20mph limits for all Lancashire residential roads (From Lancashire Telegraph)
When news happens, text LT and your photos and videos to 80360. Or contact us by email or phone.
20mph limits for all Lancashire residential roads
12:03pm Tuesday 25th January 2011 in Helmshore
By David Watkinson, Deputy news editor
SAVE LIVES: Coun Tim Ashton
SPEEDS limits of 20mph are set to be a reality for all residential areas across the Lancashire County Council area in just two years, it has been revealed.
The county’s highways boss said the £9million scheme would save lives and could be policed by residents.
County Councillor Tim Ashton said he wanted speeding in built-up areas to be ‘as taboo as drink driving’ in a bid to halt the thousands of people killed or injured on the region’s roads every year.
Coun Ashton said: “It is quite radical but we need to do something drastic to reduce the number of deaths on our roads.
“I think there will be a huge amount of support for what we are doing but if there are critics I will take them head-on.
“I have heard the arguments but speeding in residential areas is totally unacceptable. By dropping the speed limit we will certainly save lives.”
The project will be implemented in 2013.
All roads in ‘residential areas’ in the Lancashire County Council area will be made 20mph under the scheme.
Coun Ashton said that commuter routes, trunk roads and main roads would not be affected.
New signage will be put in place, along with a publicity campaign and a public onsultation.
‘Community road watch’ volunteers will also be sought to use speed guns, with those caught-out receiving a letter from the community warning them about their speed.
The scheme will covers the Lancashire County Council area which includes Burnley, Chorley, Fylde, Hyndburn, Lancaster, Pendle, Preston, Ribble Valley, Rossendale, South Ribble, West Lancashire and Wyre.
In Blackburn and Darwen, there are no imminent plans to follow suit.
However, the area's Director of Public Health Dominic Harrison is calling for a debate about the introduction of 20mph speed limits in residential areas.
Dominic Harrison said: “Unless we have a borough-wide 20mph limit in all residential areas that is observed and enforced by the whole community, this avoidable death and injury toll will continue.”
Comments(61)
bankhall
says...
12:06pm Tue 25 Jan 11
workaholic
says...
12:12pm Tue 25 Jan 11
Noiticer
says...
12:14pm Tue 25 Jan 11
1riversider
says...
12:29pm Tue 25 Jan 11
Much better idea - spend some bl**dy money repairing the potholes that already maintain this speed limit for nothing!
britguy
says...
12:32pm Tue 25 Jan 11
It is just about controlling peoples lives and making them a bigger bloody misery than it is now.
It will waste fuel as the engine will be either racing in a lower gear of struggling in a higher one.
Here are other waste of time activities he has been involved in
Sustainable Development Committee
Cabinet Committee on Performance Improvement
Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee
Cabinet Committee on the Lancashire County Commercial Group
Special Appointments Committee
Urgency Committee of the Full Council
In other words councillor for wind mills.
Manuel Hung
says...
12:38pm Tue 25 Jan 11
The same roads that are not going to be targetted.
.
Of course there will be serious accidents in residential areas but are they due to speed or the driver falling ill at the wheel?
.
Is there an election looming and he is simply chasing votes?
pinkfairyone
says...
12:42pm Tue 25 Jan 11
Barmpot
says...
12:47pm Tue 25 Jan 11
Gary The Snail
says...
12:50pm Tue 25 Jan 11
viglin
says...
12:53pm Tue 25 Jan 11
notchuffed
says...
1:01pm Tue 25 Jan 11
What ration of deaths are there in side streets in comparison to his so called "main roads" which will not be affected.
My true thoughts on how this stupid decision has been reached are not printable but this "Person Elected to look after our welfare" (don't make me laugh, might need an incontinent pad and they're short of those at the Royal) He is seeing i) Votes in his eyes!! ii) He can see where there will be a budget spend shortfall and he's making sure it is spent. iii) Toadying to his masters to find yet another way to penalise drivers in a pathetic excuse to comply with another uselss 'Green Code directive'. Reckon Tufty the Squirrel (as above) would be more effective as a Councillor
happycyclist
says...
1:46pm Tue 25 Jan 11
Gaius Grossus
says...
2:07pm Tue 25 Jan 11
Noiticer wrote:Yes really, I'd love the chance and it has been done before in other parts of the nation. Mind you the first vehicle I'd catch would be the HBC wagon that shoots up and down our road every morning.
Is the cost worth it? And as for residents policing the speed limit - really?
burner
says...
2:37pm Tue 25 Jan 11
dmmike
says...
3:05pm Tue 25 Jan 11
Councillor Ashton, just get on with sorting out Council problems like weekly bin collections, and do what you were elected to do.
Either that, or *ugger off.
AnthonyUK
says...
