost killed by a helmetless thug, clad in black on a pedal cycle.

post contains sarcasm

Googled: in 2010 in the UK 98.6% of all pedestrians injured or killed were hit by motor vehicles...1.4% by bicycles.

Thug, yes..but helmetless? What has that got to do with it?

The money would be better spent educating everyone with basic road safety as we were all taught at school years ago. If it's an area, such as outside a primary school, then by all means put up railings to stop anyone straying into traffic in obvious danger areas. Blanket 20 mph zones will NOT solve the problem.

Woody G Mellor wrote:

Jazzper wrote:

Tom6187 wrote:
The majority of people ignore the 30 limits everywhere as it stands because there's no police to enforce it. What makes people think that a 20 zone will help? You can chop and change limits all you like but you actually have to enforce them. I've been overtaken many times in 30 zones when I've been sticking to the limit, the reckless driving is out of control, especially among the Audi and Bmw business car crowd, this is completely pointless.

I would agree entirely with your comments Tom. Signs are used to inform or advise on restrictions...but without active enforcement are a total waste of time and money. Sensible considerate drivers will continue to be so, and ignorant morons will just ignore these restrictions, safe in the knowledge that there will be NO enforcement.

Consider me an ignorant moron. I live in South Bank, I didn't ask for this pathetic speed restriction and I don't want it. Also, there is no need for it!

30 is absolutely fine but they fail to enforce it due to lack of police presence in the city and people just don't fear getting caught. I think 20 is a waste of time because it won't be enforced, simple as that really. Whether you want it or not something does need to be done but just lowering the limit is a waste of time and money unless it's enforced and it will not be.

Pete the Brickie wrote:
Nobody is against 20mph restrictions where appropriate such as outside schools, what I find wrong here is a council which has admitted to being millions over budget and is unable to provide basic care services to the needy spending millions on banket speed limits which can't and won't be enforced.

I'd be very interested to see just how many people would have been for the proposal if the question had been worded more like this:

Would you prefer us to buy signs and employ road crews to erect them and build obstacles in your road to theoretically slow down cars with no guarentee of sucess or continue to provide essential care to your elderly relatives.

I don't care which political party is doing it either, it just seems wrong.

If you knew what you were talking about you'd know that there are NO 'obstacles' going to be built in roads to help this scheme.

And to those who think that police don't do speed checks, well read The Press, which regularly reports campaigns to catch people driving above the speed limit. A few speeders get caught, get points on their licence, some get banned from driving for a while. The publicity generated makes some other drivers more careful to stick to the limit.

There will always be a few drivers with less conscience than average. I suspect a few of them are commenting on this story, indignant that they're being asked to drive more responsibly.

Tom6187 says...
10:39am Mon 10 Sep 12


30 is absolutely fine but they fail to enforce it due to lack of police presence in the city and people just don't fear getting caught. I think 20 is a waste of time because it won't be enforced, simple as that really. Whether you want it or not something does need to be done but just lowering the limit is a waste of time and money unless it's enforced and it will not be.”

You might get a few of them out in the summer as it's something they quite like doing when it's warm, but they always have more paperwork to do in winter and they've only got one mobile speed camera van to protect them from the elements once the clocks change and the leaves start falling and that's simply too wide, but I wouldn't put it past them to try using it all the same and block the pavement and the view down the road for 300yards on any of South Bank's narrow streets in the name of road safety if they ever get control of the hen parties on Micklegate first of course.

To an extent...but although there's a hard core that will break laws if they think they're not going to get caught, a large number of people will go along with laws even if they don't think they'll get caught.

Hence the electronic speed reminder signs...won't stop everybody but they seem to help.

I suspect 20mph will gradually become the norm in residential side streets, 30mph for main roads in cities. It won't change getting about significantly but will make the places we live more pleasant and safer.

I wonder how many people posting about enforcment ignore most speed limits whatever they are.

Starting in small areas why don't we just try it, see how it goes? Maybe the world won't end...

John Cossham wrote:

Pete the Brickie wrote: Nobody is against 20mph restrictions where appropriate such as outside schools, what I find wrong here is a council which has admitted to being millions over budget and is unable to provide basic care services to the needy spending millions on banket speed limits which can't and won't be enforced. I'd be very interested to see just how many people would have been for the proposal if the question had been worded more like this: Would you prefer us to buy signs and employ road crews to erect them and build obstacles in your road to theoretically slow down cars with no guarentee of sucess or continue to provide essential care to your elderly relatives. I don't care which political party is doing it either, it just seems wrong.

