Campaign for common sense

8

WHILE I welcome any road safety initiatives, especially ones aimed at reducing speed and saving lives I do wonder about the 20’s plenty campaign, which is now going to be rolled out across the town over the next three years – at a cost of £740,000.
We have already seen various highways improvements taking place over the years around Warrington, which have included traffic lights being added to roundabouts and then being switched on and off to aid traffic flow and roundabouts being removed totally to be replaced with new junctions which increase traffic congestion – all at considerable cost.
We even had to endure seeing one set of road improvements on Cromwell Avenue being redone.
As we have a national speed limit of 60mph, which isn’t normally sign posted – why can’t we campaign for a national speed limit of 20mph on housing estates – thereby saving the costs associated with making and erecting all the signs? Or this that too much like common sense?
If we are going to press ahead with the 20’s plenty campaign I do hope the signs are introduced with common sense and that money isn’t wasted on any inappropriate signage on roads which are not even long enough to accelerate up to 20mph.
I have witnessed some 20 mph signs go up in Great Sankey on roads which are no more than cul-de-sacs containing three or four properties and only half a dozen vehicle lengths long – erecting signage on roads like this
is a complete waste of public money.
There is certainly a need to control the speed of motorists in some residential areas – but there is also a need for common sense – which does not always prevail when it comes to council’s and highways.
If I remember rightly Warrington can also boast the uneviable record of having one of the shortest cycle ways in the country! So much for common sense!


8 Comments
Share.

About Author

Experienced journalist for more than 40 years. Managing Director of magazine publishing group with three in-house titles and on-line daily newspaper for Warrington. Experienced writer, photographer, PR consultant and media expert having written for local, regional and national newspapers. Specialties: PR, media, social networking, photographer, networking, advertising, sales, media crisis management. Chair of Warrington Healthwatch Director Warrington Chamber of Commerce Patron Tim Parry Johnathan Ball Foundation for Peace. Trustee Warrington Disability Partnership. Former Chairman of Warrington Town FC.

8 Comments

  1. I do feel that the town at this present time has greater priorities and that this money would be better spent on keeping the likes of Woodlea Care Home open. Or it could be used to fill the £150K shortfall on flood defence. I fully understand the safety aspect and we should be responsible when on the road but Common sense must be used because let’s face it the average speed around town must be about 15 to 18 MPH.

  2. who is actually going to ‘police’ it??

    most of the roads are narrow due to cars parked either side – so this restricts the speed. but you’ll always get ‘speedsters’.

    There’s a 20mph stretch of road on Wash Lane – its about 50M long outside a school entrance. No one slows to 20, the school is not open at weekends, its closed for about 12 weeks of the year so whats the point? most drivers dont even know what 30mph is let alone 20! Ride a bike and you’ll soon find out!

  3. It really does beggar belief only 10 years ago we had the erection of speed humps being built across all roads over the Town, Now thats not good enough WBC want to waste money, that could be used for other iniatives and purposes, on 20 mph signs and zones across Town. The Town is grid locked already with the over indulgence of Traffic Lights, now they want to cease the Town completly with this riduclous idea. Get the lunatics out of the Town Hall and let rational level headed people make proper decisions.

  4. I would remind Councillors Kennedy and Reynolds that the actual decision to roll-out 20mph limits across the whole borough was made in October 2010 by the Executive Board which presumanbly both members had full access to via their own parties who made up the board at the time.

    This October 2010 meeting of the Executive Board also authorised officers to draw up a Traffic Order to make nearly 200 streets which had been in the pilot 20mph scheme permanent. In March 2011, Mr Kennedy was the only member of the Traffic Committee at the time who voted against the permanent order. If he had had his way at the time then the council would have been required to remove the temporary signage for what was reported to be a very successful scheme. In fact the scheme was so successful that officers reported that the annual savings to the community in reduced casualty costs outweighed the costs of implementation by 8 to 1.

    What the new Executive Board has done is to build on the work of the previous Executive Board to find ways of implementing in a more economic and more cost effective manner by rolling out in 3 to 5 years instead of 10 years. This faster roll-out provides greater economies of scale and a more consistent approach.

    The 20mph limits for residential roads are a strategic investment that provides the foundation for better travel in the town. The council has conducted extensive pilots which have both proved its effectiveness and developed experience of deployment. The council is also able to work with other councils to share best practice, minimise costs and maximise effectiveness.

    Both Councillors are missing the whole point of Gary’s comment, and that was that the roll-out should be conducted as cost effectively as possible. Regulations on the placing of signage are determined by the government nationally. The current government has recently relaxed signage requirements to make 20mph implementations cheaper and easier and I am sure that officers will be taking these into account to minimise costs.

    The current Warrington administration has made an important decision on both more economic implementation and by seeking alternative funds. It should therefore be complemented for its efforts to both implement more cost effectively and create a better place for us all to walk, cycle and drive.

    Best regards

    Rod King

  5. Yes but the Labour run council could delay or cancil the roll out Rod – I understand the safety point of view although I still think we as drivers should take more responsibility for are actions. I just see other pressures.

  6. Kevin

    Well one of the biggest pressures in Warrington is the £37m cost of road casualties each year. Of course drivers should take more responsibility for actions and driving at a speed which allows them to respond to incidents and avoid collisions is one of the most effective ways of doing this. Every time someone does drive slower then that road becomes a better place for pedestrians, cyclists and others to use.

    Delaying the roll-out would simply delay the benefits which are far more than the cost. Add to that the fact that you get economies of scale and better commitment if you do it as a continuous timely roll-out rather than a patchy extended roll-out and it makes even more sense.

    Of course in such times we do need to look at any expenditure carefully but this particular intervention is one that pays handsomely in reduced community costs and a better quality of life. I guess from Norther Europe and in particular Hilden they would look in astonishment at the speeds we tolerate and endorse on our residential roads and the horrendous 1,000 a year road casualty figures for our town.

    Best regards

    Rod

Leave A Comment