3:27pm Tue 25 Jan 11
burner wrote:This will never work;young drivers and scallys never adhere to speedlimits in residential areas,and it's never enforced anyway!
No pun intended but it's a sign of the times. It will happen and it's a good idea BUT, as Manuel says, most serious injury accidents happen on national Speed Limit roads out of built-up areas. Let's give it a try?
Lancs - pensioner
says...
4:14pm Tue 25 Jan 11
Izanears
says...
4:34pm Tue 25 Jan 11
Many accidents on roads happen because children run out between vehicles or because their parents do not watch them. Oh, and don't forget scam bumps!!
By the way, this is the same council that is so concerned about road safety, that it encourages advertising signs on roundabouts.
TALK ABOUT LEFT HAND NOT KNOWING WHAT THE RIGHT IS DOING EH!
twicki
says...
4:35pm Tue 25 Jan 11
Lancs - pensioner
says...
4:43pm Tue 25 Jan 11
Common_Sense1
says...
4:46pm Tue 25 Jan 11
MerlinTheVoiceofReason
says...
4:57pm Tue 25 Jan 11
MerlinTheVoiceofReason
says...
5:00pm Tue 25 Jan 11
Common_Sense1 wrote:Please see my comments above. His idea is based on the success of similar schemes in other parts of England. So actually, he hasn't just woken up one morning with this idea. It's based on the sharing of best practice. Best practice for you would be to enagage your brain cells a little more thoroughly before writing such palpable tripe on the LT pages.
Not a single comment supporting his idea! Do you think he just woke up one morning and thought 'right, today 20mph speed limits, tomorrow all children to be painted in luminous paint sober can see them and the say after all cars to be made of foam and jam so they don't hurt when you get hit by one.' he's obviously completely mental and has no idea what the public really wants or needs. 9 MILLION POUNDS FOR THIS RUBBISH!
anotherview
says...
6:10pm Tue 25 Jan 11
BROCKSDAD
says...
6:11pm Tue 25 Jan 11
kzb
says...
6:36pm Tue 25 Jan 11
Please can LLC tell us what is the CARBON FOOTPRINT of this scheme?
Also do Lancs Tories REALLY want the entire population to consist of benefits claimants? No asperational business people want all this road safety crap -they''ll set up in Swindon !
ghost of sceptic
says...
6:37pm Tue 25 Jan 11
BuckoTheMoose
says...
7:46pm Tue 25 Jan 11
The number of people killed on Lancashires roads in 2001 was 995. This decreased to 702 in 2009. Hardly thousands is it? Councillors dont mind lying to further their agenda though.
Source: w w w .lancashire.gov.uk/o
ffice_of_the_chief_e
xecutive/lancashirep
rofile/monitors/road
casualties.asp
psch
says...
7:51pm Tue 25 Jan 11
Get rid of these anti car officers now and save even more
BuckoTheMoose
says...
7:53pm Tue 25 Jan 11
MerlinTheVoiceofReasIf it saves a few lives each year? That tired arguement is brought out to justify anything these days.
on wrote:
I really can't see what the problem is with this proposal. It sounds eminently sensible and if it saves a few lives each year, then it is to be commended. Most drivers already do below 30 mph in built up residential side-streets; there will always be some idiots who zoom down them at 40 mph or above! This has got nothing to do with potholes; or the green agenda; or raising revenue from speeding fines; and blaming all road accidents on wayward children is really quite pathetic. This is purely and simply about road safety, so all these angry rantings, which are completely off the mark, will achieve nothing. Other parts of the country are running similar schemes and the evidence is clear - lives are being saved. So put that in your pipes and smoke it!
A limit of 10 or five miles an hour would save a few lives. So would banning cars.
If some idiot, like you say, is doing 40 in what is currently a 30 limit, they wont care if the limit is dropped to 20.
The only loosers here are the sensible drivers.
Why do we always target the driver. Why not bring back the green cross code and teach children road safety again. Is it just easier to blame drivers because they have insurance?
The evidence is far from clear in any of this As I posted earlier, only 702 people were killed or injured last year, yet the councillor tells us it's thousands. And how many of these deaths and injuries were down to speed? A small minority, I would imagine.
There is no evidence that any past schemes have saved lives and no evidence that this one will do.
It will simply mean more easy fines for motorists.
BjornAganeByka
says...
8:53pm Tue 25 Jan 11
Why dooesn't the coalition just dispense with the lot of them, unless they are involved with repairing roads, emptying bins or sweeping streets - the only useful functions performed by the public sector trough-hogs that hoover-up our tax pounds like an elephant eating peanuts.
Instead of instigating yet more Stasi-type snooper schemes, why not do something useful for your allowances and start a campaign to REPAIR the roads, instead of trying to make driving even more of a misery than it already is in Britain's grey and putrescent land.
