Blanket 20mph limit across Wales from 2023
Discussion
ATG said:
Byker28i said:
bigothunter said:
monkfish1 said:
You know they are only saying that becaiuse there is an election looming. Once its over, regardlress of outcome, it will be back to buisness as usual.
Taking political advantage of unpopular policy - yes of course 
But this default 20mph limit does have a particularly nasty socialist ring to it. Ideology before pragmatism. Needs stopping before this disease spreads across the UK.
It's part of a complete policy that includes promoting working from home, or a return to working locally so you can walk to work etc
https://www.gov.wales/remote-working-policy
Byker28i said:
WG are now targetting cars claiming that Transport is the third largest carbon emitter in Wales, a figure taken from a 2019 report, precovid
https://foe.cymru/transport-whats-problem
Ut even makes the point that transport in Wales is dominated by the car?more than in any other part of the UK. ? Yes because it's really rural and limited public transport!
But also "?It’s not enough to simply change to electric vehicles. We need a modal shift - to get cars off the road and enable people to travel by public transport and active travel.?" - so it's not about the car pollution then?
Wg are now pushing ads for the reduction in the use of cars
https://www.climateaction.gov.wales/green-travel-c...
The 2019 report was commisioned by the WG and delivered by 'transport expert Chris Roberts' who interestingly wrote a further report in 2023 that post covid, "At the 2021 Census, 25.6% of the Welsh workforce worked mainly from home, compared to 5.3% at the 2011 Census. "
In fact he now makes the point "The car dominates our transport system and will continue to do so. For many of our members it is an essential tool for their daily lives. "
https://www.tuc.org.uk/research-analysis/reports/t...
Yet still the WG are using superseded figures and data on their attack on cars
https://foe.cymru/transport-whats-problem
Ut even makes the point that transport in Wales is dominated by the car?more than in any other part of the UK. ? Yes because it's really rural and limited public transport!
But also "?It’s not enough to simply change to electric vehicles. We need a modal shift - to get cars off the road and enable people to travel by public transport and active travel.?" - so it's not about the car pollution then?
Wg are now pushing ads for the reduction in the use of cars
https://www.climateaction.gov.wales/green-travel-c...
The 2019 report was commisioned by the WG and delivered by 'transport expert Chris Roberts' who interestingly wrote a further report in 2023 that post covid, "At the 2021 Census, 25.6% of the Welsh workforce worked mainly from home, compared to 5.3% at the 2011 Census. "
In fact he now makes the point "The car dominates our transport system and will continue to do so. For many of our members it is an essential tool for their daily lives. "
https://www.tuc.org.uk/research-analysis/reports/t...
Yet still the WG are using superseded figures and data on their attack on cars
ingenieur said:
An easy commitment when you have zero chance of being in a postion to do so. Theres more chance of a mars landing next week.In the highly unlikely event they won, they would back peddle pretty quickly. We have wasted £32million already, to reverse that. logically would cost a similar amount. That would be equally as daft as doing it in the first place. Im sure that money could be usefully spent on something else.
Though no doubt, on some other "pet project" rather tan making things better for the people of wales.
monkfish1 said:
ingenieur said:
An easy commitment when you have zero chance of being in a postion to do so. Theres more chance of a mars landing next week.In the highly unlikely event they won, they would back peddle pretty quickly. We have wasted £32million already, to reverse that. logically would cost a similar amount. That would be equally as daft as doing it in the first place. Im sure that money could be usefully spent on something else.
Though no doubt, on some other "pet project" rather tan making things better for the people of wales.
The conservatives are the official opposition in the Welsh parliament. Saying they have no chance of whatever is a bit of a stretch. After the leading party the party with the next highest chance of having control is the official opposition... aka the conservatives.
Taking out what was put in is going to be a lot easier as without the ideological zeal to have this implemented as fast as possible to really piss people off there is less momentum required to undo it. No new signs will have to be purchased as this is 'taking out' rather than 'putting in' so it will certainly not cost as much.
I think you would also find people would be accommodating if you were to explain that you intended to slowly roll this back piecemeal during other refurbishment works and that sort of approach.
