IF a 20mph speed limit was introduced across Warrington, annual savings on dealing with accidents and casualties is put at £5.9 million.
This is claimed by the national 20s Plenty For Us campaign in welcoming the borough council’s decision to approve the principle of rolling out 20mph limits across the borough.
Coincidentally, the 20s Plenty campaign originates from Warrington, having been founded by Lymm resident Rod King (pictured).
In a statement welcoming the council’s decision, 20s Plenty say wide area 20mph limits, without traffic calming, offer amazingly good value for money.
The results of three pilot schemes in Warrington showed an 800 per cent saving in the cost of casualties per year and if the same results were achieved across the whole of Warrington, the reduced cost of accidents and casualties in
Warrington is estimated to be £5.9m per annum.
Other benefits would better air quality, less asthma and the likelihood of reduced traffic as people feel more comfortable with walking and cycling.
There would also be less noise, more independent child travel and active lifestyles which would benefit people’s mental and physical health in, for instance, reducing anxiety, heart disease and obesity.
20s Plenty say roads should have a 20mph limit by default and that this should be implemented in one continuous process throughout 2011/12.
Rod King said: “This is an important moment for Warrington whose people have shown that they care about the way that they are sharing the roads and make allowances for residents and other road users by slowing
down.
“Now the council have endorsed that change by agreeing to roll out this important initiative across the whole borough.”
43 Comments
Saving was just in those areas. Did anyone measure where all the traffic went? Didnt just stop? And how is the £5.9m calculated?
Well done Rod keep up the good work.
What a ridiculous comment.
This won’t be needed anyway, because people are leaving Warrington in droves to shop elsewhere. It will become a ghost town.
Perhaps that is what King and Settle want.
You want to hear me when I really start ranting oh silver one.
Fortunately I have lived in a 20 mph street for many many years, I just want everyone else to have the same benefits.
I don’t understand the claim about better air quality. Surely it will be worse. Cars travelling in a lower gear will consume more petrol per mile and produce more emmissions.
I’d just like to point out that it is completely, utterly, and absolutely, impossible to get an 800% saving on anything. The biggest saving which can EVER be realised would be if something used to have a cost, and now it costs nothing at all – but that’s still only a 100% saving. Someone has been playing fast and loose with statistics to come up with that claim! I think an extremely large pinch of salt is going to be needed when reading the other inflated claims made by the supporters of this scheme.
Settle, no-one is objecting to 20 on estates. just the roads that people use to get to work, shopping etc.
I don’t see where I said that you were ranting. As paranoid as ever it would seem.
Isnt it possible to make an 800% saving when the money is coming out of a pot that may be overdrawn ? Eg if it currently costs £100 a year for something and the costs are cut to £0 then you have made a 100% saving…… but if in the course of time the £100 a year hasn’t been enough to fund ‘whatever’ which in turn has left you with a huge deficit then of say £1000 then wont the % increase saved be higher…… Actually maybe not and Inky you are probably right 🙂 Safe to say though that %’s and Statistics always seem to somehow fall in favour of the supportting arguement with a little tweaking of words and reasoning 🙂 I still can’t find the full report anywhere though.
Out of interest would those opposing the 20mph scheme also oppose a 40 mph scheme ?
I live in a fairly large (area wise) ‘gated’ community with a 25 mph speed limit and I can tell you that no one, even with the best intentions, can drive at that speed – it’s akin to being in a constant traffic jam. Most people use it as a reminder to use caution and it usually results in a more practical speed of around 35 mph.
“This is claimed by the national 20s Plenty For Us campaign”
I didn’t read any further.
It’s a bit harsh having a go at Mr King or the Campaign group as it’s oviously something that he and they strongly believe in…… problem is they seem to be a bit of a minority…. maybe that’s because the statisctics, figures, reasoning and the way the pilot schemes have been implemented don’t seem to make any sense at all 🙁
Perhaps a referendum on the subject would sort it once and for all.
40 mph is too fast in estates and heavily built-up areas.
I agree. At the end of the day different roads require different speed limits wether that is because they in highly residential areas, close to schools, have high accident rates or maybe they are already a lower speed and ‘could’ be made 40’s . A blanket rollout of 20 mph (as the 20’s plenty campaigh seem to want) just wont work and is not viable…. Each area and each road should be evaluated based on it’s own merit, findings and requirements……. but of course that will never happen. Has anyone looked at the 20’s Plenty Website ( which incidentally already lists Warrington as already having a 20mph default now ?? )… their briefing note on ‘Presenting the 20 mph limit to Professionals’ starts with the wording…’Your objective is to understand their concerns and meet them with a ‘Total 20’ solution.’ followed by all statistics and facts to quote ? The briefing not about air quality is the same. Rather parot fashion , but that’s just my opinion 🙂 I would also like to know the names of the 197 roads that Warrington BC apparently implemented a 20 mph pilot study on ? Were there that many ???? I suddenly seem to have a bee in my bonnet 🙂
Hi
Here is an article that shows that on balance 20mph is not very diifferent from 30mph in fuel consumption.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/article4107764.ece
Of course eliminating all the 20-30mph acceleration does reduce fuel use considerably. If not wishing to accelerate then you do not have to be in a lower gear at high revs. Just stay in the higher gear at low revs.
You can also download a factsheet on 20mph and pollution from :-
http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/pollution.htm
I trust that this helps you understand the claim about better air quality.
Best regards
Rod King
Hi pete
What WBC found was that the ratio of the cost of reduced casualties in the pilot areas in the first year of operation was equalt to 8 times the capital cost of implementing them. This was done using Dept of Transport figures which estimate the costs to a community of a casualty. This takes into account emergency services, hospital care, time of work, etc.
Hence for every £100,000 initially spent on 20mph limits the benefit to the Warrington economy would be £800,000 per annum.
On most schemes the target ratio is 250%. Of course 20mph speed limits give so many other benefits such as lower noise, lower pollution, more people feeling able to walk or cycle.
Best regards
Rod King
Well Eric
People in Orford and Great Sankey and the town centre did reduce their speeds. and most were driving at 25mph or less. What do you think is so different about the people your estate?
Regards
rod
Dizzy
We have always said that 20mph should be the default for residential roads and areas such as town centres, shops, etc where there are high pedestrian and cyclist movements. The local authority can decide which roads should be exceptions. But one of the issues is that many casualties are unclustered and can occur anywhere on the road network. That is why focussing soley on previous collisions is not a solution.
Also, most child casualties occur nearer home than school, so lower speeds just around schools do not solve the problem.
We all actually know that going faster does not make much difference to journey times which are inevitably determined by hold-ups and congestion. Reaching the next queue of traffic a second or two earlier, but in the same position does not have any particular benefits, but you have made more noise, more pollution and been a greater risk to any other road user than if you had travelled more slowly.
Of course we are all unfamiliar with driving at 20mph and that is why it seems slow, but all over Northern Europe people are used to driving at these speeds where people live.
And yes there were 197 roads that were set to 20mph limit.
Best regards
rod
Sorry Rod but it’s ridiculous statements like “Reaching the next queue of traffic a second or two earlier, but in the same position does not have any particular benefits, but you have made MORE NOISE, MORE POLUTION….. ” are the things that are really starting to get on my nerves whenever I hear about the 20 campaign. My car is no noiser at 30 mph than it is at 20 mph unless of course I drive in 1st year and rev the ***** off my engine !?!? My other half’s car is no worse either infact it’s probably quieter at 30 as it is an automatic and is not built to drive at a constant speed of 20. You make it sound like every driver doing 30 is a maniac with no patience and a need to get from A to B as a mater of urgency. Think you are confuing most of us sensible drivers with the boy racers and other idiots on the road who regladless of what the speed limit is will always go that little bit faster. You’ll still get the idiots putting their foot down at lights to get to the 20 in the quickest possible time and then slamming on at the next lights so have not had to slow down and lose their valuable seconds and street cred in the middle. Surely educating these idiots and banning pedestrians with ipods, mobile phones who are deaf and blind to the traffic through their own stupidity would be the first way forward to reducing accidents and collissions. Anyway enough said as I may have to ban myself !! regards 🙂
Hi Dizzy
I note you say your car is no noisier at 30mph than 20mph.
Are measuring that from inside the car or outside? Isd that with your radio on or no?
No, I am not saying that everyone who drives at 30 is a manic. Simply that driving at 20 would not really be much of an inconvenience.
So you want to “ban pedestrains with ipods”. I wonder if you similarly would ban cars with loud music players.
And how do you feel about those who actually are deaf or blind. are you looking to ban them as well?
What benefits do you think you or society gains from you driving at 30mph rather than 20mph on residential roads?
Best regards
Rod
“And how do you feel about those who actually are deaf or blind. are you looking to ban them as well?”
Stop being a prat.
King, YOU might think that you are right, it doesn’t mean that you are. In all the posts that you have made, you never say that people need training in the danger of the roads and footpaths. Your solution is to change the status quo when it is unnecessary.
How many millions would taxing cyclists like they do with cars and motorcycles and getting them to pay insurance too for when they ride on footpaths and blatently ignore traffic signals, thus causing accidents which largely go unreported?? 20 might be plenty, but 50 is pretty nifty!
Hi Baz
I can answer the question about taxing cyclists.If you pay the road fund license yourself you would know that it is proportional to the CO2 emission of a vehicle. For emissions less than 100g/km the cost is zero. Hence such a move would raise no money at all.
I think that you have hit the nail on the head when you say that most cycle accidents on pavements go unreported, it because no-one was injured enough to go to hospital. Probably because a motor vehicle was not involved.
There is much evidence that cycling is safer on the road than the pavements which inevitably causes you to cross side roads and create increased risk. There is equally much evidence that many people do not cycle or walk because they are scared of the speed of the traffic.
But this is really about the way in which we share the carriageway of the roads rather than the pavements. An area which pedestrians and cyclists cannot avoid.
Buit I am sure that you know all these things from previous exchanges we have had.
Have a good day.
Rod
Hi
I am all in favour of training. Training of pedestrians, cyclists and motorists to share the roads equitably and safely. I have no problem with that whatsoever.
Rod
Dizzy
You do not say what your other half’s car is. I wonder whether they sell any in Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Belgium, France, etc. In which case how do they cope with the 18.6 mph speed limits there?
I would be interested to know why you think it was not designed to drive at a constant 20mph.
Regards
Rod
Rod I find it hard to drive my car from the outside so can’t answer your question on noise evaluation fully but I’ll get my other half to drive past me a few times later if you like 🙂 How have you evaluated the difference in noise? I having the radio on condusive to creating a louder engine noise? Also are you being intentionally argumentative and blinkered over points which have an obvious effect on pedestrian safety ? ……….. Of course I would ban people who are deaf and blind !!! My point about ipods and mobiles was that MANY kids, joggers etc walk/run around and cross roads with their headphones on whilst listening to music and seem to switch off from the dangers and are not aware of what’s going on around them. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve seen it happen. In contrast deaf and blind people know their disability and they don’t act so stupid. There are possibly no real benefits to driving at 30 in opposed to 20 but that doesn’t mean there are any the other way round either so should it be thrust upon us and rammed down our throats regardless !
As we aren’t driving in the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Belgium, France, etc. then that is also an irrelevant statement although a lot of your information seems to come from those countries?? Anyway our other car is an imported 3.0L 4×4 from Japan. It’s big it’s powerful it uses far more fuel at low speeds and is noisy. I believe the speed limits in Japan are 40-60mph on Town Roads with the limit being 100 mph on motorways (or 70-80 on single lane carriageways.) My cars Japanese too but not imported as such 🙂 Regards to you again too 🙂
Rod I replied to the questions you specifically asked me under your initial post 🙂
Dizzy
I still do not understand why you say your car is not designed to work at a constant 20mph.
Incidentally that 40-60 in Japan is kph!
If your car is as quiet at 30mph as at 20mph then it would appear to be defying the laws of physics!
Regards
rod
Hi Rod… my mistake and you are right it is kph, sorry. Anyway….. I guess my car must be defying physics then as it is definately no louder at 30… how good is that !!!
As for cars not being designed to do a constant 20mph I still stand by that but will agree to disagree or maybe just substiture the words’designed to’ for ‘engine comfortable at’ if that helps. ie our car engines are not ‘comfortable’ being driven at a constant speed of 20mph 🙂 I’ll take you out for a spin sometime of you like 🙂 Anyway surely continued slower speeds will increase pollution (rather than lower it as is the claim) as lower gears would be used hence higher revs, increased fuel conumption and therefore higher emissions? That’s going to frustrate me too now but you never know you may convert me to your way of thinking one day 🙂
We have had many exchanges over the years Rod and it is nice to see you are still as self-richeous as ever….. Cyclists can obviously do no wrong in your eyes, just like a football manager will always deny seeing his player trip another. One day, I will set up a little site and post all the crazy cyclist nonsense that does go on….. but that is for another day. 🙂
There’s no way those kind of savings could actually be realised in the real world. Ambulances and other emergency service vehicles must exist and be staffed anyway, so they are fixed costs almost regardless of how much they are used – so no saving there. The same is largely true of police, Highways Agency, A&E and X-ray departments in hospitals. Time off work is a cost to the employer – not the public purse – so can’t be claimed as a “saving” to justify spending taxpayers money. Cars, lorries and buses all make MORE noise and use MORE fuel per mile driven at 20mph in 3rd gear than they do at 30mph in 4th – so no environmental benefits. All for a claimed reduction of average speed of less than 1.5mph (which in this case was almost certainly due entirely to people who wanted to drive at normal road speeds avoiding the restricted roads altogether and using alternative routes – we’ve seen no data on the effect of these restrictions on total traffic volumes experienced by restricted and non-restricted routes). A proposal such as this requires a far more detailled investigation than the cursory glance the 20mph lobby has given it – and someone who actually understands statistics and their accurate interpretation.
What rubbish as usual Rod. How many cars can drive at 20mph in 4th gear? Very few, but you keep stating the impossible, it’s the only way you can make a case, by lying.
It’s obvious to anyone who drives a car, that there’s more noise and fuel consumption in 3rd gear at 20, than in 4th at 30.
Maybe they have been blessed with ccommon sense, rather than idealistic impractical nonsense?
LOL, I have never in my life mt anyone who was “too scared to walk because of traffic”. Do you get a prize every time you come out with another ridiculously stupid statement?
So fatshaft
What is your view on the link which I posted above. are they wrong or what?
Do you think Mr De Mayer is lying?
Regards
Rod
Yes. I tried this yesterday just to put my mind at rest, that you were spouting rubbish, rersult –
20mph in second – 1800rpm
30mph in 4th – 1500 rpm
40mph in 6th – 1500 rpm
Are you still going to tell me that at 20mph my car will be quieter and using less fuel? If you do then there’s just no hope at all for you.
And btw, this discussion is ongoing in the forum where it can develop and be visible, it would help if you could post there so we can refute your pseudo science.
Just as well that estates and heavily built up areas don’t have a 40mph limit then SS.
Lets try this again :-
So fatshaft What is your view on the link which I posted above. are they wrong or what? Do you think Mr De Mayer is lying? Regards Rod
Rod where in the report you provided via the link does it actually specify that on balance driving at 20 is not very different that driving at 30 in terms of fuel consumption ? It has comparrisons against other speeds but nothing mentioned or conclusive about 30 vs 20 !!
Rod, please just post on the forum, it is far easier to quote specifics, and pick apart your ridiculously flawed statements. I fear however you have taken to posting on the news pages specfically to avoid just such in depth scrutiny. I will not be posting here again, you can find me on the forum.
One final thing though, don’t you find it strange that despite your claims that the vast majority of Warrington residents support a blanket 20mph speed limit, that here, on the forum, and on the other Warrington forum, there is only one solitary person who in any way agrees with you?
Rubbish. It won’t save any money at all. It will cost thousands in pointless signs. A 20mph speed limit is completely unenforcable, and so just incites contempt for the law. The council should stop pandering to fools who understand nothing about road safety.