Councillors ? I wouldn't pay them in washers.
Common_Sense1
says...
9:04pm Tue 25 Jan 11
MerlinTheVoiceofReasI couldn't care less about the rest of the country as their circumstances, road networks and Demographics are all different. I can't remember the last fatal accident in pendle that occurred in a 30mph limit where the root cause was slightly excessive speed. The one in Barnoldswick was a hit and run in a national and the last few in Nelson and Blackburn were uninsured drivers doing in excess of 50mph and driving like a maniac. Do you really think 9 million pounds is well spent or should it be put to better use elsewhere?
on wrote:
Common_Sense1 wrote:Please see my comments above. His idea is based on the success of similar schemes in other parts of England. So actually, he hasn't just woken up one morning with this idea. It's based on the sharing of best practice. Best practice for you would be to enagage your brain cells a little more thoroughly before writing such palpable tripe on the LT pages.
Not a single comment supporting his idea! Do you think he just woke up one morning and thought 'right, today 20mph speed limits, tomorrow all children to be painted in luminous paint sober can see them and the say after all cars to be made of foam and jam so they don't hurt when you get hit by one.' he's obviously completely mental and has no idea what the public really wants or needs. 9 MILLION POUNDS FOR THIS RUBBISH!
burner
says...
9:37pm Tue 25 Jan 11
retsofad
says...
11:30pm Tue 25 Jan 11
burner
says...
11:34pm Tue 25 Jan 11
montecassino
says...
1:51am Wed 26 Jan 11
This is totally unenforceable,20mph limits have been in force where I live for the past 5 years or so and how many people have been prosecuted not many I think.
Not many people stick to any speed limits in this country,so what makes them think this will be any different ?
i can pedal faster then this on a smooth rode,but they do not exist anymore.
Eutopia does not and will not ever exist in the highly populated cities and towns of this once Great country.
Graham Hartley
says...
5:15am Wed 26 Jan 11
slackerbtch
says...
8:53am Wed 26 Jan 11
.
If I recall correctly, the scheme in Hull has seen collisions return to around the same level, and the Southampton scheme saw no reductions in the number of collisions at all, and in certain areas saw them increase, with a total mean speed reduction of about 3mph after the scheme was introduced.
.
The £9M price tag seems to excessive, particularly when that money could be better spent on engineering measures, which have a bigger effect on collision rates than speed limits ever will.
manyarecalled
says...
10:19am Wed 26 Jan 11
where does this 20mph limit come from? Councillor Ashton ?
I'm sure that you can kill someone at 20 mph as well. or are we into statistics and not common sense ?
cars at 20 mph will be into 2nd gear , not 3rd gear for 30 mph .
accidents are caused by people , not speed limits. no one with any sense is going to do 40 mph when the road is congested , there are kids running about etc , limit or no limit.
a 20 mph limit , when the road and approaches to it are seen to be clear , is stupid.
I'm sick of power crazed loonies popping up with ''this will be good for you '' schemes that you don't want.
finally , I'm sure that there is money to be made from this scheme . where is it going?
britguy
says...
10:51am Wed 26 Jan 11
As usual nanny knows best. When I want my hand held I will let you know.
Lifeinthemix
says...
11:08am Wed 26 Jan 11
.
you know things are bad when the police break all the laws....
Lifeinthemix
says...
11:10am Wed 26 Jan 11
DJ_Jaybee
says...
1:28pm Wed 26 Jan 11
lwg76
says...
3:59pm Wed 26 Jan 11
The project WILL be implemented in 2013.
All roads in residential areas WILL be made into 20 mph.
New signage WILL be put into place.
Notice the Common word. WILL, as in you WILL ALL DO AS YOU ARE TOLD.
Where does the public consultation mentioned fit into the scheme of things against the Will of the Authorities to Control, Control, Control.
All this at a time when the gaulighters in the councils threaten services to the elderly, disabled and vulnerable.
It seems to me that the buffoons employed in county hall are only too happy to cut services (and blame others) whilst protecting their empires and increasing their control on the populace.
Such expensive schemes as this might have more relevance if the buffoon in charge could see fit to release figures such as how many deaths have been caused by speeding in the proposed areas and how many lives are likely to be saved, if any, by these draconian measures or does he think the general public are too thick to be trusted with the figures and must sit down and do as it's told and all hail the victory of Control over Services.
DaveBurnley
says...
4:03pm Wed 26 Jan 11
On the loose
says...
11:34pm Wed 26 Jan 11
twicki
says...
2:57pm Thu 27 Jan 11
Ron.Walker
says...
4:42pm Thu 27 Jan 11
You have consistently used the ‘increase of deaths’ as the reason for your spending £9 million.
As a statistician I would like to see the basic hard data behind your argument.
Numbers of Deaths by speeding drivers, in which roads?
Supply also, Road names and regions.
Names of the people and their addresses that you say have been Killed.
Figures will suffice as long as they can be substantiated.
I ask only that you support your argument, I do however, suspect you cannot.
All the figures must cover a reasonable amount of time say 10 years, for analysis. (Long term data)
Failure to provide the requested data will reveal a black hole in your argument.
You may then be able to tell us all that your party in government have told you to carry out this action.
Please remember not one of your 20mph erected sign posts will save one life.
See the argument for speed cameras, where police chiefs have said they do not save lives.
On the loose
says...
5:31pm Thu 27 Jan 11
Ron Walker; If drivers value the lives of children, they will drive more slowly in residential areas. Lower speeds lead to fewer crashes, fewer injuries and less severe injuries.
BuckoTheMoose
says...
9:06am Fri 28 Jan 11
Ron.Walker wrote:Ron - I posted a link earlier to the road deaths / injuries stats on the LCC website. They show Mr Ashton to be a bear faced liar.
Councillor Tim Ashton You have consistently used the ‘increase of deaths’ as the reason for your spending £9 million. As a statistician I would like to see the basic hard data behind your argument. Numbers of Deaths by speeding drivers, in which roads? Supply also, Road names and regions. Names of the people and their addresses that you say have been Killed. Figures will suffice as long as they can be substantiated. I ask only that you support your argument, I do however, suspect you cannot. All the figures must cover a reasonable amount of time say 10 years, for analysis. (Long term data) Failure to provide the requested data will reveal a black hole in your argument. You may then be able to tell us all that your party in government have told you to carry out this action. Please remember not one of your 20mph erected sign posts will save one life. See the argument for speed cameras, where police chiefs have said they do not save lives.
BuckoTheMoose
says...
9:08am Fri 28 Jan 11
On the loose wrote:Why, "The lives of children"? Does life loose its value when you reach eighteen years old?
twicki; The proposal is for 20mph limits without any road humps. Ron Walker; If drivers value the lives of children, they will drive more slowly in residential areas. Lower speeds lead to fewer crashes, fewer injuries and less severe injuries.
Can you provide any evidence for your statement about fewer crashes etc?
This will not save any lives, it will just create more criminals. And it's a huge waste of money.
huey2
says...
10:01am Fri 28 Jan 11
On the loose
says...
12:23pm Fri 28 Jan 11
Bucko; I expect that you have a mother and a father. There are strong correlations between the speed of vehicles and the number and severity of road casualties. Lower speeds mean fewer injuries and deaths.
On the loose
says...
12:31pm Fri 28 Jan 11
Bucko; I expect that you have a mother and a father. There are strong correlations between the speed of vehicles and the number and severity of road casualties. Lower speeds mean fewer injuries and deaths.
adsmith
says...
5:53am Sat 29 Jan 11
www.wosb.com/dk/tips
-spil
On the loose
says...
11:09am Sat 29 Jan 11
Lost in Trelleborg
says...
4:32pm Sat 29 Jan 11
Kids are killed because drivers don't adjust to the conditions.
Criminalises the reckless - so what?
On the loose
says...
5:00pm Sat 29 Jan 11
enki jr
says...
7:30pm Sat 29 Jan 11
so no,i will not obey the laws of cretins,and just to show that this scheme is as pointless as the people who make them, i regularly drive over these bumps as fast as i can,just to make up for the tiny pea brains who slow down to walking pace to get over a one inch bump..lunatics...
try this instead, make the driving test much harder and retest the whole country every five years, that will keep the loonies off the road who have
the desease C.B.M. thats short for car bonnet mentality.
useyourhead
says...
12:41pm Sun 30 Jan 11
MerlinTheVoiceofReasyou said it yourself, most drivers already drive below 30.. the sensible ones are already implementing this idea without nine million of our much needed tax coin being spent on it.
on wrote:
I really can't see what the problem is with this proposal. It sounds eminently sensible and if it saves a few lives each year, then it is to be commended. Most drivers already do below 30 mph in built up residential side-streets; there will always be some idiots who zoom down them at 40 mph or above! This has got nothing to do with potholes; or the green agenda; or raising revenue from speeding fines; and blaming all road accidents on wayward children is really quite pathetic. This is purely and simply about road safety, so all these angry rantings, which are completely off the mark, will achieve nothing. Other parts of the country are running similar schemes and the evidence is clear - lives are being saved. So put that in your pipes and smoke it!
-
you said it yourself, there will always be some idiots zooming down them at 40, they don't care its 30, so why would they when its 20. nine million WASTED. I despair!!!
Lifeinthemix says...
12:05pm Tue 25 Jan 11
.
Statutes...who ya gonna call?
.
Well given no one has a mandate to enforce statutes,, call no one, I hear she is a little slack...