If you knew what you were talking about you'd know that there are NO 'obstacles' going to be built in roads to help this scheme. And to those who think that police don't do speed checks, well read The Press, which regularly reports campaigns to catch people driving above the speed limit. A few speeders get caught, get points on their licence, some get banned from driving for a while. The publicity generated makes some other drivers more careful to stick to the limit. There will always be a few drivers with less conscience than average. I suspect a few of them are commenting on this story, indignant that they're being asked to drive more responsibly.

John. I already drive responsibly. Why do I need to trundle along at 20mph?

Ps. In all my years of driving I have never even come close to having an accident.

Good.

Anything that lowers speed and traffic is a good thing in my opinion.

Reported Road Casualties in Great Britain, 2011
Killed 1,901
Seriously Injured 23,122
Slightly Injured 178,927
All 203,950

Speeding deaths 430 fatalities

(Source http://www.rospa.com
/faqs/detail.aspx?fa
q=296)

I'd like to see actual images of road deaths (with consent) being plastered across the press and media. It might make people sit up and take notice. Actually think for once. It's one reason why many involved with the emergency services in this country respect the speed limits and drive cautiously. It takes years to build a life and seconds to remove it.

ReginaldBiscuit wrote:
Anything that lowers speed and traffic is a good thing in my opinion. Reported Road Casualties in Great Britain, 2011 Killed 1,901 Seriously Injured 23,122 Slightly Injured 178,927 All 203,950 Speeding deaths 430 fatalities (Source http://www.rospa.com /faqs/detail.aspx?fa q=296) I'd like to see actual images of road deaths (with consent) being plastered across the press and media. It might make people sit up and take notice. Actually think for once. It's one reason why many involved with the emergency services in this country respect the speed limits and drive cautiously. It takes years to build a life and seconds to remove it.

How many of those happened in South Bank/York? I'm all for it in areas with a high accident rate, but York?

Woody G Mellor wrote:

John Cossham wrote:

Pete the Brickie wrote: Nobody is against 20mph restrictions where appropriate such as outside schools, what I find wrong here is a council which has admitted to being millions over budget and is unable to provide basic care services to the needy spending millions on banket speed limits which can't and won't be enforced. I'd be very interested to see just how many people would have been for the proposal if the question had been worded more like this: Would you prefer us to buy signs and employ road crews to erect them and build obstacles in your road to theoretically slow down cars with no guarentee of sucess or continue to provide essential care to your elderly relatives. I don't care which political party is doing it either, it just seems wrong.

If you knew what you were talking about you'd know that there are NO 'obstacles' going to be built in roads to help this scheme. And to those who think that police don't do speed checks, well read The Press, which regularly reports campaigns to catch people driving above the speed limit. A few speeders get caught, get points on their licence, some get banned from driving for a while. The publicity generated makes some other drivers more careful to stick to the limit. There will always be a few drivers with less conscience than average. I suspect a few of them are commenting on this story, indignant that they're being asked to drive more responsibly.

John. I already drive responsibly. Why do I need to trundle along at 20mph?

Ps. In all my years of driving I have never even come close to having an accident.

Unfortunately morons like John get their way though. Safety rules. Accidents do not exist any more.

It amuses me that some villages have "please drive slowly" whilst others have "please drive carefully". As if somehow it's ok to drive at 20mph in a 30 on the wrong side of the road on a mobile phone have a fag whilst controlling unruly kids in the back, yet driving at 31mph you are Hilter's bedfellow.

I'm a grown man. I can identify when it is safe to go fast and when it is not. For example, most country roads are 60, yet in the overwhelming majority I do not go 60 all the time - it's not safe. I'm able to identify this. Those who can't won't be affected by this change at all, which just leaves those who are able to think and formulate opinion based on a set of circumstances in front of them left frustrated and annoyed. And we all know the best time to be in charge of a car is when you are frustrated and annoyed...

But alas.

yorkshirelad said "I suspect 20mph will gradually become the norm in residential side streets, 30mph for main roads in cities. It won't change getting about significantly but will make the places we live more pleasant and safer.

Starting in small areas why don't we just try it, see how it goes? Maybe the world won't end..."

Some common sense at last! Speed limits are a blunt instrument to use to try to change driving culture, but we have to do something to make for a more civilised environment where people live. Even without enforcement, the bottom line is that if you hit someone at 25mph now the assumption seems to be it wasnt your fault, lower the limit to 20mph and the onus shifts to the person behind the wheel instead of the pedestrian or cyclist. Thats how it should be rather than the man (usually) in a BMW assuming ownership of an expensive car gives him more rights to travel through other people's streets too fast to safely stop if someone comes out between the parked cars that line most of our streets. It may seem an affront to some York drivers, but 20mph maximum is evidently the norm in many European countries (30kph = 18mph) and more people walking and cycling has health benefits, cuts crime and fear of crime etc.

