Jump to content

20 MPH speed limit in town


Tammychoink
 Share

  

99 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the council impose a 20 MPH speed limit in town?

    • Yes
      29
    • No
      64


Recommended Posts

and will make it easier to cross the roads. 

 

Will it?

 

Taking a theoretical view, the proposal to reduce maximum speed within the stated area by 33.3%, has the obvious consequence of making all the traffic within that area move 33.3% slower, which also has the consequence forcing 33.3% more traffic to be in that area at any one given time.

 

33.3% more traffic at any one given time reduces any one pedestrain's ability to cross the road "easier" by 33.3% and increases the risk of an accident to any one pedestrian crossing the road at any one given time by 33.3%.

 

There is a very good case for a speed limit on a road where the average speed of motorists makes it dangerous for anyone else using it, or there is a proven problem with random excessive speed. There is no proof of this on the Esplanade, and its highly unlikely any proof will ever be forthcoming, as by default of the design of the road and its usage, there are few opportunities for anyone to appreciably breach the current 30mph limit during peak usage periods, on account of volume of traffic, parking, bends, junctions and what have you, so the only times it is likely to affect anyone is to slow traffic down during the lower usage periods, so that there's less chance of an accident between a vehicle, and a pedestrian that, ummmm.... doesn't exist, as there's so few vehicles and pedestrians there. How smart, and useful......

 

While of course, slowing down all traffic during peak periods, making it yet more congested, with all the frayed tempers, frustration and "I can nip through that gap.....I think" attitude that follows it. There's a very good case to be made for keeping a limit higher for the purposes of clearing traffic volume from a congested area when a short temporary lull allows it, there is no case at all for trapping traffic in such an area when a lull allows it to travel at a higher speed quite safely, especially when it results in greater congestion at busier times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

and will make it easier to cross the roads. 

 

Will it?

 

Taking a theoretical view, the proposal to reduce maximum speed within the stated area by 33.3%, has the obvious consequence of making all the traffic within that area move 33.3% slower, which also has the consequence forcing 33.3% more traffic to be in that area at any one given time.

 

 

Not heard that one before, with the 20mph limits we have installed as a county here, there has not been a complaint about "more" traffic on those stretches. However, looking at the plans, there will be crossing points installed.

 

20mph limits work well if installed correctly. The reason we continue to install them is because if they are adhered to by the motorists, the less damage will be done to a person in the unfortunate event of a collision. Regardless of any "accidents" that may or may not happen, reducing the speed of motorists, who, as we already know ignore signs in town already can only be a good thing.

 

It has been already proven that reducing speed limits reduce congestion, the variable speed limits on the M25 are one to examine, the more traffic, the slower the limit becomes. It works, add to that Ramp Metering and the system is even better, alas, too much though. I would think once the thousands of vehicle drivers realise that they do not have total rights on the road the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

and will make it easier to cross the roads. 

 

Will it?

 

Taking a theoretical view, the proposal to reduce maximum speed within the stated area by 33.3%, has the obvious consequence of making all the traffic within that area move 33.3% slower, which also has the consequence forcing 33.3% more traffic to be in that area at any one given time.

 

 

Not heard that one before, with the 20mph limits we have installed as a county here, there has not been a complaint about "more" traffic on those stretches. However, looking at the plans, there will be crossing points installed.

 

I'll leave it up to any mathematicians passing through to argue the toss with you over that one. "Complaints" really don't cut it against provable (or not) numeric calculations.

 

20mph limits work well if installed correctly. The reason we continue to install them is because if they are adhered to by the motorists, the less damage will be done to a person in the unfortunate event of a collision. Regardless of any "accidents" that may or may not happen, reducing the speed of motorists, who, as we already know ignore signs in town already can only be a good thing.

 

Ummm.....Do I really need to spell it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would think once the thousands of vehicle drivers realise that they do not have total rights on the road the better.

I don't think bland statements like these add anything to the debate, my experience being a pedestrian in the town is that the majority of drivers are quite courteous and will stop where there is no need, just to let me cross. The biggest risk is getting hit with cars, vans etc backing out of parking spaces.

 

The odd driver, who is driving too fast for the road conditions, already breaks the law. Having a 20 mph limit will make little difference to that.

 

I think the whole thing is a waste of public money. More police presence on occasions would be far more effective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem it seems is the attitude of motorists as highlighted by GR.

 

The introduction of the speed limit allows for the remodelling of junctions and crossings, you would have seen in the reports (regardless of costs of the report), this is happening. Be it a simple case of coating parts of the surface red or to a complete remodelling which can include wider pavements and better access for those who need it.

 

The trouble with spending the money on the Police, is it at present, is not the police budget, if you could, how many officers could you train and how long would they be able to stay. Not very long. For what ever reason, Shetland does not attract police officers, hence the shortage in numbers as mentioned by Angus a few months ago. If the money was spent on officers, it would be short term, if at all possible. Perhaps if there were enough police officers, there may not be a need. Why is there a problem with recruitment?

 

The Scottish Gov have a part to play in this, there have been papers dating back a decade talking about this and the benefits it brings to the communities, this is also a nationwide thought. Many areas are being made pedestrian friendly. These also come with various campaigns, some are very effective. I have seen motorists reduced to tears when questioned by a 7 year old why they broke the speed limit and increased injury or the chance of death in the event of a RTI.

 

Perhaps one way as well to give the young motorist a chance to burn a bit of rubber, in a safe way was mentiond in these forums by Shetlands car group(s). Many who have been fortunate enough here where I live, to attend the "Crash" events held by the emergency services have changed their attitudes to speeding, as do those who attend speed awareness courses. The former is aimed at the the young driver.

 

It should involve the whole package, education and enforcement. Wholesale introductions will not work, target the areas to be controlled and things are much better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Which is wholly a moot point when there is no identified problem, and nobody (as evidenced by the Plod shortage comments) to enforce the rules anyway - rules do not enforce themselves, and on their own are pointless. Lets try and enforce those which exist already first, who knows, if that were to happen maybe the unidentified problem some seem convinced exists and needs addressing, might actually no longer exist for them either. Whatever it is, won't go away simply by changing the numbers on road signs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Systems can be installed to make travelling more than set speeds virtually impossible. The main road in Aberdeen with its traffic lights is a good example, as with the A4 through Slough, which also uses lights, these of course are larger schemes, but the correct phasing of traffic lights can govern the speed of vehicles. Travel at the right speed, green all the way, too fast and you will hit a red.Motorists adapt to these, as they have done to areas of congestion where there is an alternative route. So, it is possible to install systems that are self regulating. Just catching drivers is not a deterrent, if it were, then there would be little need to police the roads or put in systems to control traffic and educate.

 

The problem is, if folk were hit at higher speeds, they suffer more damage. You are also well aware that it is not just a case of changing numbers on a sign. There are other works to be done in conjunction with this scheme.

 

Again, it is about education as well, there are more than one or two speeding as mentioned..

 

 

Scottish drivers admit risk factor

01/03/2012

More than 70 per cent of drivers in Scotland admit to taking risks whilst driving, and just over half confess to speeding, according to research carried out by the Scottish Government as it launches a new campaign with Road Safety Scotland (part of Transport Scotland) encouraging drivers to consider how they can reduce their ‘risk factor’ on country roads.

 

I wonder if this has changed any?

Edited by shetlandpeat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Systems can be installed to make travelling more than set speeds virtually impossible,....

 

Well, unless there are now automatic stingers installed x number of yards beyond every speed camera, that is only so much bull.

 

The problem is, if folk were hit at higher speeds, they suffer more damage. You are also well aware that it is not just a case of changing numbers on a sign. There are other works to be done in conjunction with this scheme.

 

So, its not about accident prevention any more, its about limiting collateral damage. Well, that is highly reassuraing I'm sure to the person who only gets one leg broken when they're run down, instead of both.

 

Changing the numbers on a sign is all it is without effective enforcement, these things, as I said, do not change a thing on their own, Plod needs to get out there and enforce or its a smoke and mirrors farce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So, its not about accident prevention any more, its about limiting collateral damage. Well, that is highly reassuraing I'm sure to the person who only gets one leg broken when they're run down, instead of both.

 

Changing the numbers on a sign is all it is without effective enforcement, these things, as I said, do not change a thing on their own, Plod needs to get out there and enforce or its a smoke and mirrors farce.

You cannot retain enough Police to do that, other methods have to be installed. As for the first part of the quote.The slower the vehicle, the less time it needs to stop. Where there are pedestrians about, and during the Cruise Ship season, where there are folk  unfamiliar to UK roads, it can reduce the chance of an impact as well as reducing any damage done if there is. That stands out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Where are all these folk going to be coming from off Cruise ships outwith the 8am - 6pm window, its not like there's anything other than an odd pub or chip shop open to entice them across such a dangerous highway outwith those hours - and I'd sincerely hope with the dosh they've very probably already paid, they get better beer and chips onboard, and will be wanting to be there instead. Inside that time window, they'll be doing very well to find anybody who can get much above 20mph on that road - as you say, other measures sometimes do work, its called volume of traffic, not annoying ineffectual overpriced crap dreamed up by some suit in an office.

 

By you own admission drivers are ignoring the so called safety measures already in place, so why supposing changing the measures on a technicality will stop them ignoring those as well, defies rationality and logic.

Edited by Ghostrider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is wholly a moot point when there is no identified problem.........

 

The reason given for doing something is that there had been about two injury accidents per year – every year. To me that sounds like an identified problem. This isn’t your “do something or someone someday might get hurtâ€. This is actual people actually getting hurt. Regularly. Police records show this has been pretty consistent over the last dozen or so years. So is there any reason to think that if nothing is done, that the next dozen years will be any different?

 

Yes, simply changing numbers on a road sign won’t make the problem go away. That is why significant works at significant cost is being suggested. 20mph speed limits with associated works are a proven solution used nationally to reduce accident numbers in situations like this – it isn’t something new dream't up by SIC.

 

At peak times speeds along the Esplanade are already down to the 20’s mph. But the aim will be to keeps speeds down in the quieter hours as well, without having a policeman standing there. And the whole way out to the bus station, the length of road identified as having an accident problem. But do nothing, nothing will change, folk (mainly pedestrians) will keep getting injured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Works done to roads to encourage the footfall of pedestrians can only be a benefit to the town. There has been a wholesale refusal on this thread even to acknowledge the plan that goes alongside this scheme and the research indicating the injuries to folk have a influence on the introduction of this scheme.

 

If you just want to talk about money, how much do you think each accident has cost. A fatality is in the region of £1,000,000 to investigate and close, serious injury can also be in the £100,000s. To weigh up, it is cost effective to introduce a scheme that will reduce the speeds of motorist, increase crossing point safety and save the discomfort of injury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

peat get real the changes to the roads around the street has reduced footfall. well for this old cripple it has.i cant walk from the pier or the fort to get to the shops those that were near the bank were ideal for me. so this person has not been on the street for ages. i bet im not the only one that this has effected. 

 

peat the high accident times are at the pub closing times and the 4-6pm. the first is obvious the second could simply be impatience or the pedestrian rushing for buses ect.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...