Councillors question costs of 20mph limits in Warrington

Councillors question costs of 20mph limits in Warrington

Clrs Kennedy, Dirir and Excell

The sign on Bridge Street

First published in News

COUNCILLORS have been questioning the cost of the 20 mph residential speed limit scheme.

At a full council meeting on Monday councillors questioned the cost of signs, particularly on cul-de-sac roads, to warn motorists of 20mph.

Clr Paul Kennedy (CON - Hatton, Stretton and Walton) asked: “Many residents have expressed concern, indeed some considerable anger, with the cost of the roll out of 20mph speed limits across the borough.

“Can the executive board member give reassurance to residents that the expenditure represents best use of taxpayers’ money, and does she also share my concern that the 20mph speed limit will fall in to disrepute and that the original 20mph roads, for example outside of schools, might actually become less safe.”

Clr Linda Dirir said before the lower speed limits were brought in a pilot had high results with 86 per cent of people responding giving positive opinions on the pilot.

She added: “In 2011 a decision was made by the executive board to implement a roll out on all residential roads.

“It makes streets safer, it reduces accidents and saves lives. The Government recognises this and gave us funding.

“It’s the best use of tax payers money.”

Clr Brian Axcell (LD - Appleton) also asked how much the council spent on signs for 30 cul-de-sacs in his ward.

He was told the figure was £27,280 and that all roads would need a 20mph sign otherwise motorists would think they are 30mph.

“This is political correctness gone mad,” said Clr Axcell speaking afterwards. “At a time when roads and pavements need repairs, grass verges are not being cut and there is a proposal to close a local recycling centre, this is a scandalous waste of public money on unnecessary street clutter.

“In 23 years as a councillor I cannot remember a single complaint about speeding on these roads. I am, though, getting complaints all the time now about cuts in council services.”

Comments (56)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:40am Wed 23 Jul 14

FrancesM says...

The signs at the end of our street were put up behind overgrown trees, so nobody can see them. We still have large vans and wagons tearing up and down the street, nobody cares, until someone gets hurt.
The signs at the end of our street were put up behind overgrown trees, so nobody can see them. We still have large vans and wagons tearing up and down the street, nobody cares, until someone gets hurt. FrancesM
  • Score: 16

10:10am Wed 23 Jul 14

grey_man says...

Thank God some councillors are asking the right questions.
Thank God some councillors are asking the right questions. grey_man
  • Score: 15

10:41am Wed 23 Jul 14

LymmVillager says...

Really annoys me when limited thought is given to the locations of the speed signs! Ultimately I'm not convinced they serve any purpose any way because they are often ignored. It's a big ask, but I would prefer police with speed cameras...that would certainly have a direct impact!
Really annoys me when limited thought is given to the locations of the speed signs! Ultimately I'm not convinced they serve any purpose any way because they are often ignored. It's a big ask, but I would prefer police with speed cameras...that would certainly have a direct impact! LymmVillager
  • Score: 4

11:32am Wed 23 Jul 14

AppleJunkie says...

Where were these councilors and the questions during the pilot? Has a speeding vehicle wobbled the rock they have been hiding under? 20mph signs on a cul-de-sac are unnecessary as IF you can get to that speed your likely to land in someones garden if not living room! I wonder how many pot holes could have been fixed with the money spent on unnecessary signage.........
Where were these councilors and the questions during the pilot? Has a speeding vehicle wobbled the rock they have been hiding under? 20mph signs on a cul-de-sac are unnecessary as IF you can get to that speed your likely to land in someones garden if not living room! I wonder how many pot holes could have been fixed with the money spent on unnecessary signage......... AppleJunkie
  • Score: 17

11:39am Wed 23 Jul 14

kelv1812 says...

I agree a lot of money has probably been wasted. Unless traffic is monitored what effect will there be anyway. It certainly looks stupid when they are put in cul de sacs and hidden in foliage as several are where I live. And what exactly is a residential street. One road near me has a 100 metre 20 limit and the other half a mile is 30. As usual, no thought has gone into road planning.
I agree a lot of money has probably been wasted. Unless traffic is monitored what effect will there be anyway. It certainly looks stupid when they are put in cul de sacs and hidden in foliage as several are where I live. And what exactly is a residential street. One road near me has a 100 metre 20 limit and the other half a mile is 30. As usual, no thought has gone into road planning. kelv1812
  • Score: 7

11:57am Wed 23 Jul 14

Traveller29 says...

Seems there are several problems here:
1) The limits are not enforceable as there has to be a 20mph sign on each side of the road entrance.
2) If it were enforceable then the council want nothing to do with that - i was reffered to the police!
3) Signs on there own are useless - cars still wizz down our close well in access of the 30 limit on the main road let alone 20mph. We need some other way of slowing the idiots down before one of the kids who play there gets killed?
Seems there are several problems here: 1) The limits are not enforceable as there has to be a 20mph sign on each side of the road entrance. 2) If it were enforceable then the council want nothing to do with that - i was reffered to the police! 3) Signs on there own are useless - cars still wizz down our close well in access of the 30 limit on the main road let alone 20mph. We need some other way of slowing the idiots down before one of the kids who play there gets killed? Traveller29
  • Score: 4

12:22pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Cllr Russ Bowden says...

The 20 mph signs are funded by Government through the Local Transport Plan (LTP) and the Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF). The Council bid for that funding to support this road safety initiative, on the back of the successful pilot study.

This funding is non-transferrable. It can't be spent on anything else. Whatever doesn't get used has to be handed back.

So the answer to the question about how many pot-holes could the Council fix instead is very simple: none!

Cllr Axcell knows that very well, but chooses instead to blur the boundaries. It is just a smokescreen to divert attention from the budget cuts imposed by his Government - another £16m this year alone. That is what is really hurting Council services across the country.
The 20 mph signs are funded by Government through the Local Transport Plan (LTP) and the Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF). The Council bid for that funding to support this road safety initiative, on the back of the successful pilot study. This funding is non-transferrable. It can't be spent on anything else. Whatever doesn't get used has to be handed back. So the answer to the question about how many pot-holes could the Council fix instead is very simple: none! Cllr Axcell knows that very well, but chooses instead to blur the boundaries. It is just a smokescreen to divert attention from the budget cuts imposed by his Government - another £16m this year alone. That is what is really hurting Council services across the country. Cllr Russ Bowden
  • Score: 2

12:28pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Paul Kennedy says...

AppleJunkie wrote:
Where were these councilors and the questions during the pilot? Has a speeding vehicle wobbled the rock they have been hiding under? 20mph signs on a cul-de-sac are unnecessary as IF you can get to that speed your likely to land in someones garden if not living room! I wonder how many pot holes could have been fixed with the money spent on unnecessary signage.........
Where were these Councillors and the questions during the pilot?

Well one of them was speaking out with his concerns.

http://www.warringto
nguardian.co.uk/news
/9367760.For_and_aga
inst_20mph_speed_lim
its/
[quote][p][bold]AppleJunkie[/bold] wrote: Where were these councilors and the questions during the pilot? Has a speeding vehicle wobbled the rock they have been hiding under? 20mph signs on a cul-de-sac are unnecessary as IF you can get to that speed your likely to land in someones garden if not living room! I wonder how many pot holes could have been fixed with the money spent on unnecessary signage.........[/p][/quote]Where were these Councillors and the questions during the pilot? Well one of them was speaking out with his concerns. http://www.warringto nguardian.co.uk/news /9367760.For_and_aga inst_20mph_speed_lim its/ Paul Kennedy
  • Score: 7

12:33pm Wed 23 Jul 14

grey_man says...

Cllr Russ Bowden wrote:
The 20 mph signs are funded by Government through the Local Transport Plan (LTP) and the Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF). The Council bid for that funding to support this road safety initiative, on the back of the successful pilot study.

This funding is non-transferrable. It can't be spent on anything else. Whatever doesn't get used has to be handed back.

So the answer to the question about how many pot-holes could the Council fix instead is very simple: none!

Cllr Axcell knows that very well, but chooses instead to blur the boundaries. It is just a smokescreen to divert attention from the budget cuts imposed by his Government - another £16m this year alone. That is what is really hurting Council services across the country.
Did the Government pay for the six figure sum the council spent on the pilot scheme or for council time spent administering the creation of blanket 20 mph signage? Are they covering the costs of maintenance and enforcement?

And it's no good arguing that 'whatever doesn't get spent has to be handed back' when you are wasting all of our money on stupid signs that don't do anything rather than give the money back to central government.
[quote][p][bold]Cllr Russ Bowden[/bold] wrote: The 20 mph signs are funded by Government through the Local Transport Plan (LTP) and the Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF). The Council bid for that funding to support this road safety initiative, on the back of the successful pilot study. This funding is non-transferrable. It can't be spent on anything else. Whatever doesn't get used has to be handed back. So the answer to the question about how many pot-holes could the Council fix instead is very simple: none! Cllr Axcell knows that very well, but chooses instead to blur the boundaries. It is just a smokescreen to divert attention from the budget cuts imposed by his Government - another £16m this year alone. That is what is really hurting Council services across the country.[/p][/quote]Did the Government pay for the six figure sum the council spent on the pilot scheme or for council time spent administering the creation of blanket 20 mph signage? Are they covering the costs of maintenance and enforcement? And it's no good arguing that 'whatever doesn't get spent has to be handed back' when you are wasting all of our money on stupid signs that don't do anything rather than give the money back to central government. grey_man
  • Score: 10

12:51pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Cllr Russ Bowden says...

The cost of the 20 mph pilot study was met through the LTP capital funding.

There will inevitably be examples of roads leading into short closes or cul de sacs where 20 mph would appear to be unrealistic. These will be a minority of the residential roads in Warrington. They are having signs installed to clearly demarcate them from the adjoining 30+ mph roads. That ensures a consistent approach across the Borough.

My point about "handing back" was that it can't be spent on anything else other than the work identified in the LTP/LSTF bids. Nobody should be hoodwinked into thinking it could be spent on pot-holes, grass-cutting or anything else - because it can't.
The cost of the 20 mph pilot study was met through the LTP capital funding. There will inevitably be examples of roads leading into short closes or cul de sacs where 20 mph would appear to be unrealistic. These will be a minority of the residential roads in Warrington. They are having signs installed to clearly demarcate them from the adjoining 30+ mph roads. That ensures a consistent approach across the Borough. My point about "handing back" was that it can't be spent on anything else other than the work identified in the LTP/LSTF bids. Nobody should be hoodwinked into thinking it could be spent on pot-holes, grass-cutting or anything else - because it can't. Cllr Russ Bowden
  • Score: 1

1:30pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Reader says...