If they are sincere with that pledge then they deserve to get the votes.
ingenieur said:
monkfish1 said:
ingenieur said:
An easy commitment when you have zero chance of being in a postion to do so. Theres more chance of a mars landing next week.In the highly unlikely event they won, they would back peddle pretty quickly. We have wasted £32million already, to reverse that. logically would cost a similar amount. That would be equally as daft as doing it in the first place. Im sure that money could be usefully spent on something else.
Though no doubt, on some other "pet project" rather tan making things better for the people of wales.
The conservatives are the official opposition in the Welsh parliament. Saying they have no chance of whatever is a bit of a stretch. After the leading party the party with the next highest chance of having control is the official opposition... aka the conservatives.
Taking out what was put in is going to be a lot easier as without the ideological zeal to have this implemented as fast as possible to really piss people off there is less momentum required to undo it. No new signs will have to be purchased as this is 'taking out' rather than 'putting in' so it will certainly not cost as much.
I think you would also find people would be accommodating if you were to explain that you intended to slowly roll this back piecemeal during other refurbishment works and that sort of approach.
If they are sincere with that pledge then they deserve to get the votes.
But, lets be clear, yes, they are the official opposition. And they will stay that way. I dont think anyone is seriously suggesting that they could win control? Thats nuts.
With regard to cost, im not sure you understand the basis on which it was done from a legal stand point. The default limit of 30 was reduced to 20. You cannot change the default speed limit in law on an adhoc basis based on location. That would be completely unenforcable,
Thats why all the 20 repeater board had to be taken down. You only use repeater boards where the speed limit is NOT the default. To reverse the current position will be the same excercise backwards. Your suggestion would actually be worse as more signage would be required, as well as not complying with the law.
The only sensible, low cost way forwards is to remove the 20 and make a 30 in places where its not appropiate on a case by case basis. As well as the locations where the speed limit changes many times over a short distance. Sadly, thats for the local authority to do. I cant see though, what their motivation to do so would be? Add to which, if you were to do so, and then there was an accident, they would open themselves to the claim of having knowingly made the sitation "less safe". No one in a council is going to sign up for that. Nor will any notional conservative administration.
Speed limits are like ratchets. You cant go back.
monkfish1 said:
Im not against reversal in principle. Thats logical because i was against the original policy,
But, lets be clear, yes, they are the official opposition. And they will stay that way. I dont think anyone is seriously suggesting that they could win control? Thats nuts.
With regard to cost, im not sure you understand the basis on which it was done from a legal stand point. The default limit of 30 was reduced to 20. You cannot change the default speed limit in law on an adhoc basis based on location. That would be completely unenforcable,
Thats why all the 20 repeater board had to be taken down. You only use repeater boards where the speed limit is NOT the default. To reverse the current position will be the same excercise backwards. Your suggestion would actually be worse as more signage would be required, as well as not complying with the law.
The only sensible, low cost way forwards is to remove the 20 and make a 30 in places where its not appropiate on a case by case basis. As well as the locations where the speed limit changes many times over a short distance. Sadly, thats for the local authority to do. I cant see though, what their motivation to do so would be? Add to which, if you were to do so, and then there was an accident, they would open themselves to the claim of having knowingly made the sitation "less safe". No one in a council is going to sign up for that. Nor will any notional conservative administration.
Speed limits are like ratchets. You cant go back.
If you don't ask, you don't get... But, lets be clear, yes, they are the official opposition. And they will stay that way. I dont think anyone is seriously suggesting that they could win control? Thats nuts.
With regard to cost, im not sure you understand the basis on which it was done from a legal stand point. The default limit of 30 was reduced to 20. You cannot change the default speed limit in law on an adhoc basis based on location. That would be completely unenforcable,
Thats why all the 20 repeater board had to be taken down. You only use repeater boards where the speed limit is NOT the default. To reverse the current position will be the same excercise backwards. Your suggestion would actually be worse as more signage would be required, as well as not complying with the law.
The only sensible, low cost way forwards is to remove the 20 and make a 30 in places where its not appropiate on a case by case basis. As well as the locations where the speed limit changes many times over a short distance. Sadly, thats for the local authority to do. I cant see though, what their motivation to do so would be? Add to which, if you were to do so, and then there was an accident, they would open themselves to the claim of having knowingly made the sitation "less safe". No one in a council is going to sign up for that. Nor will any notional conservative administration.
Speed limits are like ratchets. You cant go back.
M
Evanivitch said:
Penrhyn said:
Starmer will no doubt promote him to the House of Lords.
