20 mph Speed Limit Rejected - A Rare Win

20 mph Speed Limit Rejected - A Rare Win

Author
Discussion

bad company

Original Poster:

18,601 posts

266 months

Saturday 15th November 2014
quotequote all
It seems that the people of Worthing have decided that they can live without reduced speed limits:-

http://www.worthingherald.co.uk/news/local/worthin...

The guys running the '20's pointless' campaign are to be congratulated. clap

bad company

Original Poster:

18,601 posts

266 months

Saturday 15th November 2014
quotequote all
As far as I know this was the first truly organised campaign against a 20 limit. Hopefully others will be encouraged by the result.

Can't see how the council can approve the 20 limit now tho stranger things have happened.

bad company

Original Poster:

18,601 posts

266 months

Monday 17th November 2014
quotequote all
Can't believe I started a thread about a likely win against '20's plenty' and some of you still manage to make a fight between yourselves out of it.

There is an old saying about starting a fight in an empty room.

bad company

Original Poster:

18,601 posts

266 months

Monday 17th November 2014
quotequote all
singlecoil said:
Can't believe anyone would start a thread on a forum and not expect a discussion to ensue.


If I lived in a town and a 20mph limit was proposed, and if I disagreed with it as I expect I would, though it would depend on the local circumstances, I like to think I could come up with better arguments against it than "my car won't pull 20 in 3rd gear" and "I don't think I could judge 20mph without keeping my eyes glued to the speedometer".

I think most speed limits in this country are fine as they are and I don't know of any that need to be reduced further. But if we are to prevent further lowering, we need to come up with MUCH better arguments than the ones we see here nearly every day. Example of crap arguments seen on SP&L include "if I have to drive any slower I will go to sleep" and "they only have speed limits so they can fine people for exceeding them, and make loads of money".
There are lots of examples of how to run a successful campaign against reducing speed limits here - http://20spointless.org.uk/

Those guys ran a great campaign and as you said came up with much better arguments than some on this thread.

bad company

Original Poster:

18,601 posts

266 months

Thursday 20th November 2014
quotequote all
Funk said:
It's statements like the above that annoy me. He makes it sound like it's utter carnage on the roads and pedestrians and cyclists are being picked off around every corner by cars intent on hitting them. It's not.

I believe that one of the biggest issues around pedestrian/cyclist safety is that many of them do not take appropriate precautions or responsibility for their own actions. The number of people I see just wandering into the road whilst engrossed on their phone is surprising and I've given up being annoyed at cyclists riding in the dark with no lights at all (or with lights that look like they've got a light output equivalent to a twinkling, distant star). My bike is lit up like a Christmas tree in the dark, front and rear.

A blanket 20mph scheme is not the answer to getting people to think, look and listen.

Edited by Funk on Thursday 20th November 13:35
This Mr Kay reminds me of Alex Salmond. They both asked the electorate to make decisions then when they said no both want to start again until they get the decision they want. redcard


bad company

Original Poster:

18,601 posts

266 months

Thursday 20th November 2014
quotequote all
Mr GrimNasty said:
It seems common sense has prevailed, but we know what will happen.

(a) The subject will be quietly put back on the agenda a polite distance from now, and passed, or,
(b) Another consultation will be held with even more heavily loaded questions and the yes vote will be carefully orchestrated, or,
(c) One 'special case' road at a time will be given a 20mph limit, until there is no point leaving the others out.
I would normally agree but the campaign was very well organised & I reckon those guys will watch out for such skulduggery.

bad company

Original Poster:

18,601 posts

266 months

Friday 21st November 2014
quotequote all
Willy Nilly said:
I cannot understand why speed limits need to be so low around schools. There is a period of about 30 minutes at each end of the day when pupils are going into and out of the building. Normally at this time the roads around the building are just about at a stand still, so the actual legal limit is of no consequence, the rest of the day it is just a building like any other.

I want to see some evidence that shows where school age people are getting run over, and I'll bet a weeks wages it's not outside school. A couple of years ago the local police did a speed check out from a local school gateway. It was a Sunday afternoon in August, the only building on the road is the school and opposite is currently a field of oilseed rape, which doesn't have a reputation for running into the road. It is currently a 30 limit and in about 4 hours time it will be perfectly safe to do 70 along there.
The American system is much better. The speed limit reduces at certain times of day when the kids are about. This is indicated by flashing lights and a sign saying 'Speed Limit X When Lights Flashing'.


Edited by bad company on Friday 21st November 18:14

bad company

Original Poster:

18,601 posts

266 months

Wednesday 26th November 2014
quotequote all
Nice update on the 20's pointless site - http://20spointless.org.uk

Hope other local areas can learn from this.

bad company

Original Poster:

18,601 posts

266 months

Friday 13th February 2015
quotequote all
BlueMR2 said:
Mass introduction of 20mph zones is like the mass introduction of ABS and other electric safety aids.

It makes the clueless more dangerous, except instead of pushing a vehicle harder and flying off a road and being protected by loads of airbags and walking away with a scratch, they are walking into vehicles which have a ton+ of weight on them.

Have you driven modern cars, with the massive a pillars? you can hide 2 cars in there, they are a nightmare when driving. It's a shame they spend there time trying to protect bad drivers, instead of protecting the good drivers by making the bad drivers better.
Am I imagining it or are wing mirrors also getting bigger, probably for similar reasons.

bad company

Original Poster:

18,601 posts

266 months

Friday 13th February 2015
quotequote all
Devil2575 said:
If you think a wide A pillar that can "hide 2 cars" is so dangerous then perhaps you need to question your own driving skills.
Really, seriously?

bad company

Original Poster:

18,601 posts

266 months

Saturday 14th February 2015
quotequote all
Devil2575 said:
bad company said:
Devil2575 said:
If you think a wide A pillar that can "hide 2 cars" is so dangerous then perhaps you need to question your own driving skills.
Really, seriously?
Yes.
Perhaps 'hide 2 cars' is a bit of an exaggeration but the 'elf & safety' brigade have clearly been influencing car design and not for the better IMO. As stated the pillars are often too wide and the wing mirrors are starting to look like elephant ears.

bad company

Original Poster:

18,601 posts

266 months

Sunday 15th February 2015
quotequote all
Devil2575 said:
No. I've never needed glasses.
A trip to Specsavers could be a good idea for you.

bad company

Original Poster:

18,601 posts

266 months

Thursday 19th February 2015
quotequote all
Dr Jekyll said:
Councillors, as a breed, regard motorists as fking obnoxious moronic stfaced scumbags whose life must be made a misery. There is no point in trying to reason with them.
That's a bit like saying all Frenchmen eat garlic.