Pompey blanket 20mph limit

Not Responding said:

At
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=455&ArticleID=1423412

QUOTE
City to get 20mph speed limit
EVERY residential road in Portsmouth is to become a 20mph zone in a bid
to cut accidents and save lives.
But opponents have warned the new limits will turn Portsmouth into
'tortoise town'.

The 20mph decision was made as councillors voted last night to agree
the city council's local transport plan, which included a £250,000
fund to reduce the speed limit in residential streets.

The move will be brought in street by street - and only major routes
like Copnor Road, London Road, Northern Road and the motorway will be
exempt.

Tory councillor Malcolm Hey, who went into the chamber brandishing a
plastic tortoise, said: 'Instead of flagship city we are in danger of
becoming tortoise town, with travel only slightly faster than a snail's
pace. We get enough practice at moving at 20mph in traffic jams. When
we can move safely at 30mph let's do so.'
ENDQUOTE

Sorry, I don't know any more but am about to investigate. I didn't
think this sort of thing was possible - I'm sure the police won't
approve.

Anyway, what do you think of the idea?

Is 'the motorway' a 'residential road' in Portsmouth?

I wonder how long will it be before the idea of 'appropriate speed'
sinks into these peoples heads. Is 20 mph always safe in a residential
street? Is anything over 20 mph always dangerous in _every_ residential
street?

--
Matt B

Not Responding said:

Anyway, what do you think of the idea?

I think it will be totally ignored unless they put cameras everywhere.
People are too used to driving in 4th gear at a minimum, and 20mph is
the lower limit of 3rd (on the flat, you'd need 2nd uphill) for most cars.

It may actually increase drive-by noise because of the lower gears being
used (though the lower tyre noise may compensate for this). I support
20mph for estate roads and narrow roads of terraced houses, but this
seems doomed to fail.

"Not Responding" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
Sorry, I don't know any more but am about to investigate. I didn't
think this sort of thing was possible - I'm sure the police won't
approve.

Quoted message said:

Anyway, what do you think of the idea?

In Kingston upon Hull we got our first 20 mph zone in 1994 and have about
130 zones now. I took a picture of each one:

http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/page361.htm

From Transport 2000:

http://www.transport2000.org.uk/goodpractice/maintainGoodPractice.asp?GoodPracticeID=21

Residents can request a 20mph zone for their street and the Council will
look into it.

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net

Not Responding said:

At
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=455&ArticleID=1423412

QUOTE
City to get 20mph speed limit
EVERY residential road in Portsmouth is to become a 20mph zone in a bid
to cut accidents and save lives.
But opponents have warned the new limits will turn Portsmouth into
'tortoise town'.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

way, what do you think of the idea?

It's gridlocked anyway. Wont make bugger all difference.

Sorry, I don't know any more but am about to investigate. I didn't
think this sort of thing was possible - I'm sure the police won't
approve.

Anyway, what do you think of the idea?

Don't know if it's a good idea or not, but it'll be totally pointless unless
it's enforced.

--
John Clayton
www.calder-clarion.co.uk

Quoted message said:

I wonder how long will it be before the idea of 'appropriate speed' sinks
into these peoples heads.

If I thought you meant drivers when you say "these people" I'd agree.
Until such time as drivers start slowing down of their own accord then we
need to keep things simple.

POHB said:

Quoted message said:

I wonder how long will it be before the idea of 'appropriate speed' sinks
into these peoples heads.

If I thought you meant drivers when you say "these people" I'd agree.
Until such time as drivers start slowing down of their own accord then we
need to keep things simple.

Given that most 'accidents' happen within the speed limit, which implies
that the speed was nevertheless inappropriate for the circumstances, I
hope you'll agree therefore that 'keeping things simple' (by which I
assume you mean posting a limit) does not work that well. If _all_
limits were enforced 100% most 'accidents' (seeing as they occur at
speeds within the limit) would still happen.

Lowering limits until 'accidents' stop will surely only end when all
speed limits are 0 mph.

Something slightly more imaginative than speed limits is required IMHO.

--
Matt B

Not Responding said:

EVERY residential road in Portsmouth is to become a 20mph zone in a bid
to cut accidents and save lives.

Quoted message said:

Anyway, what do you think of the idea?

Bloody brilliant. If properly enforced, it /will/ cut accidents, save
lives, and reduce pollution. Point your councillor at Sheffield; we've
had 20 mph zones in some residential areas, enforced by lots of
on-street parking :-(, speed tables :-), and occasional police blitzes.
Through drivers avoid them now, cutting down their rat-runability,
and it's pleasant to cycle and walk in those areas.

I bet Malcolm Hey doesn't live on a residential rat-run in Portsmouth...

R.

Richard said:

I bet Malcolm Hey doesn't live on a residential rat-run in
Portsmouth...

http://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/yourcouncil/1148.html

Councillor Malcolm Hey (Cons)
Conservative for Copnor (until May 2008)

1d Merrivale Road
Hilsea
Portsmouth
PO2 0TJ

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=465526&y=103284&z=2&sv=465526,103284&st=4&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf&ax=465526&ay=103284

Or:

http://tinyurl.com/p45es

Seems Malcolm's a sucker for punishment.

Simon Bennett said:

Richard said:

I bet Malcolm Hey doesn't live on a residential rat-run in
Portsmouth...

http://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/yourcouncil/1148.html

Councillor Malcolm Hey (Cons)
Conservative for Copnor (until May 2008)

1d Merrivale Road
Hilsea
Portsmouth
PO2 0TJ

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=465526&y=103284&z=2&sv=465526,103284&st=4&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf&ax=465526&ay=103284

Or:

http://tinyurl.com/p45es

Seems Malcolm's a sucker for punishment.

I stand corrected, and admire your 133t PI skills.

From what I recall (and it's been 20 years since I lived thereabouts),
those streets are rat runs - or have they been one-way'd appropriately?

R.

Matt B said:

POHB said:

Quoted message said:

I wonder how long will it be before the idea of 'appropriate speed' sinks
into these peoples heads.

If I thought you meant drivers when you say "these people" I'd agree.
Until such time as drivers start slowing down of their own accord then we
need to keep things simple.

Given that most 'accidents' happen within the speed limit, which implies
that the speed was nevertheless inappropriate for the circumstances, I
hope you'll agree therefore that 'keeping things simple' (by which I
assume you mean posting a limit) does not work that well. If _all_
limits were enforced 100% most 'accidents' (seeing as they occur at
speeds within the limit) would still happen.

Or if 20mph limits were imposed and enforced?

Maybe one could be more imaginative by making mvo's liable for the
consequences of failing to avoid a collision. We could make it fair and
apportion blame pro-rata, according to the relative kinetic energy of
those who collide. but that is not feasible at a local level. Given a
limited set of tools available, and pending an appropriate social
solution, 20mph zones are a good start.

Quoted message said:

Lowering limits until 'accidents' stop will surely only end when all
speed limits are 0 mph.

There are plenty of accidents in stationary cars. They tend to increase
the population though, rather than decrease.

Quoted message said:

Something slightly more imaginative than speed limits is required IMHO.

Something imaginative that actually works would be better.

...d

Richard:

Quoted message said:

I stand corrected, and admire your 133t PI skills.

They don't call me Columbo for nothing you know. In fact they don't call me
Columbo at all!

David Martin said:

Matt B said:

POHB said:

> I wonder how long will it be before the idea of 'appropriate speed' sinks
> into these peoples heads.
If I thought you meant drivers when you say "these people" I'd agree.
Until such time as drivers start slowing down of their own accord then we
need to keep things simple.

Given that most 'accidents' happen within the speed limit, which implies
that the speed was nevertheless inappropriate for the circumstances, I
hope you'll agree therefore that 'keeping things simple' (by which I
assume you mean posting a limit) does not work that well. If _all_
limits were enforced 100% most 'accidents' (seeing as they occur at
speeds within the limit) would still happen.

Or if 20mph limits were imposed and enforced?

There may well be less accidents, but surely /no/ accidents, without
draconian and unnecessary measures would be /infinitely/ more desirable.

Quoted message said:

Maybe one could be more imaginative by making mvo's liable for the
consequences of failing to avoid a collision. We could make it fair and
apportion blame pro-rata, according to the relative kinetic energy of
those who collide. but that is not feasible at a local level.

No, I think I'd rather eliminate accidents than seek revenge against
certain road users whether it's their fault or not.

Quoted message said:

Given a
limited set of tools available, and pending an appropriate social
solution, 20mph zones are a good start.

Wasn't the 30 mph limit supposed to be a 'good start'? I think we've
done with the 'one speed limit fits all' road safety mantra. It
*doesn't* work.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Lowering limits until 'accidents' stop will surely only end when all
speed limits are 0 mph.

There are plenty of accidents in stationary cars. They tend to increase
the population though, rather than decrease.

:-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Something slightly more imaginative than speed limits is required IMHO.

Something imaginative that actually works would be better.

Did you honestly imagine I meant anything other than something which
"actually works"? That is why I'm sceptical about fixed speed limits,
because they certainly can't work.

--
Matt B

Quoted message said:

From what I recall (and it's been 20 years since I lived thereabouts),
those streets are rat runs - or have they been one-way'd appropriately?

One-waying can make streets even more of a rat-run coz drivers know they
don't have to dodge other rat-runners coming the other way. Around our way
the streets are naturally calmed by all the parked cars that turn them into
single track roads with passing places.

Not Responding said:

Tory councillor Malcolm Hey, who went into the chamber brandishing a
plastic tortoise, said: 'Instead of flagship city we are in danger of
becoming tortoise town, with travel only slightly faster than a snail's
pace. We get enough practice at moving at 20mph in traffic jams. When
we can move safely at 30mph let's do so.'

I wonder how many residential streets have traffic jams.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Quoted message said:

Something slightly more imaginative than speed limits is required IMHO.

Such as?

Anyway, is it all about accidents? What about making life more pleasant for
the folks who live, walk and play on these streets? Why should the folks
passing through have priority over the folks who live in the neighbourhood?
Of course there are all shades of residentialness from a quiet cul-de-sac to
a main artery that also has houses on it, but why not start with the
assumption that priority should go to the quality of life of the residents
and work out from that rather than assuming that the through traffic has
priority unless otherwise stated? A default limit of 20MPH and then
debating the exceptions sounds like a good starting point.

Matt B <[email hidden]> wrote:
|
| POHB wrote:
| >> I wonder how long will it be before the idea of 'appropriate speed' sinks
| >> into these peoples heads.
| >
| > If I thought you meant drivers when you say "these people" I'd agree.
| > Until such time as drivers start slowing down of their own accord then we
| > need to keep things simple.
|
| Given that most 'accidents' happen within the speed limit, which implies
| that the speed was nevertheless inappropriate for the circumstances, I
| hope you'll agree therefore that 'keeping things simple' (by which I
| assume you mean posting a limit) does not work that well. If _all_
| limits were enforced 100% most 'accidents' (seeing as they occur at
| speeds within the limit) would still happen.

Indeed.

....
| Something slightly more imaginative than speed limits is required IMHO.

Changing the bias of the law so that those disproportionately causing
the danger have the greater onus to prove it wasn't their fault, as the
forthcoming Causing Death by Careless Driving will do. I think many
drivers (and I include myself) would drive more carefully if they knew
that if anything happened they /would/ have to get themselves off a
serious charge in court. In fact I'd predict a boom in in-car video
taping, like the police have, in case it was needed for evidence.

--
Patrick Herring, http://www.anweald.co.uk/ph

"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Or if 20mph limits were imposed and enforced?

There may well be less accidents, but surely /no/ accidents, without
draconian and unnecessary measures would be /infinitely/ more desirable.

It is not just about accidents it is about quality of life. The roads round
me aare 20 mph it is not draconian, actually it makes little difference to
my journey times. I don't know if it has cut accidents, I do know that the
kids play out more now.

..

Quoted message said:

Wasn't the 30 mph limit supposed to be a 'good start'? I think we've done
with the 'one speed limit fits all' road safety mantra. It *doesn't*
work.

? It is a maximum not one speed fits all. The 30 mph limit has never been
enforced it is common for 70%+ of cars to exceed it. Even if they enforce a
20 mph limit they probably won't prosecute for < 25 or even < 30.

Quoted message said:

Did you honestly imagine I meant anything other than something which
"actually works"? That is why I'm sceptical about fixed speed limits,
because they certainly can't work.

What would that be then?

Matt B said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If _all_
limits were enforced 100% most 'accidents' (seeing as they occur at
speeds within the limit) would still happen.

Or if 20mph limits were imposed and enforced?

There may well be less accidents, but surely /no/ accidents, without
draconian and unnecessary measures would be /infinitely/ more desirable.

Hello clooud cuckoo land.. 20mph zones do reduce accidents, as
experience up and down the country shows.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Maybe one could be more imaginative by making mvo's liable for the
consequences of failing to avoid a collision. We could make it fair and
apportion blame pro-rata, according to the relative kinetic energy of
those who collide. but that is not feasible at a local level.

No, I think I'd rather eliminate accidents than seek revenge against
certain road users whether it's their fault or not.

Doh.. If you know you will be liable, will you not take a bit more
care? It is a measure which dramatically cut accidents in many European
countries. I don't know of anyone who *wants* to have an acident. The
things is they don't actively want to *not* have an accident enough to
counterbalance the wanting to be somewhere else that bit quicker.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Given a
limited set of tools available, and pending an appropriate social
solution, 20mph zones are a good start.

Wasn't the 30 mph limit supposed to be a 'good start'? I think we've
done with the 'one speed limit fits all' road safety mantra. It
*doesn't* work.

That's why we have different speed limits. Obviously we need social
change but that has to be assisted by legislation (cf smoking bans in
Scotland).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Lowering limits until 'accidents' stop will surely only end when all
speed limits are 0 mph.

There are plenty of accidents in stationary cars. They tend to increase
the population though, rather than decrease.

:-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Something slightly more imaginative than speed limits is required IMHO.

Something imaginative that actually works would be better.

Did you honestly imagine I meant anything other than something which
"actually works"? That is why I'm sceptical about fixed speed limits,
because they certainly can't work.

They do work, but not to the extent of removing all accidents.See
especially the evidence from Hull where many 20mph zones have been
installed and, despite a woeful record when it comes to traffic
policing, casualties dropped dramatically.

...d