Surely it would be better to hand surplus money back to the government so it can perhaps go into another of their pots to be dished out on other things rather than for it just to be wasted by WBC simply because it 'has to be spent' or given back. If all councils are wasting so much money then no wonder there is so little to be dished out from up above in the first place.
Surely it would be better to hand surplus money back to the government so it can perhaps go into another of their pots to be dished out on other things rather than for it just to be wasted by WBC simply because it 'has to be spent' or given back. If all councils are wasting so much money then no wonder there is so little to be dished out from up above in the first place. Reader
  • Score: 13

1:33pm Wed 23 Jul 14

SAC_in_Warrington says...

grey_man wrote:
Thank God some councillors are asking the right questions.
They should have done something at the time of the original proposal not at a point it would create additional expense in order to rectify an obscene waste of public money, including council time and unnecessary expenses.
[quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: Thank God some councillors are asking the right questions.[/p][/quote]They should have done something at the time of the original proposal not at a point it would create additional expense in order to rectify an obscene waste of public money, including council time and unnecessary expenses. SAC_in_Warrington
  • Score: 7

1:39pm Wed 23 Jul 14

SAC_in_Warrington says...

Cllr Russ Bowden wrote:
The 20 mph signs are funded by Government through the Local Transport Plan (LTP) and the Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF). The Council bid for that funding to support this road safety initiative, on the back of the successful pilot study.

This funding is non-transferrable. It can't be spent on anything else. Whatever doesn't get used has to be handed back.

So the answer to the question about how many pot-holes could the Council fix instead is very simple: none!

Cllr Axcell knows that very well, but chooses instead to blur the boundaries. It is just a smokescreen to divert attention from the budget cuts imposed by his Government - another £16m this year alone. That is what is really hurting Council services across the country.
It may then have bee prudent then to not have applied fir this funding and therefore wasted shed loads of public funding, simple logic really. Which ever way you put it Councillor it was an immensely poor decision, on the part of all the Councilors.
[quote][p][bold]Cllr Russ Bowden[/bold] wrote: The 20 mph signs are funded by Government through the Local Transport Plan (LTP) and the Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF). The Council bid for that funding to support this road safety initiative, on the back of the successful pilot study. This funding is non-transferrable. It can't be spent on anything else. Whatever doesn't get used has to be handed back. So the answer to the question about how many pot-holes could the Council fix instead is very simple: none! Cllr Axcell knows that very well, but chooses instead to blur the boundaries. It is just a smokescreen to divert attention from the budget cuts imposed by his Government - another £16m this year alone. That is what is really hurting Council services across the country.[/p][/quote]It may then have bee prudent then to not have applied fir this funding and therefore wasted shed loads of public funding, simple logic really. Which ever way you put it Councillor it was an immensely poor decision, on the part of all the Councilors. SAC_in_Warrington
  • Score: 13

1:55pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Out of Warrington says...

grey_man wrote:
Cllr Russ Bowden wrote:
The 20 mph signs are funded by Government through the Local Transport Plan (LTP) and the Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF). The Council bid for that funding to support this road safety initiative, on the back of the successful pilot study.

This funding is non-transferrable. It can't be spent on anything else. Whatever doesn't get used has to be handed back.

So the answer to the question about how many pot-holes could the Council fix instead is very simple: none!

Cllr Axcell knows that very well, but chooses instead to blur the boundaries. It is just a smokescreen to divert attention from the budget cuts imposed by his Government - another £16m this year alone. That is what is really hurting Council services across the country.
Did the Government pay for the six figure sum the council spent on the pilot scheme or for council time spent administering the creation of blanket 20 mph signage? Are they covering the costs of maintenance and enforcement?

And it's no good arguing that 'whatever doesn't get spent has to be handed back' when you are wasting all of our money on stupid signs that don't do anything rather than give the money back to central government.
Still on the council basing routine then grey man?

You must have realised by now that loval government is all about politics, and all these people do is point score where evr they can?
[quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cllr Russ Bowden[/bold] wrote: The 20 mph signs are funded by Government through the Local Transport Plan (LTP) and the Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF). The Council bid for that funding to support this road safety initiative, on the back of the successful pilot study. This funding is non-transferrable. It can't be spent on anything else. Whatever doesn't get used has to be handed back. So the answer to the question about how many pot-holes could the Council fix instead is very simple: none! Cllr Axcell knows that very well, but chooses instead to blur the boundaries. It is just a smokescreen to divert attention from the budget cuts imposed by his Government - another £16m this year alone. That is what is really hurting Council services across the country.[/p][/quote]Did the Government pay for the six figure sum the council spent on the pilot scheme or for council time spent administering the creation of blanket 20 mph signage? Are they covering the costs of maintenance and enforcement? And it's no good arguing that 'whatever doesn't get spent has to be handed back' when you are wasting all of our money on stupid signs that don't do anything rather than give the money back to central government.[/p][/quote]Still on the council basing routine then grey man? You must have realised by now that loval government is all about politics, and all these people do is point score where evr they can? Out of Warrington
  • Score: 4

1:56pm Wed 23 Jul 14

grey_man says...

Reader wrote:
Surely it would be better to hand surplus money back to the government so it can perhaps go into another of their pots to be dished out on other things rather than for it just to be wasted by WBC simply because it 'has to be spent' or given back. If all councils are wasting so much money then no wonder there is so little to be dished out from up above in the first place.
Exactly.
[quote][p][bold]Reader[/bold] wrote: Surely it would be better to hand surplus money back to the government so it can perhaps go into another of their pots to be dished out on other things rather than for it just to be wasted by WBC simply because it 'has to be spent' or given back. If all councils are wasting so much money then no wonder there is so little to be dished out from up above in the first place.[/p][/quote]Exactly. grey_man
  • Score: 5

2:01pm Wed 23 Jul 14

PageA says...

If there are no signs, then there can be no prosecution for travelling above the speed limit, Isn't that the law? if the signs were missing wouldnt that provide a loophole to be used to avoid being prosecuted? Are we advocating for a general rule of thumb about how fast we should travel along roads? If this one looks like a 50 we should do 50..if that one looks like we could do 90 safely then we should be able to... Most people would drive less than 20 in that cul de sac, but I'm late for the school run and feeling confident in my driving so they'll make an exception for me. Sounds like chaos. If we're having 20..then we're having 20. I would expect the council to dot the i's and cross the t's and do what the law of the land expects.
If there are no signs, then there can be no prosecution for travelling above the speed limit, Isn't that the law? if the signs were missing wouldnt that provide a loophole to be used to avoid being prosecuted? Are we advocating for a general rule of thumb about how fast we should travel along roads? If this one looks like a 50 we should do 50..if that one looks like we could do 90 safely then we should be able to... Most people would drive less than 20 in that cul de sac, but I'm late for the school run and feeling confident in my driving so they'll make an exception for me. Sounds like chaos. If we're having 20..then we're having 20. I would expect the council to dot the i's and cross the t's and do what the law of the land expects. PageA
  • Score: -4

2:03pm Wed 23 Jul 14

grey_man says...

Cllr Russ Bowden wrote:
The cost of the 20 mph pilot study was met through the LTP capital funding.

There will inevitably be examples of roads leading into short closes or cul de sacs where 20 mph would appear to be unrealistic. These will be a minority of the residential roads in Warrington. They are having signs installed to clearly demarcate them from the adjoining 30+ mph roads. That ensures a consistent approach across the Borough.

My point about "handing back" was that it can't be spent on anything else other than the work identified in the LTP/LSTF bids. Nobody should be hoodwinked into thinking it could be spent on pot-holes, grass-cutting or anything else - because it can't.
And central Government is paying for council time spent implementing this scheme and its ongoing maintenance, administration and enforcement?

Incidentally, do you know the average speed on most of the roads covered in the pilot study is already well under 30 mph because the overwhelming majority of people are intelligent enough to drive at appropriate speeds?

And who cares whether its consistent or not having speed limit signs on roads that you'd need a dragster to hit 21 mph? It's just a waste and is more clutter on the streets.
[quote][p][bold]Cllr Russ Bowden[/bold] wrote: The cost of the 20 mph pilot study was met through the LTP capital funding. There will inevitably be examples of roads leading into short closes or cul de sacs where 20 mph would appear to be unrealistic. These will be a minority of the residential roads in Warrington. They are having signs installed to clearly demarcate them from the adjoining 30+ mph roads. That ensures a consistent approach across the Borough. My point about "handing back" was that it can't be spent on anything else other than the work identified in the LTP/LSTF bids. Nobody should be hoodwinked into thinking it could be spent on pot-holes, grass-cutting or anything else - because it can't.[/p][/quote]And central Government is paying for council time spent implementing this scheme and its ongoing maintenance, administration and enforcement? Incidentally, do you know the average speed on most of the roads covered in the pilot study is already well under 30 mph because the overwhelming majority of people are intelligent enough to drive at appropriate speeds? And who cares whether its consistent or not having speed limit signs on roads that you'd need a dragster to hit 21 mph? It's just a waste and is more clutter on the streets. grey_man
  • Score: 8

2:04pm Wed 23 Jul 14

grey_man says...

PageA wrote:
If there are no signs, then there can be no prosecution for travelling above the speed limit, Isn't that the law? if the signs were missing wouldnt that provide a loophole to be used to avoid being prosecuted? Are we advocating for a general rule of thumb about how fast we should travel along roads? If this one looks like a 50 we should do 50..if that one looks like we could do 90 safely then we should be able to... Most people would drive less than 20 in that cul de sac, but I'm late for the school run and feeling confident in my driving so they'll make an exception for me. Sounds like chaos. If we're having 20..then we're having 20. I would expect the council to dot the i's and cross the t's and do what the law of the land expects.
Reductio ad absurdum won't work here PageA. Stay on target.
[quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: If there are no signs, then there can be no prosecution for travelling above the speed limit, Isn't that the law? if the signs were missing wouldnt that provide a loophole to be used to avoid being prosecuted? Are we advocating for a general rule of thumb about how fast we should travel along roads? If this one looks like a 50 we should do 50..if that one looks like we could do 90 safely then we should be able to... Most people would drive less than 20 in that cul de sac, but I'm late for the school run and feeling confident in my driving so they'll make an exception for me. Sounds like chaos. If we're having 20..then we're having 20. I would expect the council to dot the i's and cross the t's and do what the law of the land expects.[/p][/quote]Reductio ad absurdum won't work here PageA. Stay on target. grey_man
  • Score: 5

4:11pm Wed 23 Jul 14

PageA says...

grey_man wrote:
PageA wrote:
If there are no signs, then there can be no prosecution for travelling above the speed limit, Isn't that the law? if the signs were missing wouldnt that provide a loophole to be used to avoid being prosecuted? Are we advocating for a general rule of thumb about how fast we should travel along roads? If this one looks like a 50 we should do 50..if that one looks like we could do 90 safely then we should be able to... Most people would drive less than 20 in that cul de sac, but I'm late for the school run and feeling confident in my driving so they'll make an exception for me. Sounds like chaos. If we're having 20..then we're having 20. I would expect the council to dot the i's and cross the t's and do what the law of the land expects.
Reductio ad absurdum won't work here PageA. Stay on target.
Socratic Method was my favourite character in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure.

