The time has come for 20mph limits

Warrington Guardian: The time has come for 20mph limits The time has come for 20mph limits

“THE time has come.”

The words of Lymm resident Rod King, who is founder and campaign director of 20’s Plenty who are helping councils across the country bring in lower speed limits.

And In the borough the first wave of 20mph speed limits across all residential roads will came into operation on Friday.

Mr King, who also spoke to MPs at the House of Commons about 20mph zones on Wednesday, has long been campaigning for the borough to bring in lower speed limits.

He said“It’s happening in so many places now and it’s good to see Warrington is up there with the likes of Liverpool, York and Bristol.

“I think drivers will recognise people live in those 20mph roads and there are children playing and people sleeping there.

“It sets a standard and as it says in our community we do not want people speeding.

“If you go at more than 20mph you are speeding and you are breaking the law and not doing what the community wants. Speeding is anti-social.”

The first 20mph areas include Dallam, part of Orford and Howley.

The entire borough’s residential roads will be turned to 20mph over the next three years after council bosses approved the move in 2011.

Money from the Sustainable Transport Fund is being used to help fund the estimated £740,000 programme.

But the move to life in the slow lane has faced opposition from some motorists who complain at the cost and how the limits will be policed.

Lower speed limit campaigner Mr King though said: “Where people have lower speed limits they do not want to give them up. If they had the choice of living on a street with 20mph or 30mph the vast majority will choose 20mph.

“It makes better communities and better lives to live.”

Comments (18)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:36pm Sun 10 Feb 13

mac says...

I dont recall Mr King asking my opinion, before claiming we are all in favour of 20mph limits.
I dont recall Mr King asking my opinion, before claiming we are all in favour of 20mph limits. mac
  • Score: 0

8:09pm Sun 10 Feb 13

Sameoldsameold says...

“I think drivers will recognise people live in those 20mph roads and there are children playing and people sleeping there.

Is this guy real , the people who speed don't give a toss about other road users/ pedestrians, who's going to police them, you rarely see police on major roads never mind residential areas. As much as I would like it, it won't happen
“I think drivers will recognise people live in those 20mph roads and there are children playing and people sleeping there. Is this guy real , the people who speed don't give a toss about other road users/ pedestrians, who's going to police them, you rarely see police on major roads never mind residential areas. As much as I would like it, it won't happen Sameoldsameold
  • Score: 0

8:58pm Sun 10 Feb 13

ericbrip says...

What Rod King does not tell us is that serious injuries INCREASE when 20mph limits are implemented because pedestrians feel safer so take less care and drivers are behaving much as previously, possibly less alert due to their slower speeds.
Any claims for improved road safety are a lie. All we get from Mr King is basically "if you hit people at slower speeds, you kill fewer of them", which is not a road safety strategy that I would support.
What Rod King does not tell us is that serious injuries INCREASE when 20mph limits are implemented because pedestrians feel safer so take less care and drivers are behaving much as previously, possibly less alert due to their slower speeds. Any claims for improved road safety are a lie. All we get from Mr King is basically "if you hit people at slower speeds, you kill fewer of them", which is not a road safety strategy that I would support. ericbrip
  • Score: 0

9:27pm Sun 10 Feb 13

old-codger says...

The words of Lymm resident Rod King are a pack of porky pie,s, Area,s with Lower speed limits have seen an increase in the accident rate,
The residents of this town have not been asked for an opinion, Children shouldnt be playing on the roads no matter what the speed limit is.
Doe,s he expect the whole country to drive round in second gear, He lives in a village and wants to force his opinions on big city,s.
He,s lost the plot and the future will prove him wrong.
The accident rate will increase and he and his ilk will be to blame.
The words of Lymm resident Rod King are a pack of porky pie,s, Area,s with Lower speed limits have seen an increase in the accident rate, The residents of this town have not been asked for an opinion, Children shouldnt be playing on the roads no matter what the speed limit is. Doe,s he expect the whole country to drive round in second gear, He lives in a village and wants to force his opinions on big city,s. He,s lost the plot and the future will prove him wrong. The accident rate will increase and he and his ilk will be to blame. old-codger
  • Score: 0

10:26pm Sun 10 Feb 13

ericbrip says...

20's Plenty's "case" is built on lies and misinformation.
Old Codger and I have already covered the increased casualties inn 20mph. If you don't believe us, check their website - nothing about reducing casualties except the odd ultra-cherry-picked number. The big picture is an utter scandal.
Their "public support" is based on loaded questions, which give the response they want.
20mph is bad for road safety - more pedestrians and cyclists get hurt.
And it costs HOW MUCH? £740,000??? Just think what real good that could do.
It must be stopped.
20's Plenty's "case" is built on lies and misinformation. Old Codger and I have already covered the increased casualties inn 20mph. If you don't believe us, check their website - nothing about reducing casualties except the odd ultra-cherry-picked number. The big picture is an utter scandal. Their "public support" is based on loaded questions, which give the response they want. 20mph is bad for road safety - more pedestrians and cyclists get hurt. And it costs HOW MUCH? £740,000??? Just think what real good that could do. It must be stopped. ericbrip
  • Score: 0

10:44pm Sun 10 Feb 13

widnesman says...

This country only has four speed limits laid down by the government, they 30, 40 60 and 70 MPH.
All other limits are set by local councils to suit the local road conditions, which includes the 20 MPH in question.
The council must also provide, at their expense, additional speed calming measures in these zones i.e. speed humps, chicanes and signs.
It is also the responsibility of the council to fund the speed enforcements.
With the Cheshire Police Commisioner announcing an £8.3M cut in the budget, how are these local rules to be enforced?!!
This country only has four speed limits laid down by the government, they 30, 40 60 and 70 MPH. All other limits are set by local councils to suit the local road conditions, which includes the 20 MPH in question. The council must also provide, at their expense, additional speed calming measures in these zones i.e. speed humps, chicanes and signs. It is also the responsibility of the council to fund the speed enforcements. With the Cheshire Police Commisioner announcing an £8.3M cut in the budget, how are these local rules to be enforced?!! widnesman
  • Score: 0

1:55am Mon 11 Feb 13

Bevan1 says...

1st the L.A. riots and now 20mph speed limits, whats next for Mr King?
1st the L.A. riots and now 20mph speed limits, whats next for Mr King? Bevan1
  • Score: 0

6:25am Mon 11 Feb 13

grey_man says...

The council ran its own pilot of these schemes. It found that it didn't affect casualty numbers at all, in spite of diverting thousands of journeys away from the 20mph zones.

In addition, the local police couldn't even be bothered to pass their views to the consultation when asked. At a national level however, the attitude of police is that they haven't got the resources to police 20mph zones, most people only travel at an average of about 24mph anyway on the most appropriate for these schemes and so the onus is on councils to introduce traffic calming if they want the 20mph zones.

So expect more speed bumps and chicanes. Ambulance drivers particularly love traffic calming when they've got somebody seriously ill in the back.

As somebody else says, the people who flout the 30mph will flout the 20mph.

Rod's campaign is not about road safety or the environment. It's about social engineering. He should just admit it.
The council ran its own pilot of these schemes. It found that it didn't affect casualty numbers at all, in spite of diverting thousands of journeys away from the 20mph zones. In addition, the local police couldn't even be bothered to pass their views to the consultation when asked. At a national level however, the attitude of police is that they haven't got the resources to police 20mph zones, most people only travel at an average of about 24mph anyway on the most appropriate for these schemes and so the onus is on councils to introduce traffic calming if they want the 20mph zones. So expect more speed bumps and chicanes. Ambulance drivers particularly love traffic calming when they've got somebody seriously ill in the back. As somebody else says, the people who flout the 30mph will flout the 20mph. Rod's campaign is not about road safety or the environment. It's about social engineering. He should just admit it. grey_man
  • Score: 0

9:21am Mon 11 Feb 13

Freeborn John says...

Mr King holds no official position, anywhere, and has a mandate from nobody apart from himself.
It's scary how much power one private individual with an axe to grind can gain over the rest of us just by playing the road safety card.
Mr King holds no official position, anywhere, and has a mandate from nobody apart from himself. It's scary how much power one private individual with an axe to grind can gain over the rest of us just by playing the road safety card. Freeborn John
  • Score: 0

10:20am Mon 11 Feb 13

MikeJT says...

2011 saw a 24% (2262 people) increase in accidents in areas where the limit had been reduced to 20mph. In the same period accidents in areas which remain at 30% fell by 1%.

Pedestrians in these areas falsely feel "safer" and take less care. Those who ignore limits dont give a **** whether its 30 or 20. I live on a road where the limit has been reduced from 30 to 20 and over the weekend people were still driving down it at 40+.....because they wanted to avoid traffic bottlenecks.

Personally I would actually think that my "driving" would be worse in a 20mph area as I would spend more time watching my speedo than the road.

A 20mph sign will NOT make a blind bit of difference. What would have worked would have been if the council had listened to residents' opinions 10+ years ago when SENSIBLE traffic measure were suggested by the public.

The long term aim is to introduce the 20mph limit to all residential roads. Define "residential". Some of the main roads through the borough are residential if you us the definition that they have residences located on them (even Wally drag is residential!!!!).

In October 2011 Mr King accepted that there needed to be ongoing consultation but there hasnt been.
2011 saw a 24% (2262 people) increase in accidents in areas where the limit had been reduced to 20mph. In the same period accidents in areas which remain at 30% fell by 1%. Pedestrians in these areas falsely feel "safer" and take less care. Those who ignore limits dont give a **** whether its 30 or 20. I live on a road where the limit has been reduced from 30 to 20 and over the weekend people were still driving down it at 40+.....because they wanted to avoid traffic bottlenecks. Personally I would actually think that my "driving" would be worse in a 20mph area as I would spend more time watching my speedo than the road. A 20mph sign will NOT make a blind bit of difference. What would have worked would have been if the council had listened to residents' opinions 10+ years ago when SENSIBLE traffic measure were suggested by the public. The long term aim is to introduce the 20mph limit to all residential roads. Define "residential". Some of the main roads through the borough are residential if you us the definition that they have residences located on them (even Wally drag is residential!!!!). In October 2011 Mr King accepted that there needed to be ongoing consultation but there hasnt been. MikeJT
  • Score: 0

2:59pm Mon 11 Feb 13

HappyMisery says...

20mph limits didnt make any difference in Orford. No change in any statistics, probably because its difficult to exceed 20mph due to the volume of traffic, traffic lights and/or crossings as well as bus stops and cyclists. £740K would have been better invested in schools teaching road safety.
20mph limits didnt make any difference in Orford. No change in any statistics, probably because its difficult to exceed 20mph due to the volume of traffic, traffic lights and/or crossings as well as bus stops and cyclists. £740K would have been better invested in schools teaching road safety. HappyMisery
  • Score: 0

3:53pm Mon 11 Feb 13

gazhopley says...

rod king has actually stated on this site in public, that "children have to calculate how long it would take them to cross the road" and more unbelievably that "it is impossible for cyclists to go over 20mph" how can any government or council take this guy seriously, he makes up facts and figures just to prove his point except if his point was valid he wouldn't have to lie. If the council or government would like to embarrass themselves then go ahead and listen to someone who isn't trying to help, but just wants control, I have got pages of his so called arguments and I can safely say he has no interest in road safety, he just wants cyclists to rule and rule unconditionally without any responsibility for their own road safety, he is fine with cyclists going through red lights and riding on pavements, both of which is illegal. because according to him cyclists can do no wrong. Until EVERYONE who uses a road whether it be drivers, cyclists and pedestrians accept responsibility for their own road safety and all of those around them, then this is all money wasted and if the speed reductions actually remove some of that responsibility away then all that money will be doing all harm and no good. if you want to help Rod, then focus on actual road safety and not just the parts that would suit YOU.
rod king has actually stated on this site in public, that "children have to calculate how long it would take them to cross the road" and more unbelievably that "it is impossible for cyclists to go over 20mph" how can any government or council take this guy seriously, he makes up facts and figures just to prove his point except if his point was valid he wouldn't have to lie. If the council or government would like to embarrass themselves then go ahead and listen to someone who isn't trying to help, but just wants control, I have got pages of his so called arguments and I can safely say he has no interest in road safety, he just wants cyclists to rule and rule unconditionally without any responsibility for their own road safety, he is fine with cyclists going through red lights and riding on pavements, both of which is illegal. because according to him cyclists can do no wrong. Until EVERYONE who uses a road whether it be drivers, cyclists and pedestrians accept responsibility for their own road safety and all of those around them, then this is all money wasted and if the speed reductions actually remove some of that responsibility away then all that money will be doing all harm and no good. if you want to help Rod, then focus on actual road safety and not just the parts that would suit YOU. gazhopley
  • Score: 0

5:55pm Mon 11 Feb 13

Mike E says...

Can I suggest that if, as stated, the local community as a whole is so much in support of a 20mph zone on all streets that Mr King fights for a local referendum before any such restrictions are put in place.

Regarding "Where people have lower speed limits they do not want to give them up" We could also run a referendum in Orford to see if in fact the residents want to retain the 20mph zone?

The problem with people like "Rod King, who is founder and campaign director of 20’s Plenty who are helping councils across the country bring in lower speed limits." is that they are actually working in other communities where they should have no influence to enforce their own views on how they believe others should live. unfortunately their pro-active voices can give an impression of more influence and support than they actually arehave and can easily create a biased and flawed argument. Full, independent data from properly conducted academic studies does not support the blanket bringing in of 20mph zones on safety grounds, but supports selective speed limits where required, with funds spent appropriately and intelligently.
Can I suggest that if, as stated, the local community as a whole is so much in support of a 20mph zone on all streets that Mr King fights for a local referendum before any such restrictions are put in place. Regarding "Where people have lower speed limits they do not want to give them up" We could also run a referendum in Orford to see if in fact the residents want to retain the 20mph zone? The problem with people like "Rod King, who is founder and campaign director of 20’s Plenty who are helping councils across the country bring in lower speed limits." is that they are actually working in other communities where they should have no influence to enforce their own views on how they believe others should live. unfortunately their pro-active voices can give an impression of more influence and support than they actually arehave and can easily create a biased and flawed argument. Full, independent data from properly conducted academic studies does not support the blanket bringing in of 20mph zones on safety grounds, but supports selective speed limits where required, with funds spent appropriately and intelligently. Mike E
  • Score: 0

1:30pm Tue 12 Feb 13

MikeJT says...

"Can I suggest that if, as stated, the local community as a whole is so much in support of a 20mph zone on all streets that Mr King fights for a local referendum before any such restrictions are put in place."

A Conservative councillor said in october 2011 that the public should have a wider say on this policy. Mr King said at the time that there didnt need to be a referendum because there had been plenty of consultation and a referendum wasnt a serious proposition. So much for democracy!
"Can I suggest that if, as stated, the local community as a whole is so much in support of a 20mph zone on all streets that Mr King fights for a local referendum before any such restrictions are put in place." A Conservative councillor said in october 2011 that the public should have a wider say on this policy. Mr King said at the time that there didnt need to be a referendum because there had been plenty of consultation and a referendum wasnt a serious proposition. So much for democracy! MikeJT
  • Score: 0

3:22pm Tue 12 Feb 13

old-codger says...

Mr King is one of those so called do gooders who think they know it all but actually know nothing,
It is not for him to decide if we get a referendum or not that decision is upto our elected represenatives,
He is not representing anybody but himself and his self intrests,
Mr King is one of those so called do gooders who think they know it all but actually know nothing, It is not for him to decide if we get a referendum or not that decision is upto our elected represenatives, He is not representing anybody but himself and his self intrests, old-codger
  • Score: 0

3:48pm Tue 12 Feb 13

ericbrip says...

At last year's 20mph Places Conference (more of a "love-in" really) 20's Plenty (Rod King and Anna Semelyn) made it quite clear that did not want debate. That is because the tragic consequences of 20mph schemes (in terms of increased serious injuries) are now clear.
I was invited by the organisers to give my presentation (explaining the 20mph tragedy, and why it has happened) because they felt to the "pro-20mph" camp had had it too easy for too long.
It is not about safety at all - but it is about control and social engineering as another contributor has stated.
At last year's 20mph Places Conference (more of a "love-in" really) 20's Plenty (Rod King and Anna Semelyn) made it quite clear that did not want debate. That is because the tragic consequences of 20mph schemes (in terms of increased serious injuries) are now clear. I was invited by the organisers to give my presentation (explaining the 20mph tragedy, and why it has happened) because they felt to the "pro-20mph" camp had had it too easy for too long. It is not about safety at all - but it is about control and social engineering as another contributor has stated. ericbrip
  • Score: 0

7:53am Wed 13 Feb 13

annie1275 says...

I remember when Long Lane went to 20MPH,what a disaster that was.Soon put it back to 30MPH.
I remember when Long Lane went to 20MPH,what a disaster that was.Soon put it back to 30MPH. annie1275
  • Score: 0

11:36am Wed 13 Feb 13

gazhopley says...

All the speed reductions have done is mess up right of way, with pedestrians and cyclists alike thinking that as cars are going slower they can do what they want, cross where and when they want and its the motorists job to stop... and it isnt, the distance between the motorist and those others using the road is decreasing, meaning incidents are MORE likely to happen, and because they feel it is only the motorist who has responsibility then pedestrians and cyclists are becoming more ignorant to any road safety, instead of the roads becoming safer, there are more "near misses" than ever except these near misses are never reported, The council didn't help with their radio campaign "taking the streets BACK for your community" what was that going to do to the psychology of the average pedestrian, was that going to reinforce road safety or does everyone think that it would lead pedestrians to believe that as the road was "theirs" the right of way is theirs too, which obviously it isnt. and of course this wouldn't lead to accidents, would it? cyclists already believe that the roads are theirs, and pavements and red lights are pretty but dont actually mean ANYTHING, all it would take is for 1 accident involving a motorist and a pedestrian or cyclist and for the pedestrian or cyclist to say they thought it was their right of way because that is what the council has led them to believe and there would be civil suits everywhere... including Rod King and I for one am looking forward to that day
All the speed reductions have done is mess up right of way, with pedestrians and cyclists alike thinking that as cars are going slower they can do what they want, cross where and when they want and its the motorists job to stop... and it isnt, the distance between the motorist and those others using the road is decreasing, meaning incidents are MORE likely to happen, and because they feel it is only the motorist who has responsibility then pedestrians and cyclists are becoming more ignorant to any road safety, instead of the roads becoming safer, there are more "near misses" than ever except these near misses are never reported, The council didn't help with their radio campaign "taking the streets BACK for your community" what was that going to do to the psychology of the average pedestrian, was that going to reinforce road safety or does everyone think that it would lead pedestrians to believe that as the road was "theirs" the right of way is theirs too, which obviously it isnt. and of course this wouldn't lead to accidents, would it? cyclists already believe that the roads are theirs, and pavements and red lights are pretty but dont actually mean ANYTHING, all it would take is for 1 accident involving a motorist and a pedestrian or cyclist and for the pedestrian or cyclist to say they thought it was their right of way because that is what the council has led them to believe and there would be civil suits everywhere... including Rod King and I for one am looking forward to that day gazhopley
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree