Reduce speed limit, say worried residents (From Southend Standard)

" introducing 20mph speed limit is unlikely to have any impact on any collisions, as speed is not a contributory factor in accidents."

Utter codswallop. How did such an uninformed fool get to be head of transport in Southend? A 10mph cut in speed results in a 40% reduction in road casualties.

http://www.independe
nt.co.uk/news/uk/hom
e-news/the-20mph-rev
olution-millions-of-
drivers-face-lower-s
peed-limits-as-new-l
aws-sweep-the-countr
y-8434292.html


Why is Southend council so backward in it's transport policy and strategy?

Make it a shared space.

Couple of points to you shoe berry biker.
1,,you quote A 10mph cut in speed results in a 40% reduction in road casualties........ our councillor quotes (rightly imo)..speed is not a contributory factor in accidents." and data does not indicate any common factors
.
you are arguing different points,
.
2 including one in which a cyclist was left severely injured after biking into the path of a car. NOW if that is to be taken at face value the fool as you put it is to be blamed for his accident is he not.

.
But a 20 mph zone during school hours outside the school can't be argued with, also anyone who knows the area should use bellhouse lane, it is far less busy ,maybe as in not a designated distributor route.

Speed is a factor in many accidents but I think he means not in these cases where they were low speed accidents anyway. If you have an accident at 20 mph in a 30 mph zone how can reducing the limit to 20 mph help

notinwestcliffanymor
e wrote:
Couple of points to you shoe berry biker.
1,,you quote A 10mph cut in speed results in a 40% reduction in road casualties........ our councillor quotes (rightly imo)..speed is not a contributory factor in accidents." and data does not indicate any common factors
.
you are arguing different points,
.
2 including one in which a cyclist was left severely injured after biking into the path of a car. NOW if that is to be taken at face value the fool as you put it is to be blamed for his accident is he not.

.
But a 20 mph zone during school hours outside the school can't be argued with, also anyone who knows the area should use bellhouse lane, it is far less busy ,maybe as in not a designated distributor route.

I have no idea what you are dribbling about.

“Similarly, introducing 20mph speed limit is unlikely to have any impact on any collisions, as speed is not a contributory factor in accidents.”

I guess that's the closest thing we will get to an admission that speed cameras are just cash cows, thank you for that bit of information Ms Hindle-Terry.

Test Tickle wrote:
“Similarly, introducing 20mph speed limit is unlikely to have any impact on any collisions, as speed is not a contributory factor in accidents.”

I guess that's the closest thing we will get to an admission that speed cameras are just cash cows, thank you for that bit of information Ms Hindle-Terry.

I suspect that's an out-of-context quote. But still, if they've collected data that says speed is not a contributory factor in the accidents that occur *here*, then it's hard to see why they should lower the speed limit. I cycle most days for work, shopping, school run and I'm against 20mph limits.

If you've been losing money to speed cameras, perhaps you should invest in a speed awareness course? Or a bicycle.

It'd be nice to see the list of accidents. Was it mostly fender benders and one cyclist having his feelings of invincibility adjusted?

Try driving down The Fairway at 30mph - you'll soon find someone glued to your rear bumper!

It's a main thoroughfare between the A127 and Leigh, it always has been, and always will be, the houses are a bonus...

Test Tickle wrote:
“Similarly, introducing 20mph speed limit is unlikely to have any impact on any collisions, as speed is not a contributory factor in accidents.”

I guess that's the closest thing we will get to an admission that speed cameras are just cash cows, thank you for that bit of information Ms Hindle-Terry.

She's out of touch with her own government's research:

http://think.direct.
gov.uk/speed.html

The entire Garrison in Shoebury was made 20mph when the new Hinguar School opened, despite no accidents occurring or a similar 20mph zone on the site of the old school. The council do as they please, when it suits!

Eric the Red wrote:
Try driving down The Fairway at 30mph - you'll soon find someone glued to your rear bumper!

That's their problem, not yours. Anyone who breaks the speed limit just because there's an impatient bad driver behind them is a fool.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Eric the Red wrote:
Try driving down The Fairway at 30mph - you'll soon find someone glued to your rear bumper!

That's their problem, not yours. Anyone who breaks the speed limit just because there's an impatient bad driver behind them is a fool.

swith your brake lights on, they'll soon back off, LoL

But the warning sign alerts drivers moving away from the school, not going towards it (wrong place maybe?).
In addition, the school has a traffic light - do we really need string at the knees in addition to belt 'n braces?

Nobody is sure what is causing the accidents, but I can't see a problem with 20mph for 750 meters either side of the school.

GrumpyofLeigh wrote:
But the warning sign alerts drivers moving away from the school, not going towards it (wrong place maybe?).
In addition, the school has a traffic light - do we really need string at the knees in addition to belt 'n braces?

How important are children's lives? More or less important than how fast you want to drive?

Alekhine wrote:
Nobody is sure what is causing the accidents, but I can't see a problem with 20mph for 750 meters either side of the school.

I think it by be due to the road users, though I might be wrong..

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Eric the Red wrote:
Try driving down The Fairway at 30mph - you'll soon find someone glued to your rear bumper!

That's their problem, not yours. Anyone who breaks the speed limit just because there's an impatient bad driver behind them is a fool.

just slow down to 20 MPH or lower gradually - they don't like it up 'em

re Shoebury post 5.02 "how important are children's lives?"
As important as anything else, but no more no less. Waving that particular emotional flag doesnt give carte blanche - make a proper case.

Another case for 30mph average speed cameras. The average British motorist struggles to keep inside of a speed limit, but can manage the average speed camera zones. Nearly.
Making the limit 20mph does not mean the speedsters will slow down. The cameras work. Bung them in, or else, the really positive solution, and one which I am sure will please all the residents in this road, close the A127 end. They want it residential, charge them for the job and close it. either way, end of problem!

GrumpyofLeigh wrote:
re Shoebury post 5.02 "how important are children's lives?"
As important as anything else, but no more no less. Waving that particular emotional flag doesnt give carte blanche - make a proper case.

So what else apart from not having an accident near a school do you consider "a proper case ?".

This is the trouble along Broomfield - not so much that people use it as a rat run but that they do it at an unsafe speed. Glad I dont live there !

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

GrumpyofLeigh wrote:
But the warning sign alerts drivers moving away from the school, not going towards it (wrong place maybe?).
In addition, the school has a traffic light - do we really need string at the knees in addition to belt 'n braces?

How important are children's lives? More or less important than how fast you want to drive?

i love the smell of hypocrisy in the afternoon. childrens' lives were unimportant to you when it was a dog's jaws clamped around the child's throat. oh i forgot we're talking about cars rather than dogs. should that be i love the smell of chippiness in the aftenoon?

Carnabackable wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Eric the Red wrote:
Try driving down The Fairway at 30mph - you'll soon find someone glued to your rear bumper!

That's their problem, not yours. Anyone who breaks the speed limit just because there's an impatient bad driver behind them is a fool.

swith your brake lights on, they'll soon back off, LoL

Just slow down until they are a safe stopping distance for the new slower speed.

Nebs wrote:

Carnabackable wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Eric the Red wrote:
Try driving down The Fairway at 30mph - you'll soon find someone glued to your rear bumper!

That's their problem, not yours. Anyone who breaks the speed limit just because there's an impatient bad driver behind them is a fool.

swith your brake lights on, they'll soon back off, LoL

Just slow down until they are a safe stopping distance for the new slower speed.

Totally agree Nebs. I have the philosophy that, if they can't keep the right distance, I will make their distance at least be at the right speed!

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

GrumpyofLeigh wrote:
But the warning sign alerts drivers moving away from the school, not going towards it (wrong place maybe?).
In addition, the school has a traffic light - do we really need string at the knees in addition to belt 'n braces?

How important are children's lives? More or less important than how fast you want to drive?

A little clarification would be great here please in relation to "children's lives". Have vehicles mounted the pavement to endanger children's lives? Have children been struck by vehicles whilst on the road?

If the former, I hope the driver(s) involved felt the full force of the law. If the latter, should there not be a crossing patrol/pelican/zebra crossing close by, with children reminded that being in the road is a dangerous activity?

Perhaps the money earmarked for speed humps at Broomfield Avenue, when "found", could be used for crossing patrols and traffic education at Fairways?

msw_116 wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

GrumpyofLeigh wrote:
But the warning sign alerts drivers moving away from the school, not going towards it (wrong place maybe?).
In addition, the school has a traffic light - do we really need string at the knees in addition to belt 'n braces?

How important are children's lives? More or less important than how fast you want to drive?

A little clarification would be great here please in relation to "children's lives". Have vehicles mounted the pavement to endanger children's lives? Have children been struck by vehicles whilst on the road?

If the former, I hope the driver(s) involved felt the full force of the law. If the latter, should there not be a crossing patrol/pelican/zebra crossing close by, with children reminded that being in the road is a dangerous activity?

Perhaps the money earmarked for speed humps at Broomfield Avenue, when "found", could be used for crossing patrols and traffic education at Fairways?

So you continue to insist on putting your wish to drive fast ahead of the safety of children.

The danger is people driving too fast for the road, not children crossing the road, so the traffic has to be slowed.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

msw_116 wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

GrumpyofLeigh wrote:
But the warning sign alerts drivers moving away from the school, not going towards it (wrong place maybe?).
In addition, the school has a traffic light - do we really need string at the knees in addition to belt 'n braces?

How important are children's lives? More or less important than how fast you want to drive?

A little clarification would be great here please in relation to "children's lives". Have vehicles mounted the pavement to endanger children's lives? Have children been struck by vehicles whilst on the road?

If the former, I hope the driver(s) involved felt the full force of the law. If the latter, should there not be a crossing patrol/pelican/zebra crossing close by, with children reminded that being in the road is a dangerous activity?

Perhaps the money earmarked for speed humps at Broomfield Avenue, when "found", could be used for crossing patrols and traffic education at Fairways?

So you continue to insist on putting your wish to drive fast ahead of the safety of children.

The danger is people driving too fast for the road, not children crossing the road, so the traffic has to be slowed.

Dear Mr Cyclist

Please re-read my earlier post. I asked for some clarification and then based upon the limited facts available, suggested that any money found for speed humps would be better used for education and crossings.

You have added nothing to the debate.

This site is entitled "have your say" it is not a student union debating forum.

Essex Medja wrote:
This site is entitled "have your say" it is not a student union debating forum.

Sorry - is this a five-minute argument, or the full half hour?

msw_116 wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

msw_116 wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

GrumpyofLeigh wrote:
But the warning sign alerts drivers moving away from the school, not going towards it (wrong place maybe?).
In addition, the school has a traffic light - do we really need string at the knees in addition to belt 'n braces?

How important are children's lives? More or less important than how fast you want to drive?

A little clarification would be great here please in relation to "children's lives". Have vehicles mounted the pavement to endanger children's lives? Have children been struck by vehicles whilst on the road?

If the former, I hope the driver(s) involved felt the full force of the law. If the latter, should there not be a crossing patrol/pelican/zebra crossing close by, with children reminded that being in the road is a dangerous activity?

Perhaps the money earmarked for speed humps at Broomfield Avenue, when "found", could be used for crossing patrols and traffic education at Fairways?

So you continue to insist on putting your wish to drive fast ahead of the safety of children.

The danger is people driving too fast for the road, not children crossing the road, so the traffic has to be slowed.

Dear Mr Cyclist

Please re-read my earlier post. I asked for some clarification and then based upon the limited facts available, suggested that any money found for speed humps would be better used for education and crossings.

You have added nothing to the debate.

I'm sorry, I didn't realise it had to be spelt out in fridge magnets for you.


Education and crossings won't stop people driving too fast for this road. So the traffic has to be slowed.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

msw_116 wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

msw_116 wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

GrumpyofLeigh wrote:
But the warning sign alerts drivers moving away from the school, not going towards it (wrong place maybe?).
In addition, the school has a traffic light - do we really need string at the knees in addition to belt 'n braces?

How important are children's lives? More or less important than how fast you want to drive?

A little clarification would be great here please in relation to "children's lives". Have vehicles mounted the pavement to endanger children's lives? Have children been struck by vehicles whilst on the road?

If the former, I hope the driver(s) involved felt the full force of the law. If the latter, should there not be a crossing patrol/pelican/zebra crossing close by, with children reminded that being in the road is a dangerous activity?

Perhaps the money earmarked for speed humps at Broomfield Avenue, when "found", could be used for crossing patrols and traffic education at Fairways?

So you continue to insist on putting your wish to drive fast ahead of the safety of children.

The danger is people driving too fast for the road, not children crossing the road, so the traffic has to be slowed.

Dear Mr Cyclist

Please re-read my earlier post. I asked for some clarification and then based upon the limited facts available, suggested that any money found for speed humps would be better used for education and crossings.

You have added nothing to the debate.

I'm sorry, I didn't realise it had to be spelt out in fridge magnets for you.


Education and crossings won't stop people driving too fast for this road. So the traffic has to be slowed.

LOL. "Fridge Magnets" - random! :).

What I'm getting at is what is reasonable and proportional and the "facts" are still scant. What are the 9 incidents referred to? Was anyone injured? How do 9 incidents (notwithstanding what happened) over whatever period relate to the number of vehicle/passenger journeys near to the school? Where they actually anything to do with journeys to/from school?

In terms of what is reasonable and proportional, for example - assuming the school is open 39 weeks of the year, 5 days per week and there are 2 x 1.5 hour windows on each of these schooldays where children/parents/car
ers either attend or leave school, this equates to a travel period of 585 hours per year.

Assuming The Fairway road is open 24 hours per day, 7 days per week this is a total of 61,320 driving hours. Based upon these reasonable assumptions, journeys to/from school coincide with 0.96% of the time that the road is open.

Presently, with no actual definition of incidents, the timeframes in which they happened, the reason(s) why they happened and the above ratio there is little statistical or common-sense reason to call for "measures" on the road.

If someone was running around shooting people we wouldn't make all of society wear bulletproof vests and do nothing about the shooter. Likewise we should not be corralling children, while ignoring the speeding motorist.

Blanket 20mph urban limits are coming. Get used to it. Drivers continue to flout the law, so more drastic measures are required.

But that will mean call me Dave will be in the office before his shoes arrive.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
If someone was running around shooting people we wouldn't make all of society wear bulletproof vests and do nothing about the shooter. Likewise we should not be corralling children, while ignoring the speeding motorist.

Blanket 20mph urban limits are coming. Get used to it. Drivers continue to flout the law, so more drastic measures are required.

Wow.

There's nothing in the article about shooting people or speed being a contributory factor. The only incident even vaguely referred to is a cyclist getting into the path of a car. All polished with sweeping statements too about drivers who "continue to flout the law". Again, nothing relevant :).