I have a very fast bike and can get to 60 before you could step off the kerb. Keeping speed limits unenforceable is fine with me especially in weather like this. You can take them all down as far as I'm concerned.
[quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: If there are no signs, then there can be no prosecution for travelling above the speed limit, Isn't that the law? if the signs were missing wouldnt that provide a loophole to be used to avoid being prosecuted? Are we advocating for a general rule of thumb about how fast we should travel along roads? If this one looks like a 50 we should do 50..if that one looks like we could do 90 safely then we should be able to... Most people would drive less than 20 in that cul de sac, but I'm late for the school run and feeling confident in my driving so they'll make an exception for me. Sounds like chaos. If we're having 20..then we're having 20. I would expect the council to dot the i's and cross the t's and do what the law of the land expects.[/p][/quote]Reductio ad absurdum won't work here PageA. Stay on target.[/p][/quote]Socratic Method was my favourite character in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure. I have a very fast bike and can get to 60 before you could step off the kerb. Keeping speed limits unenforceable is fine with me especially in weather like this. You can take them all down as far as I'm concerned. PageA
  • Score: -1

4:12pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Out of Warrington says...

grey_man wrote:
Reader wrote:
Surely it would be better to hand surplus money back to the government so it can perhaps go into another of their pots to be dished out on other things rather than for it just to be wasted by WBC simply because it 'has to be spent' or given back. If all councils are wasting so much money then no wonder there is so little to be dished out from up above in the first place.
Exactly.
What part of "you can't give the money back" are you failing to understand?

If the government didn't think this was a worth while scheme they wouldn't have allocated funding to it in the first place.
[quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reader[/bold] wrote: Surely it would be better to hand surplus money back to the government so it can perhaps go into another of their pots to be dished out on other things rather than for it just to be wasted by WBC simply because it 'has to be spent' or given back. If all councils are wasting so much money then no wonder there is so little to be dished out from up above in the first place.[/p][/quote]Exactly.[/p][/quote]What part of "you can't give the money back" are you failing to understand? If the government didn't think this was a worth while scheme they wouldn't have allocated funding to it in the first place. Out of Warrington
  • Score: -3

4:19pm Wed 23 Jul 14

grey_man says...

PageA wrote:
grey_man wrote:
PageA wrote:
If there are no signs, then there can be no prosecution for travelling above the speed limit, Isn't that the law? if the signs were missing wouldnt that provide a loophole to be used to avoid being prosecuted? Are we advocating for a general rule of thumb about how fast we should travel along roads? If this one looks like a 50 we should do 50..if that one looks like we could do 90 safely then we should be able to... Most people would drive less than 20 in that cul de sac, but I'm late for the school run and feeling confident in my driving so they'll make an exception for me. Sounds like chaos. If we're having 20..then we're having 20. I would expect the council to dot the i's and cross the t's and do what the law of the land expects.
Reductio ad absurdum won't work here PageA. Stay on target.
Socratic Method was my favourite character in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure.

I have a very fast bike and can get to 60 before you could step off the kerb. Keeping speed limits unenforceable is fine with me especially in weather like this. You can take them all down as far as I'm concerned.
Except nobody's arguing for that. You're like a budgie fighting with its imaginary foe in the mirror.
[quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: If there are no signs, then there can be no prosecution for travelling above the speed limit, Isn't that the law? if the signs were missing wouldnt that provide a loophole to be used to avoid being prosecuted? Are we advocating for a general rule of thumb about how fast we should travel along roads? If this one looks like a 50 we should do 50..if that one looks like we could do 90 safely then we should be able to... Most people would drive less than 20 in that cul de sac, but I'm late for the school run and feeling confident in my driving so they'll make an exception for me. Sounds like chaos. If we're having 20..then we're having 20. I would expect the council to dot the i's and cross the t's and do what the law of the land expects.[/p][/quote]Reductio ad absurdum won't work here PageA. Stay on target.[/p][/quote]Socratic Method was my favourite character in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure. I have a very fast bike and can get to 60 before you could step off the kerb. Keeping speed limits unenforceable is fine with me especially in weather like this. You can take them all down as far as I'm concerned.[/p][/quote]Except nobody's arguing for that. You're like a budgie fighting with its imaginary foe in the mirror. grey_man
  • Score: 4

4:21pm Wed 23 Jul 14

grey_man says...

Out of Warrington wrote:
grey_man wrote:
Reader wrote:
Surely it would be better to hand surplus money back to the government so it can perhaps go into another of their pots to be dished out on other things rather than for it just to be wasted by WBC simply because it 'has to be spent' or given back. If all councils are wasting so much money then no wonder there is so little to be dished out from up above in the first place.
Exactly.
What part of "you can't give the money back" are you failing to understand?

If the government didn't think this was a worth while scheme they wouldn't have allocated funding to it in the first place.
1. The Government thinks lots of things that it's wrong about. Read the news.

2. The Government may have allocated the budget. Doesn't mean WBC has to apply for and spend it. I know this is a revolutionary idea for people who are used to spending other people's money, but there you go.
[quote][p][bold]Out of Warrington[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reader[/bold] wrote: Surely it would be better to hand surplus money back to the government so it can perhaps go into another of their pots to be dished out on other things rather than for it just to be wasted by WBC simply because it 'has to be spent' or given back. If all councils are wasting so much money then no wonder there is so little to be dished out from up above in the first place.[/p][/quote]Exactly.[/p][/quote]What part of "you can't give the money back" are you failing to understand? If the government didn't think this was a worth while scheme they wouldn't have allocated funding to it in the first place.[/p][/quote]1. The Government thinks lots of things that it's wrong about. Read the news. 2. The Government may have allocated the budget. Doesn't mean WBC has to apply for and spend it. I know this is a revolutionary idea for people who are used to spending other people's money, but there you go. grey_man
  • Score: 5

4:29pm Wed 23 Jul 14

PageA says...

grey_man wrote:
PageA wrote:
grey_man wrote:
PageA wrote:
If there are no signs, then there can be no prosecution for travelling above the speed limit, Isn't that the law? if the signs were missing wouldnt that provide a loophole to be used to avoid being prosecuted? Are we advocating for a general rule of thumb about how fast we should travel along roads? If this one looks like a 50 we should do 50..if that one looks like we could do 90 safely then we should be able to... Most people would drive less than 20 in that cul de sac, but I'm late for the school run and feeling confident in my driving so they'll make an exception for me. Sounds like chaos. If we're having 20..then we're having 20. I would expect the council to dot the i's and cross the t's and do what the law of the land expects.
Reductio ad absurdum won't work here PageA. Stay on target.
Socratic Method was my favourite character in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure.

I have a very fast bike and can get to 60 before you could step off the kerb. Keeping speed limits unenforceable is fine with me especially in weather like this. You can take them all down as far as I'm concerned.
Except nobody's arguing for that. You're like a budgie fighting with its imaginary foe in the mirror.
Apologies, I've missed your point completely. Can you remind me
[quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: If there are no signs, then there can be no prosecution for travelling above the speed limit, Isn't that the law? if the signs were missing wouldnt that provide a loophole to be used to avoid being prosecuted? Are we advocating for a general rule of thumb about how fast we should travel along roads? If this one looks like a 50 we should do 50..if that one looks like we could do 90 safely then we should be able to... Most people would drive less than 20 in that cul de sac, but I'm late for the school run and feeling confident in my driving so they'll make an exception for me. Sounds like chaos. If we're having 20..then we're having 20. I would expect the council to dot the i's and cross the t's and do what the law of the land expects.[/p][/quote]Reductio ad absurdum won't work here PageA. Stay on target.[/p][/quote]Socratic Method was my favourite character in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure. I have a very fast bike and can get to 60 before you could step off the kerb. Keeping speed limits unenforceable is fine with me especially in weather like this. You can take them all down as far as I'm concerned.[/p][/quote]Except nobody's arguing for that. You're like a budgie fighting with its imaginary foe in the mirror.[/p][/quote]Apologies, I've missed your point completely. Can you remind me PageA
  • Score: -5

4:31pm Wed 23 Jul 14

PageA says...

grey_man wrote:
PageA wrote:
grey_man wrote:
PageA wrote:
If there are no signs, then there can be no prosecution for travelling above the speed limit, Isn't that the law? if the signs were missing wouldnt that provide a loophole to be used to avoid being prosecuted? Are we advocating for a general rule of thumb about how fast we should travel along roads? If this one looks like a 50 we should do 50..if that one looks like we could do 90 safely then we should be able to... Most people would drive less than 20 in that cul de sac, but I'm late for the school run and feeling confident in my driving so they'll make an exception for me. Sounds like chaos. If we're having 20..then we're having 20. I would expect the council to dot the i's and cross the t's and do what the law of the land expects.
Reductio ad absurdum won't work here PageA. Stay on target.
Socratic Method was my favourite character in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure.

I have a very fast bike and can get to 60 before you could step off the kerb. Keeping speed limits unenforceable is fine with me especially in weather like this. You can take them all down as far as I'm concerned.
Except nobody's arguing for that. You're like a budgie fighting with its imaginary foe in the mirror.
You don't like the streets being 20? or you don't like the signs that are needed to make 20 enforceable?
[quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: If there are no signs, then there can be no prosecution for travelling above the speed limit, Isn't that the law? if the signs were missing wouldnt that provide a loophole to be used to avoid being prosecuted? Are we advocating for a general rule of thumb about how fast we should travel along roads? If this one looks like a 50 we should do 50..if that one looks like we could do 90 safely then we should be able to... Most people would drive less than 20 in that cul de sac, but I'm late for the school run and feeling confident in my driving so they'll make an exception for me. Sounds like chaos. If we're having 20..then we're having 20. I would expect the council to dot the i's and cross the t's and do what the law of the land expects.[/p][/quote]Reductio ad absurdum won't work here PageA. Stay on target.[/p][/quote]Socratic Method was my favourite character in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure. I have a very fast bike and can get to 60 before you could step off the kerb. Keeping speed limits unenforceable is fine with me especially in weather like this. You can take them all down as far as I'm concerned.[/p][/quote]Except nobody's arguing for that. You're like a budgie fighting with its imaginary foe in the mirror.[/p][/quote]You don't like the streets being 20? or you don't like the signs that are needed to make 20 enforceable? PageA
  • Score: -3

4:37pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Out of Warrington says...

grey_man wrote:
Out of Warrington wrote:
grey_man wrote:
Reader wrote:
Surely it would be better to hand surplus money back to the government so it can perhaps go into another of their pots to be dished out on other things rather than for it just to be wasted by WBC simply because it 'has to be spent' or given back. If all councils are wasting so much money then no wonder there is so little to be dished out from up above in the first place.
Exactly.
What part of "you can't give the money back" are you failing to understand?

If the government didn't think this was a worth while scheme they wouldn't have allocated funding to it in the first place.
1. The Government thinks lots of things that it's wrong about. Read the news.

2. The Government may have allocated the budget. Doesn't mean WBC has to apply for and spend it. I know this is a revolutionary idea for people who are used to spending other people's money, but there you go.
And no doubt councillors and officers would be criticised (probably by you, being the leading keyboard warrior on this site) for not applying for external funding, for criteria the government sets.

Can't see what the problem is here? If it only saves one child or adult from getting hurt its got to be a good idea.
[quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Out of Warrington[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reader[/bold] wrote: Surely it would be better to hand surplus money back to the government so it can perhaps go into another of their pots to be dished out on other things rather than for it just to be wasted by WBC simply because it 'has to be spent' or given back. If all councils are wasting so much money then no wonder there is so little to be dished out from up above in the first place.[/p][/quote]Exactly.[/p][/quote]What part of "you can't give the money back" are you failing to understand? If the government didn't think this was a worth while scheme they wouldn't have allocated funding to it in the first place.[/p][/quote]1. The Government thinks lots of things that it's wrong about. Read the news. 2. The Government may have allocated the budget. Doesn't mean WBC has to apply for and spend it. I know this is a revolutionary idea for people who are used to spending other people's money, but there you go.[/p][/quote]And no doubt councillors and officers would be criticised (probably by you, being the leading keyboard warrior on this site) for not applying for external funding, for criteria the government sets. Can't see what the problem is here? If it only saves one child or adult from getting hurt its got to be a good idea. Out of Warrington
  • Score: -7

5:06pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Cllr Russ Bowden says...

SAC: How is it wrong to apply for funding to support the roll out of 20 mph limits for residential streets in the interests of road safety for all users?

Implementation may well show up anomalies like signs at the entrances to short roads, but that isn't a reason to throw out the whole scheme. The evidence is there that it enhances road safety for everyone. There was widespread public support for the scheme after the pilot study.

It isn't a poor decision, regardless of what those opposed to 20 mph might say, or those who want to pretend that somehow the Council could have spent the money on something else.
SAC: How is it wrong to apply for funding to support the roll out of 20 mph limits for residential streets in the interests of road safety for all users? Implementation may well show up anomalies like signs at the entrances to short roads, but that isn't a reason to throw out the whole scheme. The evidence is there that it enhances road safety for everyone. There was widespread public support for the scheme after the pilot study. It isn't a poor decision, regardless of what those opposed to 20 mph might say, or those who want to pretend that somehow the Council could have spent the money on something else. Cllr Russ Bowden
  • Score: -1

5:14pm Wed 23 Jul 14

grey_man says...

Cllr Russ Bowden wrote:
SAC: How is it wrong to apply for funding to support the roll out of 20 mph limits for residential streets in the interests of road safety for all users?

Implementation may well show up anomalies like signs at the entrances to short roads, but that isn't a reason to throw out the whole scheme. The evidence is there that it enhances road safety for everyone. There was widespread public support for the scheme after the pilot study.

It isn't a poor decision, regardless of what those opposed to 20 mph might say, or those who want to pretend that somehow the Council could have spent the money on something else.
Russ

The results of the pilot study were equivocal at best.

But the real question is about opportunity cost. Could the hundreds of thousands of pounds spent on this have been used to improve road safety in better and more targeted ways? In my opinion, the answer is yes.

And you still haven't answered the question about council time and the ongoing admin and upkeep of this scheme.
[quote][p][bold]Cllr Russ Bowden[/bold] wrote: SAC: How is it wrong to apply for funding to support the roll out of 20 mph limits for residential streets in the interests of road safety for all users? Implementation may well show up anomalies like signs at the entrances to short roads, but that isn't a reason to throw out the whole scheme. The evidence is there that it enhances road safety for everyone. There was widespread public support for the scheme after the pilot study. It isn't a poor decision, regardless of what those opposed to 20 mph might say, or those who want to pretend that somehow the Council could have spent the money on something else.[/p][/quote]Russ The results of the pilot study were equivocal at best. But the real question is about opportunity cost. Could the hundreds of thousands of pounds spent on this have been used to improve road safety in better and more targeted ways? In my opinion, the answer is yes. And you still haven't answered the question about council time and the ongoing admin and upkeep of this scheme. grey_man
  • Score: 3

5:16pm Wed 23 Jul 14

grey_man says...

Out of Warrington wrote:
grey_man wrote:
Out of Warrington wrote:
grey_man wrote:
Reader wrote:
Surely it would be better to hand surplus money back to the government so it can perhaps go into another of their pots to be dished out on other things rather than for it just to be wasted by WBC simply because it 'has to be spent' or given back. If all councils are wasting so much money then no wonder there is so little to be dished out from up above in the first place.
Exactly.
What part of "you can't give the money back" are you failing to understand?

If the government didn't think this was a worth while scheme they wouldn't have allocated funding to it in the first place.
1. The Government thinks lots of things that it's wrong about. Read the news.

2. The Government may have allocated the budget. Doesn't mean WBC has to apply for and spend it. I know this is a revolutionary idea for people who are used to spending other people's money, but there you go.
And no doubt councillors and officers would be criticised (probably by you, being the leading keyboard warrior on this site) for not applying for external funding, for criteria the government sets.

Can't see what the problem is here? If it only saves one child or adult from getting hurt its got to be a good idea.
I think PageA holds that crown. Or maybe you, seeing as I never get personal and you always do.

I'd prefer the council to think about what it does a bit more.
[quote][p][bold]Out of Warrington[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Out of Warrington[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reader[/bold] wrote: Surely it would be better to hand surplus money back to the government so it can perhaps go into another of their pots to be dished out on other things rather than for it just to be wasted by WBC simply because it 'has to be spent' or given back. If all councils are wasting so much money then no wonder there is so little to be dished out from up above in the first place.[/p][/quote]Exactly.[/p][/quote]What part of "you can't give the money back" are you failing to understand? If the government didn't think this was a worth while scheme they wouldn't have allocated funding to it in the first place.[/p][/quote]1. The Government thinks lots of things that it's wrong about. Read the news. 2. The Government may have allocated the budget. Doesn't mean WBC has to apply for and spend it. I know this is a revolutionary idea for people who are used to spending other people's money, but there you go.[/p][/quote]And no doubt councillors and officers would be criticised (probably by you, being the leading keyboard warrior on this site) for not applying for external funding, for criteria the government sets. Can't see what the problem is here? If it only saves one child or adult from getting hurt its got to be a good idea.[/p][/quote]I think PageA holds that crown. Or maybe you, seeing as I never get personal and you always do. I'd prefer the council to think about what it does a bit more. grey_man
  • Score: 5

5:34pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Sliver says...

As accidents have increased in 20mph zones, should we still be enforcing them?
http://www.iam.org.u
k/media-and-research
/media-centre/news-a
rchive/20505-casualt
ies-increase-in-20mp
h-zones
As accidents have increased in 20mph zones, should we still be enforcing them? http://www.iam.org.u k/media-and-research /media-centre/news-a rchive/20505-casualt ies-increase-in-20mp h-zones Sliver
  • Score: 4

5:48pm Wed 23 Jul 14

gazhopley says...

I believe All the 20mph speed limits has done is put more responsibility on the minority and removed it from the majority, how is that safer for all? instead of speed being the danger, it's now kids that think a road is a football pitch, and people who will defend kids for doing it (traveller29 point 3)... that's dangerous, or cyclists going from road to pavement, back to road, back to pavement etc, that is dangerous, and pedestrians that believe that cars go so slowly that the right of way has changed and will cross a road whether a car is coming or not, and that is dangerous, Don't forget when the 20mph speed limit came out, WBC had a fantastic campaign on Wire FM saying they "were taking the streets back for your community" well this is what you get. Newton's 3rd law of motion applies "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" If you add responsibility to the motorist then it is removed from everyone else, and that is what is actually happening, the roads are no safer, all that's happened is a change of the nature to the danger. Any project that only deals with a minority will never be truly effective on the whole.
I believe All the 20mph speed limits has done is put more responsibility on the minority and removed it from the majority, how is that safer for all? instead of speed being the danger, it's now kids that think a road is a football pitch, and people who will defend kids for doing it (traveller29 point 3)... that's dangerous, or cyclists going from road to pavement, back to road, back to pavement etc, that is dangerous, and pedestrians that believe that cars go so slowly that the right of way has changed and will cross a road whether a car is coming or not, and that is dangerous, Don't forget when the 20mph speed limit came out, WBC had a fantastic campaign on Wire FM saying they "were taking the streets back for your community" well this is what you get. Newton's 3rd law of motion applies "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" If you add responsibility to the motorist then it is removed from everyone else, and that is what is actually happening, the roads are no safer, all that's happened is a change of the nature to the danger. Any project that only deals with a minority will never be truly effective on the whole. gazhopley
  • Score: 9

7:52pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Traveller29 says...

gazhopley wrote:
I believe All the 20mph speed limits has done is put more responsibility on the minority and removed it from the majority, how is that safer for all? instead of speed being the danger, it's now kids that think a road is a football pitch, and people who will defend kids for doing it (traveller29 point 3)... that's dangerous, or cyclists going from road to pavement, back to road, back to pavement etc, that is dangerous, and pedestrians that believe that cars go so slowly that the right of way has changed and will cross a road whether a car is coming or not, and that is dangerous, Don't forget when the 20mph speed limit came out, WBC had a fantastic campaign on Wire FM saying they "were taking the streets back for your community" well this is what you get. Newton's 3rd law of motion applies "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" If you add responsibility to the motorist then it is removed from everyone else, and that is what is actually happening, the roads are no safer, all that's happened is a change of the nature to the danger. Any project that only deals with a minority will never be truly effective on the whole.
scuze me - I only stated a fact, at least in our road! Not my kids so not up to me where they play. Can't be the only road in Warrington?
[quote][p][bold]gazhopley[/bold] wrote: I believe All the 20mph speed limits has done is put more responsibility on the minority and removed it from the majority, how is that safer for all? instead of speed being the danger, it's now kids that think a road is a football pitch, and people who will defend kids for doing it (traveller29 point 3)... that's dangerous, or cyclists going from road to pavement, back to road, back to pavement etc, that is dangerous, and pedestrians that believe that cars go so slowly that the right of way has changed and will cross a road whether a car is coming or not, and that is dangerous, Don't forget when the 20mph speed limit came out, WBC had a fantastic campaign on Wire FM saying they "were taking the streets back for your community" well this is what you get. Newton's 3rd law of motion applies "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" If you add responsibility to the motorist then it is removed from everyone else, and that is what is actually happening, the roads are no safer, all that's happened is a change of the nature to the danger. Any project that only deals with a minority will never be truly effective on the whole.[/p][/quote]scuze me - I only stated a fact, at least in our road! Not my kids so not up to me where they play. Can't be the only road in Warrington? Traveller29
  • Score: -3

8:16pm Wed 23 Jul 14

local man says...

grey_man wrote:
Out of Warrington wrote:
grey_man wrote:
Out of Warrington wrote:
grey_man wrote:
Reader wrote:
Surely it would be better to hand surplus money back to the government so it can perhaps go into another of their pots to be dished out on other things rather than for it just to be wasted by WBC simply because it 'has to be spent' or given back. If all councils are wasting so much money then no wonder there is so little to be dished out from up above in the first place.
Exactly.
What part of "you can't give the money back" are you failing to understand?

If the government didn't think this was a worth while scheme they wouldn't have allocated funding to it in the first place.
1. The Government thinks lots of things that it's wrong about. Read the news.

2. The Government may have allocated the budget. Doesn't mean WBC has to apply for and spend it. I know this is a revolutionary idea for people who are used to spending other people's money, but there you go.
And no doubt councillors and officers would be criticised (probably by you, being the leading keyboard warrior on this site) for not applying for external funding, for criteria the government sets.

Can't see what the problem is here? If it only saves one child or adult from getting hurt its got to be a good idea.
I think PageA holds that crown. Or maybe you, seeing as I never get personal and you always do.

I'd prefer the council to think about what it does a bit more.
Grey man is right, whether you spend the money or not it comes from taxpayers, to waste it is wrong - your pretty much saying "we might as well waste it or someone else will"
The opportunity cost is what else could we have spent it on - just about anything worthwhile, education, training, litter wardens, benefits capping enforcement managers - I'm sure the taxpayers money has a limitless variety of ways to be spent by public servants.
Does local gov pay still increase depending on the size of budget you control ?
[quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Out of Warrington[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Out of Warrington[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reader[/bold] wrote: Surely it would be better to hand surplus money back to the government so it can perhaps go into another of their pots to be dished out on other things rather than for it just to be wasted by WBC simply because it 'has to be spent' or given back. If all councils are wasting so much money then no wonder there is so little to be dished out from up above in the first place.[/p][/quote]Exactly.[/p][/quote]What part of "you can't give the money back" are you failing to understand? If the government didn't think this was a worth while scheme they wouldn't have allocated funding to it in the first place.[/p][/quote]1. The Government thinks lots of things that it's wrong about. Read the news. 2. The Government may have allocated the budget. Doesn't mean WBC has to apply for and spend it. I know this is a revolutionary idea for people who are used to spending other people's money, but there you go.[/p][/quote]And no doubt councillors and officers would be criticised (probably by you, being the leading keyboard warrior on this site) for not applying for external funding, for criteria the government sets. Can't see what the problem is here? If it only saves one child or adult from getting hurt its got to be a good idea.[/p][/quote]I think PageA holds that crown. Or maybe you, seeing as I never get personal and you always do. I'd prefer the council to think about what it does a bit more.[/p][/quote]Grey man is right, whether you spend the money or not it comes from taxpayers, to waste it is wrong - your pretty much saying "we might as well waste it or someone else will" The opportunity cost is what else could we have spent it on - just about anything worthwhile, education, training, litter wardens, benefits capping enforcement managers - I'm sure the taxpayers money has a limitless variety of ways to be spent by public servants. Does local gov pay still increase depending on the size of budget you control ? local man
  • Score: 3

8:17pm Wed 23 Jul 14

ChristoB says...

Thank heavens someone has rather belatedly realised what an absolute cosmetic farce this scheme is. Lingley Road in Gt Sankey, a much used rat run to the Lingley Mere Business Park etc. has been designated 20 mph but in reality is a race track 7am to 9 am and 4 pm to 6 pm. Average speeds are at least double the 20 mph limit and no attempts made to enforce it. The bright sparks who dreamed up this idea have totally failed to think the process through and even worse have totally wasted our money. its a disgrace but I very much doubt they'll show any contrition!
Thank heavens someone has rather belatedly realised what an absolute cosmetic farce this scheme is. Lingley Road in Gt Sankey, a much used rat run to the Lingley Mere Business Park etc. has been designated 20 mph but in reality is a race track 7am to 9 am and 4 pm to 6 pm. Average speeds are at least double the 20 mph limit and no attempts made to enforce it. The bright sparks who dreamed up this idea have totally failed to think the process through and even worse have totally wasted our money. its a disgrace but I very much doubt they'll show any contrition! ChristoB
  • Score: 2

10:29pm Wed 23 Jul 14

PageA says...

ChristoB wrote:
Thank heavens someone has rather belatedly realised what an absolute cosmetic farce this scheme is. Lingley Road in Gt Sankey, a much used rat run to the Lingley Mere Business Park etc. has been designated 20 mph but in reality is a race track 7am to 9 am and 4 pm to 6 pm. Average speeds are at least double the 20 mph limit and no attempts made to enforce it. The bright sparks who dreamed up this idea have totally failed to think the process through and even worse have totally wasted our money. its a disgrace but I very much doubt they'll show any contrition!
If I was caught travelling above the speed limit on this rat run. Could i be successfully prosecuted if the signs were not present?
[quote][p][bold]ChristoB[/bold] wrote: Thank heavens someone has rather belatedly realised what an absolute cosmetic farce this scheme is. Lingley Road in Gt Sankey, a much used rat run to the Lingley Mere Business Park etc. has been designated 20 mph but in reality is a race track 7am to 9 am and 4 pm to 6 pm. Average speeds are at least double the 20 mph limit and no attempts made to enforce it. The bright sparks who dreamed up this idea have totally failed to think the process through and even worse have totally wasted our money. its a disgrace but I very much doubt they'll show any contrition![/p][/quote]If I was caught travelling above the speed limit on this rat run. Could i be successfully prosecuted if the signs were not present? PageA
  • Score: -3

10:57pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Freeborn John says...

Out of Warrington wrote:
grey_man wrote:
Out of Warrington wrote:
grey_man wrote:
Reader wrote:
Surely it would be better to hand surplus money back to the government so it can perhaps go into another of their pots to be dished out on other things rather than for it just to be wasted by WBC simply because it 'has to be spent' or given back. If all councils are wasting so much money then no wonder there is so little to be dished out from up above in the first place.
Exactly.
What part of "you can't give the money back" are you failing to understand?

If the government didn't think this was a worth while scheme they wouldn't have allocated funding to it in the first place.
1. The Government thinks lots of things that it's wrong about. Read the news.

2. The Government may have allocated the budget. Doesn't mean WBC has to apply for and spend it. I know this is a revolutionary idea for people who are used to spending other people's money, but there you go.
And no doubt councillors and officers would be criticised (probably by you, being the leading keyboard warrior on this site) for not applying for external funding, for criteria the government sets.

Can't see what the problem is here? If it only saves one child or adult from getting hurt its got to be a good idea.
There's probably more chance of somebody being seriously injured by colliding with one of these hundreds of extra pieces of very solid street furniture than anything else.
Road safety? More like the illusion of it foisted on us by the self righteous brigade.
[quote][p][bold]Out of Warrington[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Out of Warrington[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reader[/bold] wrote: Surely it would be better to hand surplus money back to the government so it can perhaps go into another of their pots to be dished out on other things rather than for it just to be wasted by WBC simply because it 'has to be spent' or given back. If all councils are wasting so much money then no wonder there is so little to be dished out from up above in the first place.[/p][/quote]Exactly.[/p][/quote]What part of "you can't give the money back" are you failing to understand? If the government didn't think this was a worth while scheme they wouldn't have allocated funding to it in the first place.[/p][/quote]1. The Government thinks lots of things that it's wrong about. Read the news. 2. The Government may have allocated the budget. Doesn't mean WBC has to apply for and spend it. I know this is a revolutionary idea for people who are used to spending other people's money, but there you go.[/p][/quote]And no doubt councillors and officers would be criticised (probably by you, being the leading keyboard warrior on this site) for not applying for external funding, for criteria the government sets. Can't see what the problem is here? If it only saves one child or adult from getting hurt its got to be a good idea.[/p][/quote]There's probably more chance of somebody being seriously injured by colliding with one of these hundreds of extra pieces of very solid street furniture than anything else. Road safety? More like the illusion of it foisted on us by the self righteous brigade. Freeborn John
  • Score: 2

11:25pm Wed 23 Jul 14

grey-area says...

I asked these questions previously, but didn't get definitive answers.

What exactly was the pilot scheme's results, where was it held and 86percent of how many?
How will it be policed/enforced across the whole of Warrington?
I asked these questions previously, but didn't get definitive answers. What exactly was the pilot scheme's results, where was it held and 86percent of how many? How will it be policed/enforced across the whole of Warrington? grey-area
  • Score: 4

12:13am Thu 24 Jul 14

gazhopley says...

grey-area wrote:
I asked these questions previously, but didn't get definitive answers.

What exactly was the pilot scheme's results, where was it held and 86percent of how many?
How will it be policed/enforced across the whole of Warrington?
I can answer the second question. The 20mph speed limit is a self enforcing law, the same type of law as the one that makes it illegal to ride a bike on the pavement. it was never meant to be proactively policed.
[quote][p][bold]grey-area[/bold] wrote: I asked these questions previously, but didn't get definitive answers. What exactly was the pilot scheme's results, where was it held and 86percent of how many? How will it be policed/enforced across the whole of Warrington?[/p][/quote]I can answer the second question. The 20mph speed limit is a self enforcing law, the same type of law as the one that makes it illegal to ride a bike on the pavement. it was never meant to be proactively policed. gazhopley
  • Score: 3

12:20am Thu 24 Jul 14

gazhopley says...

Traveller29 wrote:
gazhopley wrote:
I believe All the 20mph speed limits has done is put more responsibility on the minority and removed it from the majority, how is that safer for all? instead of speed being the danger, it's now kids that think a road is a football pitch, and people who will defend kids for doing it (traveller29 point 3)... that's dangerous, or cyclists going from road to pavement, back to road, back to pavement etc, that is dangerous, and pedestrians that believe that cars go so slowly that the right of way has changed and will cross a road whether a car is coming or not, and that is dangerous, Don't forget when the 20mph speed limit came out, WBC had a fantastic campaign on Wire FM saying they "were taking the streets back for your community" well this is what you get. Newton's 3rd law of motion applies "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" If you add responsibility to the motorist then it is removed from everyone else, and that is what is actually happening, the roads are no safer, all that's happened is a change of the nature to the danger. Any project that only deals with a minority will never be truly effective on the whole.
scuze me - I only stated a fact, at least in our road! Not my kids so not up to me where they play. Can't be the only road in Warrington?
my apologies, but you are right, it's not only your street, where I am it may as well be pedestrianised for all the notice the kids take of the road, and yes it is in a 20mph zone and no they didn't do it before it changed.
[quote][p][bold]Traveller29[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gazhopley[/bold] wrote: I believe All the 20mph speed limits has done is put more responsibility on the minority and removed it from the majority, how is that safer for all? instead of speed being the danger, it's now kids that think a road is a football pitch, and people who will defend kids for doing it (traveller29 point 3)... that's dangerous, or cyclists going from road to pavement, back to road, back to pavement etc, that is dangerous, and pedestrians that believe that cars go so slowly that the right of way has changed and will cross a road whether a car is coming or not, and that is dangerous, Don't forget when the 20mph speed limit came out, WBC had a fantastic campaign on Wire FM saying they "were taking the streets back for your community" well this is what you get. Newton's 3rd law of motion applies "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" If you add responsibility to the motorist then it is removed from everyone else, and that is what is actually happening, the roads are no safer, all that's happened is a change of the nature to the danger. Any project that only deals with a minority will never be truly effective on the whole.[/p][/quote]scuze me - I only stated a fact, at least in our road! Not my kids so not up to me where they play. Can't be the only road in Warrington?[/p][/quote]my apologies, but you are right, it's not only your street, where I am it may as well be pedestrianised for all the notice the kids take of the road, and yes it is in a 20mph zone and no they didn't do it before it changed. gazhopley
  • Score: 1

7:30am Thu 24 Jul 14

MikeJT says...

The main issue with road safety measure, particularly in residential areas is that they are implemented by people who dont live in them, and then have to be enforced by people who are constantly getting ear-ache for "not doing something about real crime" .

I live in a street which has 20mph speed limit. Its just a shame that none of the people who use it as a rat-run bother with it (they never bothered with the 30 limit). For a long time residents have called for a simpler method of control.........cut off the rat -run. The response to this suggestion ....................
....nada !!!!

Lets me honest, evidence on whether 20mph limits work is at best inconclusive. For ever statistic where is shows fewer deaths, somebody else can show one that shows accidents have increased. Whilst the scheme is widened, the media is not talking to any of the councils etc who have gone through the process and then scrapped it, because in their experince, it simply doesnt do what it supposed to.
The main issue with road safety measure, particularly in residential areas is that they are implemented by people who dont live in them, and then have to be enforced by people who are constantly getting ear-ache for "not doing something about real crime" . I live in a street which has 20mph speed limit. Its just a shame that none of the people who use it as a rat-run bother with it (they never bothered with the 30 limit). For a long time residents have called for a simpler method of control.........cut off the rat -run. The response to this suggestion .................... ....nada !!!! Lets me honest, evidence on whether 20mph limits work is at best inconclusive. For ever statistic where is shows fewer deaths, somebody else can show one that shows accidents have increased. Whilst the scheme is widened, the media is not talking to any of the councils etc who have gone through the process and then scrapped it, because in their experince, it simply doesnt do what it supposed to. MikeJT
  • Score: 1

8:04am Thu 24 Jul 14

grey_man says...

grey-area wrote:
I asked these questions previously, but didn't get definitive answers.

What exactly was the pilot scheme's results, where was it held and 86percent of how many?
How will it be policed/enforced across the whole of Warrington?
It's all on the council website.

The gist is that it was run in three areas over a period of months. There was no overall reduction in casualties (one area showed an increase) but the numbers on those roads are so low that the statistics are inconclusive.

What was interesting was that average speeds on the piloted roads before the 20 mph limit was introduced were about 25 mph, meaning the overwhelming majority of people drove at appropriate speeds - ie well below 30 mph regardless of the actual speed limit. During the pilot average speeds fell to 24 mph. I assume the prats who far exceed 30 mph aren't bothered about the 20 limit either.

The police didn't bother responding to the consultation but like all forces made it known they don't have the resources to enforce the limits anyway.

I have no idea about the 86 percent, but I imagine most residents are right in wanting something done about people speeding around on residential roads.
[quote][p][bold]grey-area[/bold] wrote: I asked these questions previously, but didn't get definitive answers. What exactly was the pilot scheme's results, where was it held and 86percent of how many? How will it be policed/enforced across the whole of Warrington?[/p][/quote]It's all on the council website. The gist is that it was run in three areas over a period of months. There was no overall reduction in casualties (one area showed an increase) but the numbers on those roads are so low that the statistics are inconclusive. What was interesting was that average speeds on the piloted roads before the 20 mph limit was introduced were about 25 mph, meaning the overwhelming majority of people drove at appropriate speeds - ie well below 30 mph regardless of the actual speed limit. During the pilot average speeds fell to 24 mph. I assume the prats who far exceed 30 mph aren't bothered about the 20 limit either. The police didn't bother responding to the consultation but like all forces made it known they don't have the resources to enforce the limits anyway. I have no idea about the 86 percent, but I imagine most residents are right in wanting something done about people speeding around on residential roads. grey_man
  • Score: 1

8:04am Thu 24 Jul 14

grey_man says...

grey-area wrote:
I asked these questions previously, but didn't get definitive answers.

What exactly was the pilot scheme's results, where was it held and 86percent of how many?
How will it be policed/enforced across the whole of Warrington?
It's all on the council website.

The gist is that it was run in three areas over a period of months. There was no overall reduction in casualties (one area showed an increase) but the numbers on those roads are so low that the statistics are inconclusive.

What was interesting was that average speeds on the piloted roads before the 20 mph limit was introduced were about 25 mph, meaning the overwhelming majority of people drove at appropriate speeds - ie well below 30 mph regardless of the actual speed limit. During the pilot average speeds fell to 24 mph. I assume the prats who far exceed 30 mph aren't bothered about the 20 limit either.

The police didn't bother responding to the consultation but like all forces made it known they don't have the resources to enforce the limits anyway.

I have no idea about the 86 percent, but I imagine most residents are right in wanting something done about people speeding around on residential roads.
[quote][p][bold]grey-area[/bold] wrote: I asked these questions previously, but didn't get definitive answers. What exactly was the pilot scheme's results, where was it held and 86percent of how many? How will it be policed/enforced across the whole of Warrington?[/p][/quote]It's all on the council website. The gist is that it was run in three areas over a period of months. There was no overall reduction in casualties (one area showed an increase) but the numbers on those roads are so low that the statistics are inconclusive. What was interesting was that average speeds on the piloted roads before the 20 mph limit was introduced were about 25 mph, meaning the overwhelming majority of people drove at appropriate speeds - ie well below 30 mph regardless of the actual speed limit. During the pilot average speeds fell to 24 mph. I assume the prats who far exceed 30 mph aren't bothered about the 20 limit either. The police didn't bother responding to the consultation but like all forces made it known they don't have the resources to enforce the limits anyway. I have no idea about the 86 percent, but I imagine most residents are right in wanting something done about people speeding around on residential roads. grey_man
  • Score: 0

8:19am Thu 24 Jul 14

Traveller29 says...

If the government was serious about the limits being enforced then the only answer would be to have 'sleeping policmen'? (Before anyone gets smart, speed humps!!)
If the government was serious about the limits being enforced then the only answer would be to have 'sleeping policmen'? (Before anyone gets smart, speed humps!!) Traveller29
  • Score: -2

8:27am Thu 24 Jul 14

Out of Warrington says...

local man wrote:
grey_man wrote:
Out of Warrington wrote:
grey_man wrote:
Out of Warrington wrote:
grey_man wrote:
Reader wrote:
Surely it would be better to hand surplus money back to the government so it can perhaps go into another of their pots to be dished out on other things rather than for it just to be wasted by WBC simply because it 'has to be spent' or given back. If all councils are wasting so much money then no wonder there is so little to be dished out from up above in the first place.
Exactly.
What part of "you can't give the money back" are you failing to understand?

If the government didn't think this was a worth while scheme they wouldn't have allocated funding to it in the first place.
1. The Government thinks lots of things that it's wrong about. Read the news.

2. The Government may have allocated the budget. Doesn't mean WBC has to apply for and spend it. I know this is a revolutionary idea for people who are used to spending other people's money, but there you go.
And no doubt councillors and officers would be criticised (probably by you, being the leading keyboard warrior on this site) for not applying for external funding, for criteria the government sets.

Can't see what the problem is here? If it only saves one child or adult from getting hurt its got to be a good idea.
I think PageA holds that crown. Or maybe you, seeing as I never get personal and you always do.

I'd prefer the council to think about what it does a bit more.
Grey man is right, whether you spend the money or not it comes from taxpayers, to waste it is wrong - your pretty much saying "we might as well waste it or someone else will"
The opportunity cost is what else could we have spent it on - just about anything worthwhile, education, training, litter wardens, benefits capping enforcement managers - I'm sure the taxpayers money has a limitless variety of ways to be spent by public servants.
Does local gov pay still increase depending on the size of budget you control ?
Iam still surprised that people don't see this project as a worth while one, may be it's because they are car drivers?

Local government pay has never been dependent on the size of the budget you control, probably just another ill informed myth that people who don't understand (and dislike) local governemnt perpetuate.
[quote][p][bold]local man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Out of Warrington[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Out of Warrington[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reader[/bold] wrote: Surely it would be better to hand surplus money back to the government so it can perhaps go into another of their pots to be dished out on other things rather than for it just to be wasted by WBC simply because it 'has to be spent' or given back. If all councils are wasting so much money then no wonder there is so little to be dished out from up above in the first place.[/p][/quote]Exactly.[/p][/quote]What part of "you can't give the money back" are you failing to understand? If the government didn't think this was a worth while scheme they wouldn't have allocated funding to it in the first place.[/p][/quote]1. The Government thinks lots of things that it's wrong about. Read the news. 2. The Government may have allocated the budget. Doesn't mean WBC has to apply for and spend it. I know this is a revolutionary idea for people who are used to spending other people's money, but there you go.[/p][/quote]And no doubt councillors and officers would be criticised (probably by you, being the leading keyboard warrior on this site) for not applying for external funding, for criteria the government sets. Can't see what the problem is here? If it only saves one child or adult from getting hurt its got to be a good idea.[/p][/quote]I think PageA holds that crown. Or maybe you, seeing as I never get personal and you always do. I'd prefer the council to think about what it does a bit more.[/p][/quote]Grey man is right, whether you spend the money or not it comes from taxpayers, to waste it is wrong - your pretty much saying "we might as well waste it or someone else will" The opportunity cost is what else could we have spent it on - just about anything worthwhile, education, training, litter wardens, benefits capping enforcement managers - I'm sure the taxpayers money has a limitless variety of ways to be spent by public servants. Does local gov pay still increase depending on the size of budget you control ?[/p][/quote]Iam still surprised that people don't see this project as a worth while one, may be it's because they are car drivers? Local government pay has never been dependent on the size of the budget you control, probably just another ill informed myth that people who don't understand (and dislike) local governemnt perpetuate. Out of Warrington
  • Score: -2

8:29am Thu 24 Jul 14

Out of Warrington says...

Freeborn John wrote:
Out of Warrington wrote:
grey_man wrote:
Out of Warrington wrote:
grey_man wrote:
Reader wrote:
Surely it would be better to hand surplus money back to the government so it can perhaps go into another of their pots to be dished out on other things rather than for it just to be wasted by WBC simply because it 'has to be spent' or given back. If all councils are wasting so much money then no wonder there is so little to be dished out from up above in the first place.
Exactly.
What part of "you can't give the money back" are you failing to understand?

If the government didn't think this was a worth while scheme they wouldn't have allocated funding to it in the first place.
1. The Government thinks lots of things that it's wrong about. Read the news.

2. The Government may have allocated the budget. Doesn't mean WBC has to apply for and spend it. I know this is a revolutionary idea for people who are used to spending other people's money, but there you go.
And no doubt councillors and officers would be criticised (probably by you, being the leading keyboard warrior on this site) for not applying for external funding, for criteria the government sets.

Can't see what the problem is here? If it only saves one child or adult from getting hurt its got to be a good idea.
There's probably more chance of somebody being seriously injured by colliding with one of these hundreds of extra pieces of very solid street furniture than anything else.
Road safety? More like the illusion of it foisted on us by the self righteous brigade.
Spoken like a true selfish car driver.
[quote][p][bold]Freeborn John[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Out of Warrington[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Out of Warrington[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reader[/bold] wrote: Surely it would be better to hand surplus money back to the government so it can perhaps go into another of their pots to be dished out on other things rather than for it just to be wasted by WBC simply because it 'has to be spent' or given back. If all councils are wasting so much money then no wonder there is so little to be dished out from up above in the first place.[/p][/quote]Exactly.[/p][/quote]What part of "you can't give the money back" are you failing to understand? If the government didn't think this was a worth while scheme they wouldn't have allocated funding to it in the first place.[/p][/quote]1. The Government thinks lots of things that it's wrong about. Read the news. 2. The Government may have allocated the budget. Doesn't mean WBC has to apply for and spend it. I know this is a revolutionary idea for people who are used to spending other people's money, but there you go.[/p][/quote]And no doubt councillors and officers would be criticised (probably by you, being the leading keyboard warrior on this site) for not applying for external funding, for criteria the government sets. Can't see what the problem is here? If it only saves one child or adult from getting hurt its got to be a good idea.[/p][/quote]There's probably more chance of somebody being seriously injured by colliding with one of these hundreds of extra pieces of very solid street furniture than anything else. Road safety? More like the illusion of it foisted on us by the self righteous brigade.[/p][/quote]Spoken like a true selfish car driver. Out of Warrington
  • Score: -3

8:41am Thu 24 Jul 14

grey_man says...

Out of Warrington wrote:
local man wrote:
grey_man wrote:
Out of Warrington wrote:
grey_man wrote:
Out of Warrington wrote:
grey_man wrote:
Reader wrote:
Surely it would be better to hand surplus money back to the government so it can perhaps go into another of their pots to be dished out on other things rather than for it just to be wasted by WBC simply because it 'has to be spent' or given back. If all councils are wasting so much money then no wonder there is so little to be dished out from up above in the first place.
Exactly.
What part of "you can't give the money back" are you failing to understand?

If the government didn't think this was a worth while scheme they wouldn't have allocated funding to it in the first place.
1. The Government thinks lots of things that it's wrong about. Read the news.

2. The Government may have allocated the budget. Doesn't mean WBC has to apply for and spend it. I know this is a revolutionary idea for people who are used to spending other people's money, but there you go.
And no doubt councillors and officers would be criticised (probably by you, being the leading keyboard warrior on this site) for not applying for external funding, for criteria the government sets.

Can't see what the problem is here? If it only saves one child or adult from getting hurt its got to be a good idea.
I think PageA holds that crown. Or maybe you, seeing as I never get personal and you always do.

I'd prefer the council to think about what it does a bit more.
Grey man is right, whether you spend the money or not it comes from taxpayers, to waste it is wrong - your pretty much saying "we might as well waste it or someone else will"
The opportunity cost is what else could we have spent it on - just about anything worthwhile, education, training, litter wardens, benefits capping enforcement managers - I'm sure the taxpayers money has a limitless variety of ways to be spent by public servants.
Does local gov pay still increase depending on the size of budget you control ?
Iam still surprised that people don't see this project as a worth while one, may be it's because they are car drivers?

Local government pay has never been dependent on the size of the budget you control, probably just another ill informed myth that people who don't understand (and dislike) local governemnt perpetuate.
Or maybe it's because it doesn't work.
[quote][p][bold]Out of Warrington[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]local man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Out of Warrington[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Out of Warrington[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reader[/bold] wrote: Surely it would be better to hand surplus money back to the government so it can perhaps go into another of their pots to be dished out on other things rather than for it just to be wasted by WBC simply because it 'has to be spent' or given back. If all councils are wasting so much money then no wonder there is so little to be dished out from up above in the first place.[/p][/quote]Exactly.[/p][/quote]What part of "you can't give the money back" are you failing to understand? If the government didn't think this was a worth while scheme they wouldn't have allocated funding to it in the first place.[/p][/quote]1. The Government thinks lots of things that it's wrong about. Read the news. 2. The Government may have allocated the budget. Doesn't mean WBC has to apply for and spend it. I know this is a revolutionary idea for people who are used to spending other people's money, but there you go.[/p][/quote]And no doubt councillors and officers would be criticised (probably by you, being the leading keyboard warrior on this site) for not applying for external funding, for criteria the government sets. Can't see what the problem is here? If it only saves one child or adult from getting hurt its got to be a good idea.[/p][/quote]I think PageA holds that crown. Or maybe you, seeing as I never get personal and you always do. I'd prefer the council to think about what it does a bit more.[/p][/quote]Grey man is right, whether you spend the money or not it comes from taxpayers, to waste it is wrong - your pretty much saying "we might as well waste it or someone else will" The opportunity cost is what else could we have spent it on - just about anything worthwhile, education, training, litter wardens, benefits capping enforcement managers - I'm sure the taxpayers money has a limitless variety of ways to be spent by public servants. Does local gov pay still increase depending on the size of budget you control ?[/p][/quote]Iam still surprised that people don't see this project as a worth while one, may be it's because they are car drivers? Local government pay has never been dependent on the size of the budget you control, probably just another ill informed myth that people who don't understand (and dislike) local governemnt perpetuate.[/p][/quote]Or maybe it's because it doesn't work. grey_man
  • Score: 1

11:28am Thu 24 Jul 14

Karlar says...

grey_man wrote:
Out of Warrington wrote:
local man wrote:
grey_man wrote:
Out of Warrington wrote:
grey_man wrote:
Out of Warrington wrote:
grey_man wrote:
Reader wrote:
Surely it would be better to hand surplus money back to the government so it can perhaps go into another of their pots to be dished out on other things rather than for it just to be wasted by WBC simply because it 'has to be spent' or given back. If all councils are wasting so much money then no wonder there is so little to be dished out from up above in the first place.
Exactly.
What part of "you can't give the money back" are you failing to understand?

If the government didn't think this was a worth while scheme they wouldn't have allocated funding to it in the first place.
1. The Government thinks lots of things that it's wrong about. Read the news.

2. The Government may have allocated the budget. Doesn't mean WBC has to apply for and spend it. I know this is a revolutionary idea for people who are used to spending other people's money, but there you go.
And no doubt councillors and officers would be criticised (probably by you, being the leading keyboard warrior on this site) for not applying for external funding, for criteria the government sets.

Can't see what the problem is here? If it only saves one child or adult from getting hurt its got to be a good idea.
I think PageA holds that crown. Or maybe you, seeing as I never get personal and you always do.

I'd prefer the council to think about what it does a bit more.
Grey man is right, whether you spend the money or not it comes from taxpayers, to waste it is wrong - your pretty much saying "we might as well waste it or someone else will"
The opportunity cost is what else could we have spent it on - just about anything worthwhile, education, training, litter wardens, benefits capping enforcement managers - I'm sure the taxpayers money has a limitless variety of ways to be spent by public servants.
Does local gov pay still increase depending on the size of budget you control ?
Iam still surprised that people don't see this project as a worth while one, may be it's because they are car drivers?

Local government pay has never been dependent on the size of the budget you control, probably just another ill informed myth that people who don't understand (and dislike) local governemnt perpetuate.
Or maybe it's because it doesn't work.
Are you referring to the 20 mph scheme or Local Government?
[quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Out of Warrington[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]local man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Out of Warrington[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Out of Warrington[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reader[/bold] wrote: Surely it would be better to hand surplus money back to the government so it can perhaps go into another of their pots to be dished out on other things rather than for it just to be wasted by WBC simply because it 'has to be spent' or given back. If all councils are wasting so much money then no wonder there is so little to be dished out from up above in the first place.[/p][/quote]Exactly.[/p][/quote]What part of "you can't give the money back" are you failing to understand? If the government didn't think this was a worth while scheme they wouldn't have allocated funding to it in the first place.[/p][/quote]1. The Government thinks lots of things that it's wrong about. Read the news. 2. The Government may have allocated the budget. Doesn't mean WBC has to apply for and spend it. I know this is a revolutionary idea for people who are used to spending other people's money, but there you go.[/p][/quote]And no doubt councillors and officers would be criticised (probably by you, being the leading keyboard warrior on this site) for not applying for external funding, for criteria the government sets. Can't see what the problem is here? If it only saves one child or adult from getting hurt its got to be a good idea.[/p][/quote]I think PageA holds that crown. Or maybe you, seeing as I never get personal and you always do. I'd prefer the council to think about what it does a bit more.[/p][/quote]Grey man is right, whether you spend the money or not it comes from taxpayers, to waste it is wrong - your pretty much saying "we might as well waste it or someone else will" The opportunity cost is what else could we have spent it on - just about anything worthwhile, education, training, litter wardens, benefits capping enforcement managers - I'm sure the taxpayers money has a limitless variety of ways to be spent by public servants. Does local gov pay still increase depending on the size of budget you control ?[/p][/quote]Iam still surprised that people don't see this project as a worth while one, may be it's because they are car drivers? Local government pay has never been dependent on the size of the budget you control, probably just another ill informed myth that people who don't understand (and dislike) local governemnt perpetuate.[/p][/quote]Or maybe it's because it doesn't work.[/p][/quote]Are you referring to the 20 mph scheme or Local Government? Karlar
  • Score: 0

12:30pm Thu 24 Jul 14

grey_man says...

The 20 mph scheme.

There's lots that works about local government, obviously. But it has many of those roles that are generally only visible when things go wrong.
The 20 mph scheme. There's lots that works about local government, obviously. But it has many of those roles that are generally only visible when things go wrong. grey_man
  • Score: 1

12:59pm Thu 24 Jul 14

grey-area says...

Traveller29 wrote:
If the government was serious about the limits being enforced then the only answer would be to have 'sleeping policmen'? (Before anyone gets smart, speed humps!!)
....................
is the correct answer. This then becomes self policing speed limits. Common sense prevails Traveller29.
[quote][p][bold]Traveller29[/bold] wrote: If the government was serious about the limits being enforced then the only answer would be to have 'sleeping policmen'? (Before anyone gets smart, speed humps!!)[/p][/quote].................... is the correct answer. This then becomes self policing speed limits. Common sense prevails Traveller29. grey-area
  • Score: 2

1:12pm Thu 24 Jul 14

gazhopley says...

grey-area wrote:
Traveller29 wrote:
If the government was serious about the limits being enforced then the only answer would be to have 'sleeping policmen'? (Before anyone gets smart, speed humps!!)
....................

is the correct answer. This then becomes self policing speed limits. Common sense prevails Traveller29.
It's an answer but it isn't the only answer, the problem with speed bumps now is the kids on mopeds and rev n rips have started using them as little jumps or aids to help them pop wheelies.
[quote][p][bold]grey-area[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Traveller29[/bold] wrote: If the government was serious about the limits being enforced then the only answer would be to have 'sleeping policmen'? (Before anyone gets smart, speed humps!!)[/p][/quote].................... is the correct answer. This then becomes self policing speed limits. Common sense prevails Traveller29.[/p][/quote]It's an answer but it isn't the only answer, the problem with speed bumps now is the kids on mopeds and rev n rips have started using them as little jumps or aids to help them pop wheelies. gazhopley
  • Score: 2

2:46pm Thu 24 Jul 14

BankPark says...

Any chance of actually reducing the clutter of Road signs that plagues Warrington?
Any chance of actually reducing the clutter of Road signs that plagues Warrington? BankPark
  • Score: 4

3:01pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Traveller29 says...

gazhopley wrote:
grey-area wrote:
Traveller29 wrote:
If the government was serious about the limits being enforced then the only answer would be to have 'sleeping policmen'? (Before anyone gets smart, speed humps!!)
....................


is the correct answer. This then becomes self policing speed limits. Common sense prevails Traveller29.
It's an answer but it isn't the only answer, the problem with speed bumps now is the kids on mopeds and rev n rips have started using them as little jumps or aids to help them pop wheelies.
It's an answer but it isn't the only answer, the problem with speed bumps now is the kids on mopeds and rev n rips have started using them as little jumps or aids to help them pop wheelies.


You can't win them all :)
[quote][p][bold]gazhopley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey-area[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Traveller29[/bold] wrote: If the government was serious about the limits being enforced then the only answer would be to have 'sleeping policmen'? (Before anyone gets smart, speed humps!!)[/p][/quote].................... is the correct answer. This then becomes self policing speed limits. Common sense prevails Traveller29.[/p][/quote]It's an answer but it isn't the only answer, the problem with speed bumps now is the kids on mopeds and rev n rips have started using them as little jumps or aids to help them pop wheelies.[/p][/quote][quote]It's an answer but it isn't the only answer, the problem with speed bumps now is the kids on mopeds and rev n rips have started using them as little jumps or aids to help them pop wheelies.[/quote] You can't win them all :) Traveller29
  • Score: 1

6:49pm Thu 24 Jul 14

gazhopley says...

Traveller29 wrote:
gazhopley wrote:
grey-area wrote:
Traveller29 wrote:
If the government was serious about the limits being enforced then the only answer would be to have 'sleeping policmen'? (Before anyone gets smart, speed humps!!)
....................



is the correct answer. This then becomes self policing speed limits. Common sense prevails Traveller29.
It's an answer but it isn't the only answer, the problem with speed bumps now is the kids on mopeds and rev n rips have started using them as little jumps or aids to help them pop wheelies.
It's an answer but it isn't the only answer, the problem with speed bumps now is the kids on mopeds and rev n rips have started using them as little jumps or aids to help them pop wheelies.


You can't win them all :)
you can.... but not this way.
[quote][p][bold]Traveller29[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gazhopley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey-area[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Traveller29[/bold] wrote: If the government was serious about the limits being enforced then the only answer would be to have 'sleeping policmen'? (Before anyone gets smart, speed humps!!)[/p][/quote].................... is the correct answer. This then becomes self policing speed limits. Common sense prevails Traveller29.[/p][/quote]It's an answer but it isn't the only answer, the problem with speed bumps now is the kids on mopeds and rev n rips have started using them as little jumps or aids to help them pop wheelies.[/p][/quote][quote]It's an answer but it isn't the only answer, the problem with speed bumps now is the kids on mopeds and rev n rips have started using them as little jumps or aids to help them pop wheelies.[/quote] You can't win them all :)[/p][/quote]you can.... but not this way. gazhopley
  • Score: 1

8:17am Fri 25 Jul 14

local man says...

what do speed humps do to ambulance and paramedic response times? how much damage do they cause to road surfaces? can roads be cleared of snow with humps? the roads with humps near my home are worn out just around the humps - do they add to maintenance costs?

I think we should enforce the speed limits more, im not in favor of a free for all, the costs should be part of the fine paid for by offenders rather than general taxation. Oh i forgot, the money could always come from a special fund that grows on trees.
what do speed humps do to ambulance and paramedic response times? how much damage do they cause to road surfaces? can roads be cleared of snow with humps? the roads with humps near my home are worn out just around the humps - do they add to maintenance costs? I think we should enforce the speed limits more, im not in favor of a free for all, the costs should be part of the fine paid for by offenders rather than general taxation. Oh i forgot, the money could always come from a special fund that grows on trees. local man
  • Score: 2

1:07pm Fri 25 Jul 14

hopeitgetsbetter says...

Doesn't a 20mph zone require additional road furniture in addition to just signs? I might be wrong, but the highway code provides clues to drivers to determine the speed limit without having to wait for a repeater speed limit sign. For example, the speed limit on any given road with no speed limit signs and no street lights is the national speed limit. The same road with street lights is 30mph. I thought that in order for drivers to be able to easily differentiate between 20mph and 30mph speed restrictions the 20mph zones (an area of linked 20mph roads) generally had narrower roads, sleeping policemen, more reflective bollards, one-way chicanes, mini-roundabouts etc. Surely this would be hugely expensive to install across the borough? I guess it will come over time, along with the maintenance of this street ‘junk’. Can any highways experts comment on this?

I would prefer more the money to be spent educating drivers. Perhaps a driving test every 5 years? I know of few other jobs where you pass an exam at the age of 17 which entitles you to use a dangerous piece of equipment in public places for the rest of your life without any further testing or additional training.

All this cost in the face of conflicting statistics relating accidents on our roads. I am not convinced about this policy.
Doesn't a 20mph zone require additional road furniture in addition to just signs? I might be wrong, but the highway code provides clues to drivers to determine the speed limit without having to wait for a repeater speed limit sign. For example, the speed limit on any given road with no speed limit signs and no street lights is the national speed limit. The same road with street lights is 30mph. I thought that in order for drivers to be able to easily differentiate between 20mph and 30mph speed restrictions the 20mph zones (an area of linked 20mph roads) generally had narrower roads, sleeping policemen, more reflective bollards, one-way chicanes, mini-roundabouts etc. Surely this would be hugely expensive to install across the borough? I guess it will come over time, along with the maintenance of this street ‘junk’. Can any highways experts comment on this? I would prefer more the money to be spent educating drivers. Perhaps a driving test every 5 years? I know of few other jobs where you pass an exam at the age of 17 which entitles you to use a dangerous piece of equipment in public places for the rest of your life without any further testing or additional training. All this cost in the face of conflicting statistics relating accidents on our roads. I am not convinced about this policy. hopeitgetsbetter
  • Score: 2

10:39pm Fri 25 Jul 14

ChristoB says...

hopeitgetsbetter wrote:
Doesn't a 20mph zone require additional road furniture in addition to just signs? I might be wrong, but the highway code provides clues to drivers to determine the speed limit without having to wait for a repeater speed limit sign. For example, the speed limit on any given road with no speed limit signs and no street lights is the national speed limit. The same road with street lights is 30mph. I thought that in order for drivers to be able to easily differentiate between 20mph and 30mph speed restrictions the 20mph zones (an area of linked 20mph roads) generally had narrower roads, sleeping policemen, more reflective bollards, one-way chicanes, mini-roundabouts etc. Surely this would be hugely expensive to install across the borough? I guess it will come over time, along with the maintenance of this street ‘junk’. Can any highways experts comment on this?

I would prefer more the money to be spent educating drivers. Perhaps a driving test every 5 years? I know of few other jobs where you pass an exam at the age of 17 which entitles you to use a dangerous piece of equipment in public places for the rest of your life without any further testing or additional training.

All this cost in the face of conflicting statistics relating accidents on our roads. I am not convinced about this policy.
Sadly its all down to peoples appalling attitudes. There is a regrettable excess in our society who have absolutely no respect for others or for rules and regulations designed to protect everyone. There is wholesale abuse of many laws in our country - speed limits, mobile phone when driving - and shameful disrespect of fellow members of the community. People and attitudes are the issue and the solution and regrettably there is very little chance of any needed improvement there.
[quote][p][bold]hopeitgetsbetter[/bold] wrote: Doesn't a 20mph zone require additional road furniture in addition to just signs? I might be wrong, but the highway code provides clues to drivers to determine the speed limit without having to wait for a repeater speed limit sign. For example, the speed limit on any given road with no speed limit signs and no street lights is the national speed limit. The same road with street lights is 30mph. I thought that in order for drivers to be able to easily differentiate between 20mph and 30mph speed restrictions the 20mph zones (an area of linked 20mph roads) generally had narrower roads, sleeping policemen, more reflective bollards, one-way chicanes, mini-roundabouts etc. Surely this would be hugely expensive to install across the borough? I guess it will come over time, along with the maintenance of this street ‘junk’. Can any highways experts comment on this? I would prefer more the money to be spent educating drivers. Perhaps a driving test every 5 years? I know of few other jobs where you pass an exam at the age of 17 which entitles you to use a dangerous piece of equipment in public places for the rest of your life without any further testing or additional training. All this cost in the face of conflicting statistics relating accidents on our roads. I am not convinced about this policy.[/p][/quote]Sadly its all down to peoples appalling attitudes. There is a regrettable excess in our society who have absolutely no respect for others or for rules and regulations designed to protect everyone. There is wholesale abuse of many laws in our country - speed limits, mobile phone when driving - and shameful disrespect of fellow members of the community. People and attitudes are the issue and the solution and regrettably there is very little chance of any needed improvement there. ChristoB
  • Score: 6

11:58pm Sun 27 Jul 14

ade2636 says...

It is rediculous I live on Longford street, & all the side streets are 20mph, but we are still 30mph, can the council explain why ?
Also if they were to have made all residential streets 20mph it would have been a lot easier, cheaper & safer.
Could put signs up on all main roads leading into Warrington stating all roads from this point are 20mph , then on the back show the speed of the road leaving the area.
It is rediculous I live on Longford street, & all the side streets are 20mph, but we are still 30mph, can the council explain why ? Also if they were to have made all residential streets 20mph it would have been a lot easier, cheaper & safer. Could put signs up on all main roads leading into Warrington stating all roads from this point are 20mph , then on the back show the speed of the road leaving the area. ade2636
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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