This is weird as when they did the poll on this website at the time I went to vote (against it), it was 85% against?! Although I do agree with 20's outside schools, but waste of time everywhere else.

Pete the Brickie wrote:
Nobody is against 20mph restrictions where appropriate such as outside schools, what I find wrong here is a council which has admitted to being millions over budget and is unable to provide basic care services to the needy spending millions on banket speed limits which can't and won't be enforced. I'd be very interested to see just how many people would have been for the proposal if the question had been worded more like this: Would you prefer us to buy signs and employ road crews to erect them and build obstacles in your road to theoretically slow down cars with no guarentee of sucess or continue to provide essential care to your elderly relatives. I don't care which political party is doing it either, it just seems wrong.

Here here Pete

What a frustrating topic this is. Why can't people use a bit of logic. Shouldn't the question be what is the cause of pedestrian accidents. Is it because they aren't crossing roads safely? I would imagine the answer is yes! Shouldn't they spend money on educating pedestrians rather than forcing drivers to crawl around the city in order to more easily dodge idiots running into the road? Yes! If anyone has been injured or killed due to someone driving carelessly at whatever speed, putting up 20mph signs is not going to change things. These are crappy drivers who are going to do whatever they want.

Conclusion - making all roads 20mph is a complete waste of money and time and will only serve to cause annoyance and frustration in drivers piddling along a traffic and pedestrian free stretch of road.

A little common sense please!!!

Bring back Tuffty and The Green Cross Man.

Jackanory2 wrote:
This is weird as when they did the poll on this website at the time I went to vote (against it), it was 85% against?! Although I do agree with 20's outside schools, but waste of time everywhere else.

That's because polls on this website, just like comments on this website, are not really representative of the wider communities of York.

I find it staggering so many people on these comments are opposed to this. Its not talking about new speed restrictions on the open road, its talking about reducing speed where people live. So many comments on here say they support it by schools, but not elsewhere. Why? Are children not also to be found in residential areas outside of school times?

We've all seen the adverts (which happen to be backed up by all the official figures) if you hit someone doing 20mph you will hurt them, but the chances are you won't kill them. If you hit them at 30mph its likely they will die.

In places where this already been tried, its led to a reduction in road deaths.

So surely it makes sense to do it?!

Newton1 wrote:

Jackanory2 wrote:
This is weird as when they did the poll on this website at the time I went to vote (against it), it was 85% against?! Although I do agree with 20's outside schools, but waste of time everywhere else.

That's because polls on this website, just like comments on this website, are not really representative of the wider communities of York.

I find it staggering so many people on these comments are opposed to this. Its not talking about new speed restrictions on the open road, its talking about reducing speed where people live. So many comments on here say they support it by schools, but not elsewhere. Why? Are children not also to be found in residential areas outside of school times?

We've all seen the adverts (which happen to be backed up by all the official figures) if you hit someone doing 20mph you will hurt them, but the chances are you won't kill them. If you hit them at 30mph its likely they will die.

In places where this already been tried, its led to a reduction in road deaths.

So surely it makes sense to do it?!

The trouble is that they are on about main roads as well. OK in residential areas like South Bank most people would drive at 20 or less anyway as cars are parked all over so it would be difficult to drive over 20. But on main roads it seems complete nonsense. There are crossing points plus little kids shouldn't be walking along these kinds of roads on their own. Older kids should have been taught road sense and to cross the road appropriately. However in my experience it is more likely to be adults who run across roads than children and if they're that stupid why should everyone have to permanently slow down because of them?! It's not just drivers who can be idiots, there are plenty idiot pedestrians, if they want to risk getting run over that's their look out. I just feel sorry for any driver unfortunate enough to run into them.

Newton1 says...
3:00pm Mon 10 Sep 12

In places where this already been tried, its led to a reduction in road deaths.

Are children not also to be found in residential areas outside of school times?

That's because polls on this website, just like comments on this website, are not really representative of the wider communities of York.

I don't think there's been any pedestrian fatalities in South Bank caused by excess speed in living memory and I'm not quite sure how you can reduce the figure zero in this situation?

The fact is there is very little room for improvement in this particular statistic, official control measures such as better signed schools, improved road layouts, better road safety training in schools and improved vehicle safety specifications have already reduced the likelyhood of the sort of accident implementing a lower speed limit might effect to minute figures.

What people like myself object to is measures like these costing millions been put in place on the basis of very poor risk assesments by their council which is its self struggling to fulfil its more basic responsibilities to its voters.

You might say comments are not representative of the wider population but you'll struggle to find many people who will vote for paying twice for green waste bins in order to help fund more road signs in York.

MrsHoney wrote:

Newton1 wrote:

Jackanory2 wrote:
This is weird as when they did the poll on this website at the time I went to vote (against it), it was 85% against?! Although I do agree with 20's outside schools, but waste of time everywhere else.

That's because polls on this website, just like comments on this website, are not really representative of the wider communities of York.

I find it staggering so many people on these comments are opposed to this. Its not talking about new speed restrictions on the open road, its talking about reducing speed where people live. So many comments on here say they support it by schools, but not elsewhere. Why? Are children not also to be found in residential areas outside of school times?

We've all seen the adverts (which happen to be backed up by all the official figures) if you hit someone doing 20mph you will hurt them, but the chances are you won't kill them. If you hit them at 30mph its likely they will die.

In places where this already been tried, its led to a reduction in road deaths.

So surely it makes sense to do it?!

The trouble is that they are on about main roads as well. OK in residential areas like South Bank most people would drive at 20 or less anyway as cars are parked all over so it would be difficult to drive over 20. But on main roads it seems complete nonsense. There are crossing points plus little kids shouldn't be walking along these kinds of roads on their own. Older kids should have been taught road sense and to cross the road appropriately. However in my experience it is more likely to be adults who run across roads than children and if they're that stupid why should everyone have to permanently slow down because of them?! It's not just drivers who can be idiots, there are plenty idiot pedestrians, if they want to risk getting run over that's their look out. I just feel sorry for any driver unfortunate enough to run into them.

If it seems like complete nonsense it's probably because you haven't grasped the fundamental principles of the 20's Plenty campaign. Your motorised journey is no more important than the pedestrian who is crossing the road before your speeding car. And neither do you have any more right to that piece of road than the pedestrian. Slowing traffic in our public spaces makes the world a better, safer place for everyone. And has minimal effect on journey times for motorists. What's not to like?
Do yourself a favour and do some reading?

Anyone who says 'I feel sorry for any driver unfortunate to run into a pedestrian' has totally lost the argument.

I live on a 20 MPH stretch of road,if you think this will work dream on !!
Waste of painted signs.

Cyclorama wrote:
Anyone who says 'I feel sorry for any driver unfortunate to run into a pedestrian' has totally lost the argument.

That is a very foolish comment!....I personally can feel sorry for a driver in such a predicament. have you any idea of the distress and anguish suffered by a driver who has collided with a pedestrian who may have stepped into the road without looking! no matter what speed a vehicle is travelling, this sort of 'accident' will happen. I think pedestrians are more likely to step out onto the road when the traffic is moving slowly, it will give them a mistaken sense of reassurance.

Jazzper wrote:

Cyclorama wrote:
Anyone who says 'I feel sorry for any driver unfortunate to run into a pedestrian' has totally lost the argument.

That is a very foolish comment!....I personally can feel sorry for a driver in such a predicament. have you any idea of the distress and anguish suffered by a driver who has collided with a pedestrian who may have stepped into the road without looking! no matter what speed a vehicle is travelling, this sort of 'accident' will happen. I think pedestrians are more likely to step out onto the road when the traffic is moving slowly, it will give them a mistaken sense of reassurance.

That statement about a 'false sense of security' for pedestrians in such areas is not supported by any research, its pure conjecture. What is supported by evidence (from Bristol) is that this 20mph approach has led to more people walking and cycling (making those people fitter through the exercise) has led to a marginal reduction in speeds, and thus gives drivers on average more braking time, a greater chance of avoiding a collision all together and a greater chance of doing less damage to another human being if they do collide. On the point about the signage and costs, it would be MORE expensive and ugly to have signs for every side road in South Bank than to include the sections of Bishopthorpe Rd that runs across the ends of all these roads! Some people will ignore the limits, but local people who benefit on their own street (and whose children and elderly relatives benefit) are more likely to respect it, so the general message will go out to other drivers passing through the area. It may add 10-20 seconds to your journey (and probably mean less standing time at the next set of lights) so why not chill a bit and save fuel by cutting out the acceleration, braking and idling at the lights??

Cyclorama wrote:
Anyone who says 'I feel sorry for any driver unfortunate to run into a pedestrian' has totally lost the argument.

I'm sorry, Cyclorama, I can't agree with you.

There are occasions when a motorist hits a pedestrian or cyclist (or another motorist's vehicle) and it just isn't their fault.

When I was growing up (from the age of 9, up to when I was 18 and left home), I looked up to and probably idolised a chap who I met through a natural history group who was very knowledgable about reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates. He had decided not to drive, precisely because of the potential of injuring or killing someone.

I remember him saying that he couldn't live with his conscience if he hit someone whilst driving, even if it was a drunk stepping into his way and it wasn't his fault.

I have a driving licence but have decided not to drive, and I think my old friend's views have influenced me.

I support slower speeds and the blanket 20mph zone because if motor vehicles are going more slowly, and a drunk wanders into their path, there is more reaction time for the driver to stop and/or avoid the collision... and more time for the drunk to heave themselves out of the way.

Hitting somone in your car, especially if you kill someone, is a heavy burden that I'd wish on no-one.

I have to respond to the rude and ignorant comment from BigDog-LittleDog, who thinks, as he is a 'grown man', that he can decide when and where it's safe to drive fast.

There is NO WAY you can tell when a drunk, or a small child, or a teenager running away from bullies, or an ordinary adult who's misjudged your speed, will find their way in front of your vehicle and be unable to get out of the way. If you're driving slowly in this built up area, you have a better chance of not hitting them. If you are driving fast, you may live with the guilt for the rest of your life. And despite YOU being the moron, I wouldn't wish that on you, or anyone.

Woody G Mellor wrote:
Bring back Tuffty and The Green Cross Man.

Good idea

Some astonishing comments on here...shows just how far we have gone in the UK.

Clearly there are some people who seem not to walk about very much, or have children that want to play outside, or ride a bike or know family or friends who ride bikes (I thought everyone in York at least knew someone who regularly cycles...maybe not...).

The answer is to let the communities themselves decide in residential areas. My prediction is that their streets will become so pleasant, quiet...'livable' that everyone will eventually want a 20 zone down their way...especially once they see the effect on their house prices!

For me it's no contest...in residential streets, the balance in this should be in favour of those who live there. For me it gets more tricky on main roads but on side streets it's clear cut.

I was told the 20mph is an advisory notice rather than a prohibitory notice, so there is no enforcement. Perhaps action to reduce those using Sim Balk La. Church St, Bishopthorpe, and Bishopthorpe Road as a shortcut to Fulford and East York to avoid Blossom St. would assist?

yorkshirelad wrote:
To an extent...but although there's a hard core that will break laws if they think they're not going to get caught, a large number of people will go along with laws even if they don't think they'll get caught.

Hence the electronic speed reminder signs...won't stop everybody but they seem to help.

I suspect 20mph will gradually become the norm in residential side streets, 30mph for main roads in cities. It won't change getting about significantly but will make the places we live more pleasant and safer.

I wonder how many people posting about enforcment ignore most speed limits whatever they are.

Starting in small areas why don't we just try it, see how it goes? Maybe the world won't end...

I've never seen anyone slow down for those electronic speed reminders yet, even outside the nags head where there's a school opposite.

Blanket 20 zones are a corrosion of liberty.

I don't really understand why the speed of the traffic would put people off walking. If you stay on the pavement like you're supposed to and cross roads at appointed crossings then it shouldn't make any difference what-so-ever. People shouldn't need to be told to drive at 20mph down fully residential side streets, it's common sense. And those that don't already are not going to start just because a sign has been put up.

As for yorkshirelad saying people commenting mustn't walk very much that's rubbish. Up until the last year or so I had never owned a car, I walked or relied on public transport. I can't recall ever thinking how much easier life would be if the traffic would only slow down to 20mph.

My husband cycles to work every day, I am concerned about his safety but more from irresponsible drivers and those same drivers aren't going to pay a blind bit of notice to a 20mph limit, they don't even bother with 30!

I don't actually agree with children playing in the streets. There are loads round where I live and I know for a fact they all have gardens so why aren't they playing there?! Why are roads considered playgrounds?

As for all these people saying 'it'll only add a short time onto your journey' THAT'S NOT THE POINT!!!!! My car will suffer for having to trundle along at such a slow speed. Who is going to have to pay for that?! Me. And roads are not there for everyone to use pedestrians and cars alike Cyclorama. Of course cars have the priority on the road.

Where is the common sense in all of this?!?!

John Cossham wrote:

Cyclorama wrote:
Anyone who says 'I feel sorry for any driver unfortunate to run into a pedestrian' has totally lost the argument.

I'm sorry, Cyclorama, I can't agree with you.

There are occasions when a motorist hits a pedestrian or cyclist (or another motorist's vehicle) and it just isn't their fault.

When I was growing up (from the age of 9, up to when I was 18 and left home), I looked up to and probably idolised a chap who I met through a natural history group who was very knowledgable about reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates. He had decided not to drive, precisely because of the potential of injuring or killing someone.

I remember him saying that he couldn't live with his conscience if he hit someone whilst driving, even if it was a drunk stepping into his way and it wasn't his fault.

I have a driving licence but have decided not to drive, and I think my old friend's views have influenced me.

I support slower speeds and the blanket 20mph zone because if motor vehicles are going more slowly, and a drunk wanders into their path, there is more reaction time for the driver to stop and/or avoid the collision... and more time for the drunk to heave themselves out of the way.

Hitting somone in your car, especially if you kill someone, is a heavy burden that I'd wish on no-one.

I have to respond to the rude and ignorant comment from BigDog-LittleDog, who thinks, as he is a 'grown man', that he can decide when and where it's safe to drive fast.

There is NO WAY you can tell when a drunk, or a small child, or a teenager running away from bullies, or an ordinary adult who's misjudged your speed, will find their way in front of your vehicle and be unable to get out of the way. If you're driving slowly in this built up area, you have a better chance of not hitting them. If you are driving fast, you may live with the guilt for the rest of your life. And despite YOU being the moron, I wouldn't wish that on you, or anyone.

John, my friend, please read my post in context - and go easy on the personal name calling.

Not much comment here about the GREEN CROSS CODE which used to be advertised on TV on a regular bases. I suppose a lot of people do not know what is ment by it. Put in more pedestrian crossings and educate people to use them. If you cross the road at a perdestrian crossing then you know that it should be safe to do so. Jaywalk and you know that you could get yourself killed. Education Education Education is the answer. Not work your way around bone idelness.

Cyclorama, I don't know if you're a friend or who you are, as you're not using your real name.

I just threw back the 'moron' insult to BigDogLittleDog as he levied that at me. I suppose I shouldn't have stooped as low as him. Sorry.

Newton1 wrote:

Jackanory2 wrote:
This is weird as when they did the poll on this website at the time I went to vote (against it), it was 85% against?! Although I do agree with 20's outside schools, but waste of time everywhere else.

That's because polls on this website, just like comments on this website, are not really representative of the wider communities of York.

I find it staggering so many people on these comments are opposed to this. Its not talking about new speed restrictions on the open road, its talking about reducing speed where people live. So many comments on here say they support it by schools, but not elsewhere. Why? Are children not also to be found in residential areas outside of school times?

We've all seen the adverts (which happen to be backed up by all the official figures) if you hit someone doing 20mph you will hurt them, but the chances are you won't kill them. If you hit them at 30mph its likely they will die.

In places where this already been tried, its led to a reduction in road deaths.

So surely it makes sense to do it?!

Erm...no.

Surely the better thing would be to not hit them at all. Regardless of speed. In which case, the money would be better spent teaching people how and where to cross the road.

People seem to think it's an option. Hit someone at 20, or hit someone at 30. How about the more radical option...not hitting them at all!

ReginaldBiscuit wrote:
Anything that lowers speed and traffic is a good thing in my opinion.

Reported Road Casualties in Great Britain, 2011
Killed 1,901
Seriously Injured 23,122
Slightly Injured 178,927
All 203,950

Speeding deaths 430 fatalities

(Source http://www.rospa.com

/faqs/detail.aspx?fa

q=296)

I'd like to see actual images of road deaths (with consent) being plastered across the press and media. It might make people sit up and take notice. Actually think for once. It's one reason why many involved with the emergency services in this country respect the speed limits and drive cautiously. It takes years to build a life and seconds to remove it.

Meaningless statistics.

For all you know all these incidents could have been on country roads in the dark. How is that relevant to towns of the UK?

100% of all statistics can be used to support any argument.

BigDog-LittleDog wrote:

Newton1 wrote:

Jackanory2 wrote:
This is weird as when they did the poll on this website at the time I went to vote (against it), it was 85% against?! Although I do agree with 20's outside schools, but waste of time everywhere else.

That's because polls on this website, just like comments on this website, are not really representative of the wider communities of York.

I find it staggering so many people on these comments are opposed to this. Its not talking about new speed restrictions on the open road, its talking about reducing speed where people live. So many comments on here say they support it by schools, but not elsewhere. Why? Are children not also to be found in residential areas outside of school times?

We've all seen the adverts (which happen to be backed up by all the official figures) if you hit someone doing 20mph you will hurt them, but the chances are you won't kill them. If you hit them at 30mph its likely they will die.

In places where this already been tried, its led to a reduction in road deaths.

So surely it makes sense to do it?!

Erm...no.

Surely the better thing would be to not hit them at all. Regardless of speed. In which case, the money would be better spent teaching people how and where to cross the road.

People seem to think it's an option. Hit someone at 20, or hit someone at 30. How about the more radical option...not hitting them at all!

Well said!!

The best way to NOT hit someone who shouldn't be in the road, or who swerves to avoid someone or something, etc etc, is by driving more slowly. It gives you more time to react.

I just cannot understand why people don't get it.

I also don't understand why some people are so precious about wanting to drive at whatever speed they think is OK.

My life is restricted by legislation and rules I would prefer weren't there, but I accept that they are there for the greater good, so I comply.

Why can't people just accept that? What kind of society do you want to live in?

John Cossham wrote:

Pete the Brickie wrote: Nobody is against 20mph restrictions where appropriate such as outside schools, what I find wrong here is a council which has admitted to being millions over budget and is unable to provide basic care services to the needy spending millions on banket speed limits which can't and won't be enforced. I'd be very interested to see just how many people would have been for the proposal if the question had been worded more like this: Would you prefer us to buy signs and employ road crews to erect them and build obstacles in your road to theoretically slow down cars with no guarentee of sucess or continue to provide essential care to your elderly relatives. I don't care which political party is doing it either, it just seems wrong.

If you knew what you were talking about you'd know that there are NO 'obstacles' going to be built in roads to help this scheme. And to those who think that police don't do speed checks, well read The Press, which regularly reports campaigns to catch people driving above the speed limit. A few speeders get caught, get points on their licence, some get banned from driving for a while. The publicity generated makes some other drivers more careful to stick to the limit. There will always be a few drivers with less conscience than average. I suspect a few of them are commenting on this story, indignant that they're being asked to drive more responsibly.

I've read that nationally most police forces have said that they will not enforce 20mph speed limits. I'm not sure what N.Yorks constabulary's view on this is.

John Cossham wrote:
The best way to NOT hit someone who shouldn't be in the road, or who swerves to avoid someone or something, etc etc, is by driving more slowly. It gives you more time to react.

I just cannot understand why people don't get it.

I also don't understand why some people are so precious about wanting to drive at whatever speed they think is OK.

My life is restricted by legislation and rules I would prefer weren't there, but I accept that they are there for the greater good, so I comply.

Why can't people just accept that? What kind of society do you want to live in?

Freedom over totalitarian ethics.
Safe speeds in built up areas are between 0 and 35mph, 40 roads are marked appropriately.
Blanket 20 zones are an insult.

John Cossham wrote:
The best way to NOT hit someone who shouldn't be in the road, or who swerves to avoid someone or something, etc etc, is by driving more slowly. It gives you more time to react.

I just cannot understand why people don't get it.

I also don't understand why some people are so precious about wanting to drive at whatever speed they think is OK.

My life is restricted by legislation and rules I would prefer weren't there, but I accept that they are there for the greater good, so I comply.

Why can't people just accept that? What kind of society do you want to live in?

Absolutely...the 'freedom' comments are absurd. What about the 'freedom' of others...to live in a quiet, peaceful road with reduced traffic danger?

Should we let everyone use 'judgement' when...driving across level crossings, paying tax, storing petrol, driving on bald tyres etc etc....

I just cannot understand why people don't get it.

Because you might be blinded by your dogma?

MrsHoney wrote:

BigDog-LittleDog wrote:

Newton1 wrote:

Jackanory2 wrote:
This is weird as when they did the poll on this website at the time I went to vote (against it), it was 85% against?! Although I do agree with 20's outside schools, but waste of time everywhere else.

That's because polls on this website, just like comments on this website, are not really representative of the wider communities of York.

I find it staggering so many people on these comments are opposed to this. Its not talking about new speed restrictions on the open road, its talking about reducing speed where people live. So many comments on here say they support it by schools, but not elsewhere. Why? Are children not also to be found in residential areas outside of school times?

We've all seen the adverts (which happen to be backed up by all the official figures) if you hit someone doing 20mph you will hurt them, but the chances are you won't kill them. If you hit them at 30mph its likely they will die.

In places where this already been tried, its led to a reduction in road deaths.

So surely it makes sense to do it?!

Erm...no.

Surely the better thing would be to not hit them at all. Regardless of speed. In which case, the money would be better spent teaching people how and where to cross the road.

People seem to think it's an option. Hit someone at 20, or hit someone at 30. How about the more radical option...not hitting them at all!

Well said!!

Totally agree. A 20mph speed limit won't result in any favourable statistics. The same people who ignore the 30mph zones and veer half way across the road to avoid having to slow down at speed bumps (another pointless waste of time - it's bad enough that the potholes knacker your suspension!), are the same people who will ignore these new limits. Comparing death rates between those hit at 20 and 30 misses the point completely. As a cyclist and motorist I'm strongly in favour of a more cycle friendly city but I'm afraid for those that use the roads as a play ground I have very little sympathy. The results of those that treat the road with no respect should not be pushed onto the mass majority of sensible drivers in the form of nanny state restrictions. Next week: Plastic scissors: are you a responsible adult and, Pedestrian Helmets: can we be trusted not to walk into each other!?

Pete the Brickie wrote:
Nobody is against 20mph restrictions where appropriate such as outside schools, what I find wrong here is a council which has admitted to being millions over budget and is unable to provide basic care services to the needy spending millions on banket speed limits which can't and won't be enforced.

I'd be very interested to see just how many people would have been for the proposal if the question had been worded more like this:

Would you prefer us to buy signs and employ road crews to erect them and build obstacles in your road to theoretically slow down cars with no guarentee of sucess or continue to provide essential care to your elderly relatives.

I don't care which political party is doing it either, it just seems wrong.

First paragraph says it all, there can be no excuse for spending money on speed limit while taking from people who need the money for care services

Pete the Brickie wrote:
Nobody is against 20mph restrictions where appropriate such as outside schools, what I find wrong here is a council which has admitted to being millions over budget and is unable to provide basic care services to the needy spending millions on banket speed limits which can't and won't be enforced.

I'd be very interested to see just how many people would have been for the proposal if the question had been worded more like this:

Would you prefer us to buy signs and employ road crews to erect them and build obstacles in your road to theoretically slow down cars with no guarentee of sucess or continue to provide essential care to your elderly relatives.

I don't care which political party is doing it either, it just seems wrong.

In fact your whole post is excellent well put !

Does this headline say it all? “Campaigners back new 20mph area in South Bank” and then –“has the support of more than three-quarters of those living and working in the area, who responded to a consultation on the initiative” So what percentage asked actually bothered to respond? knowing full well that the minority campaigners will get their way regardless. What was the question they were asked? My experience of this in a different area some years ago was to be asked - Do you believe that the speed of traffic needs to be managed on this road? Well I doubt that many would have said no to that question. I qualified mine by saying yes but not by installing speed humps. Two months later in went the humps that had not been mentioned in any part of the councils questionnaire. Two weeks later the children in the area were dodging the cars whilst skate boarding down this still busy road using the humps as ramps, madness.

MrsHoney wrote:
I don't really understand why the speed of the traffic would put people off walking. If you stay on the pavement like you're supposed to and cross roads at appointed crossings then it shouldn't make any difference what-so-ever. People shouldn't need to be told to drive at 20mph down fully residential side streets, it's common sense. And those that don't already are not going to start just because a sign has been put up.

As for yorkshirelad saying people commenting mustn't walk very much that's rubbish. Up until the last year or so I had never owned a car, I walked or relied on public transport. I can't recall ever thinking how much easier life would be if the traffic would only slow down to 20mph.

My husband cycles to work every day, I am concerned about his safety but more from irresponsible drivers and those same drivers aren't going to pay a blind bit of notice to a 20mph limit, they don't even bother with 30!

I don't actually agree with children playing in the streets. There are loads round where I live and I know for a fact they all have gardens so why aren't they playing there?! Why are roads considered playgrounds?

As for all these people saying 'it'll only add a short time onto your journey' THAT'S NOT THE POINT!!!!! My car will suffer for having to trundle along at such a slow speed. Who is going to have to pay for that?! Me. And roads are not there for everyone to use pedestrians and cars alike Cyclorama. Of course cars have the priority on the road.

Where is the common sense in all of this?!?!

"If you stay on the pavement like you're supposed to and cross roads at appointed crossings then it shouldn't make any difference what-so-ever"

It doesn't sound like you do much walking along main York roads with many side streets.So many cars who speed into junctions carelessly, scowling at the pedestrians who dared to be halfway across the road.

It's all down to attitude, the attitude that your journey is more important than everyone else's and no-one should 'get in your way'.

As for children playing in the street - I wish my children could play in the street - it's barely safe to cross it most of the day!!