Wednesday, 19 December 2007

We want a 20 m.p.h. speed limit!

This is the peaceful scene in Sparhawk Street this morning.



This is the house that got hit by a speeding MG last Saturday at 6.15pm.




This is some of the damage it did - but imagine how the pedestrian felt who was very close by!

In 2002 I started my campaign to curb sspeeding in this road and Southgate Street, calling for a 20 mph limit. It took three years (so that traffic calming measures could be put in place) to find out that the police would not agree to the limit until traffic is already approaching that level, and that the current 30 mph limit "is sufficient and appropriate".

I have lost count of the number of similar collisions in both Sparhawk and Southgate Street, and have today written to the police to demand that they reconsider their view.

17 comments:

headless said...

Presumably if the car was speeding at 30mph, it'll still be doing so at 20mph.

How, therefore, would a reduction in the speed limit have avoided this incident?

(In case I don't comment again before then - Happy Christmas Paul)

david said...

Paul - if the majority of Out Westgate residents don't want a sign, is there much point in pursuing it?

Paul F said...

Thanks for your good wishes headless. Residents would certainly gain comfort from a 20 mph limit and it could reduce speeds generally. However I fully concede that not much will stop the fast driver who isn't deterred by bad road conditions.

15/17 is pretty good David. The majority may not have voted, but we both know that's a fact of life. Just because most people in Risbygate ward didn't vote last May and of those who did over 1200 didn't vote for you doesn't stop you being elected.

Of all the residents only one chose to say s/he didn't want a sign, and another expressed doubts.

billy said...

For far too long we have assumed that the needs of the motorist are paramount. The truth of the matter is that the roads should be safe for all users. Until driver testing and education is stringent enough to ensure that, then speed limit reductions are the only way to improve the vulnerable road users chances of surviving a collision.
I wish you luck with your campaign but despair at the attitude of police and highway authorities generally. If the limit is 20 mph it is up to the police to enforce it. They do not have the authority to make law, nor to decide which ones they should enforce.

david said...

Paul - I was talking about the 32 who did vote. The majority of those don't want a sign, so why are you continuing to advocate it?

As for the Risbygate ward vote in May, neither of your two Tory chums got anywhere near my vote, so, sadly for you, I was re-elected with an increased majority.

Paul F said...

Where do you get 32 from David? I asked everybody two questions and received 17 replies. I only voted for a sign. Am I missing something or are you?

Anonymous said...

How can people argue that they don't want a 20mph sign. If there were one, there would be more chance of people reducing their speed than not having a sign at all. The attitudes of some of your commenters are absurd. Reducing speed saves lives. This is something we should all by striving for- whatever ward we live in and for whomever we choose to vote.

Paul F said...

...that should read "1 only voted..."

david said...

Paul - it's usual to declare the votes for and against rather than the votes for, followed by the number who voted.

Paul F said...

This is getting tiresome David. You have to have the last word, even when it's the wrong one.

The vast majority of those who voted want a sign, and so I've asked for one. Whether we get it is another matter.

As far as you're concerned, this correspondence is now closed

headless said...

My concern would be that a 20mph limit would lull pedestrians et al into the false belief that no-one will exceed that speed. In which case, reactions to vehicles approaching is necessarily slower as their anticipated speed is less (lower speed limit). It is not unusual to see pedestrians in the town centre (20mph limit) stepping out in front of vehicles doing that speed or less and still looking outraged. The same applies to the crossings in Abbeygate Street at Lower and and Higher Baxter streets.

It cannot be avoided that some pedestrians are idiots, as are some drivers.

I know that this isn't a very scientific arguement and would probably never stand up in the Council chamber, also plese note that I'm not actually against the 20mph limit per se!

As I understand it, the limit here is still 30mph - is that not right? Some commentators seem to be indicating that it's 20mph and it's just that there's not sign to say this... I wonder if they have got this confused, as this is the only reason I gave attribute for some of the rather more silly "outraged of..." comments on this post.

Paul F said...

Headless you are absolutely right. I am afraid David's choosing to comment here rather than:

http://paulfarmer.blogspot.com/2007/12/out-westgate-havebury-planning.html

has confused the comments.

I accept what you say about the 20 mph limit requested in the Southgate corridor, but can assure you that residents there have wanted this for years. Various petitions have been got up and even presented to Cabinet, so I continue to campaign.

headless said...

David, isn't it time you started your own blog too? And/or at least put a profile to your "comment" name...

After all, some imposter might also post as "David" and confuse us all. (Ok, perhaps it's unlikely we'd be mistaken actually...)

I'm sure the majority of people here and those who follow the Bury political scene all know who you are, so I don't understand the reason you do as you presently do. We'd all be interested to hear what you have to say when originating some of your own thoughts/discussions ref BSE, etc.

Perhaps a New Year's Resolution (or maybe "Revolution"...)?

I've just realised this sounds a bit hypocritical coming from a ghoul with no real profile details... Difference is that I ain't a political. And of course not real.

david said...

...just to prove your point Headless...he has one of the Bury Free Press ones entitled "No molestar".

david said...

Until the last incoherent comment, no-one has sought to be me, except me. I would have written ' Molestar' with a capital 'M'. Ruby says that my literary style is unmistakable. Who am I to argue?

Anonymous said...

Why the capital M? Would you say Do not Disturb?

david said...

No, It should be Do Not Disturb. I would write a song title in similar fashion, eg. Groovy Kind Of Love. There is no law against it.