Possibly, but from the sounds of it he's retiring completely.Obviously, putting a former first minister in the HoL would be an insane thing to do..
monkfish1 said:
ingenieur said:
monkfish1 said:
ingenieur said:
An easy commitment when you have zero chance of being in a postion to do so. Theres more chance of a mars landing next week.In the highly unlikely event they won, they would back peddle pretty quickly. We have wasted £32million already, to reverse that. logically would cost a similar amount. That would be equally as daft as doing it in the first place. Im sure that money could be usefully spent on something else.
Though no doubt, on some other "pet project" rather tan making things better for the people of wales.
The conservatives are the official opposition in the Welsh parliament. Saying they have no chance of whatever is a bit of a stretch. After the leading party the party with the next highest chance of having control is the official opposition... aka the conservatives.
Taking out what was put in is going to be a lot easier as without the ideological zeal to have this implemented as fast as possible to really piss people off there is less momentum required to undo it. No new signs will have to be purchased as this is 'taking out' rather than 'putting in' so it will certainly not cost as much.
I think you would also find people would be accommodating if you were to explain that you intended to slowly roll this back piecemeal during other refurbishment works and that sort of approach.
If they are sincere with that pledge then they deserve to get the votes.
But, lets be clear, yes, they are the official opposition. And they will stay that way. I dont think anyone is seriously suggesting that they could win control? Thats nuts.
With regard to cost, im not sure you understand the basis on which it was done from a legal stand point. The default limit of 30 was reduced to 20. You cannot change the default speed limit in law on an adhoc basis based on location. That would be completely unenforcable,
Thats why all the 20 repeater board had to be taken down. You only use repeater boards where the speed limit is NOT the default. To reverse the current position will be the same excercise backwards. Your suggestion would actually be worse as more signage would be required, as well as not complying with the law.
The only sensible, low cost way forwards is to remove the 20 and make a 30 in places where its not appropiate on a case by case basis. As well as the locations where the speed limit changes many times over a short distance. Sadly, thats for the local authority to do. I cant see though, what their motivation to do so would be? Add to which, if you were to do so, and then there was an accident, they would open themselves to the claim of having knowingly made the sitation "less safe". No one in a council is going to sign up for that. Nor will any notional conservative administration.
Speed limits are like ratchets. You cant go back.
And so it spreads.... Wales will be a distant memory soon. My county, Somerset, announced today: 20 is the new 30, and 30 is the new 60.
Bishopswood: Roytson Road.
Cannington: Main Road, Brook Street, East Street, Fore Street, Brownings Road, Oak Tree Way, Clifford Park, Mill Lane, High Street, Chad's Hill.
Castle Cary: North Street, Cumnock Road, Florida Street, Woodcock Street, Victoria Road, Priory Close, B3152, The Park, Castle Rise, Millbrook Gardens, Greenway Road, Victoria Park, Florida Fields, West Park - plus entirety of Ansfield area.
Chard: Henson Park, Fairway Rise, Middle Touches, Lower Touches, Touches Meadow.
Crowcombe: Main Road, Carters Lane, Hagleys Green.
Alhampton: West Lane.
Ilchester: B3151, Lyster Close, Limington Road, Alshouse Lane, West Street, Pill Bridge Lane, Abbots Road, Priory Lane, Bishops Walk, Canons Gate, Priory Road, Manor Gardens, Kingshams, Ivel Gardens.
Monksilver: B3188, Birchanger Lane, Combecross Hill, Back Way, Pond Orchard, Sunny Bank, Front Street.
North Petherton: All roads other than Dancing Hill, Oak Lodge, Tanner Road, Sixpence Drive, Florin Road, Shilling Close, Sterling Way, Guinea Close, Pound Road, Penny Lane.
Othery: A361, New Road, A372, Load Pool, Elm Tree Close, North Lane, Fore Street, A361 (High Street), Paynes Lane, Westlake Close, Rye Lane, Keens Lane, Summerhedge Road, Summerhedge Crescent, Mill Lane, Little England.
Ruishton: All roads.
Trudoxhill: Foghamshire Lane, Ashfield Close, Knoll Hill View.
Wincanton: North Street, Waterside Road, Mill Street, Silver Street, The Batch, B3801, Pines Lane, Cavalier Way, Cemetery Lane, Church Fields, North Street, Waterside Road, Ireson Lane.
Roads set to have 30mph speed limits introduced
Monksilver: Two stretches of the B3188 towards Inglewood and Woodford.
Trudoxhill: Marl Pits Lane (reduced from national speed limit).
I looked at the TRO docs just now and the reasons are sijmply:
"STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR PROPOSING TO MAKE THE ORDER
For avoiding danger to persons or other traffic using the road or any other road or for
preventing the likelihood of any such danger arising"
Bishopswood: Roytson Road.
Cannington: Main Road, Brook Street, East Street, Fore Street, Brownings Road, Oak Tree Way, Clifford Park, Mill Lane, High Street, Chad's Hill.
Castle Cary: North Street, Cumnock Road, Florida Street, Woodcock Street, Victoria Road, Priory Close, B3152, The Park, Castle Rise, Millbrook Gardens, Greenway Road, Victoria Park, Florida Fields, West Park - plus entirety of Ansfield area.
Chard: Henson Park, Fairway Rise, Middle Touches, Lower Touches, Touches Meadow.
Crowcombe: Main Road, Carters Lane, Hagleys Green.
Alhampton: West Lane.
Ilchester: B3151, Lyster Close, Limington Road, Alshouse Lane, West Street, Pill Bridge Lane, Abbots Road, Priory Lane, Bishops Walk, Canons Gate, Priory Road, Manor Gardens, Kingshams, Ivel Gardens.
Monksilver: B3188, Birchanger Lane, Combecross Hill, Back Way, Pond Orchard, Sunny Bank, Front Street.
North Petherton: All roads other than Dancing Hill, Oak Lodge, Tanner Road, Sixpence Drive, Florin Road, Shilling Close, Sterling Way, Guinea Close, Pound Road, Penny Lane.
Othery: A361, New Road, A372, Load Pool, Elm Tree Close, North Lane, Fore Street, A361 (High Street), Paynes Lane, Westlake Close, Rye Lane, Keens Lane, Summerhedge Road, Summerhedge Crescent, Mill Lane, Little England.
Ruishton: All roads.
Trudoxhill: Foghamshire Lane, Ashfield Close, Knoll Hill View.
Wincanton: North Street, Waterside Road, Mill Street, Silver Street, The Batch, B3801, Pines Lane, Cavalier Way, Cemetery Lane, Church Fields, North Street, Waterside Road, Ireson Lane.
Roads set to have 30mph speed limits introduced
Monksilver: Two stretches of the B3188 towards Inglewood and Woodford.
Trudoxhill: Marl Pits Lane (reduced from national speed limit).
I looked at the TRO docs just now and the reasons are sijmply:
"STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR PROPOSING TO MAKE THE ORDER
For avoiding danger to persons or other traffic using the road or any other road or for
preventing the likelihood of any such danger arising"
Edited by Griffith4ever on Tuesday 26th March 11:52
Griffith4ever said:
And so it spreads.... Wales will be a distant memory soon. My county, Somerset, announced today: 20 is the new 30, and 30 is the new 60
Thing is... We've all agreed 20mph is actually reasonable on some roads and we want the local authorities to be empowered to reduce the limits where reasonable. What we DO NOT want, is the blanket / default reduction, where the local authority has to then go through an exercise of raising the limits back to where they were previously (assuming they have the funding and manpower to do so).In addition to this, it would be great to see targeted road safety education to prevent as many KSI numbers in the at risk categories (ie boys and young men).
M
camel_landy said:
Griffith4ever said:
And so it spreads.... Wales will be a distant memory soon. My county, Somerset, announced today: 20 is the new 30, and 30 is the new 60
Thing is... We've all agreed 20mph is actually reasonable on some roads and we want the local authorities to be empowered to reduce the limits where reasonable. What we DO NOT want, is the blanket / default reduction, where the local authority has to then go through an exercise of raising the limits back to where they were previously (assuming they have the funding and manpower to do so).In addition to this, it would be great to see targeted road safety education to prevent as many KSI numbers in the at risk categories (ie boys and young men).
M
I'll keep repeating it until the message cuts through; it is neither hard, labour intensive or expensive to get exemptions and signage in place for 30mph roads. My non-Labour county council managed the change without missing a beat, and we are under enormous financial strain.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff