Mayor ponders whether council should pay for 20mph speed limit study (From Watford Observer)

Like so many allotment holders, Dorothy is in danger of losing the plot.

Absolutely not!
If Watford council has money to spend then there are far more important things to use it on like reducing council tax.
The money from this,the £50k for fireworks and the money spent on new road signs telling people how many minutes walk it is from A to B all adds up to fact that the council is not short of money just common sense.

TRT wrote:
Like so many allotment holders, Dorothy is in danger of losing the plot.

She doesn't know when she's beaten or is barking up the wrong tree.

Here, I'll help her out.

Dorothy, you're barking!

gusgreen wrote:
Absolutely not!
If Watford council has money to spend then there are far more important things to use it on like reducing council tax.
The money from this,the £50k for fireworks and the money spent on new road signs telling people how many minutes walk it is from A to B all adds up to fact that the council is not short of money just common sense.

So true, so true.

The Lib Dems love our money and are hell-bent on spending it as quickly as possible. It's time someone else got in and started to reduce council taxes instead of wasting them on vanity projects.

If Dotty only had the brains to do her job properly Watford would be a much better, and richer, place!

Time for Dotty to go before she does too much damage.

With so many potholes there are not that many roads left in Watford that you could drive at over 20mph anyway.

Here's a crazy idea... why don't "20's Plenty" pay for it?

Not sure the comments above are entirely representative of local opinion!

To be fair, it is fairly simple. If you don't like the idea then vote for UKIP. In the last local election UKIP campaigned heavily on this issue...and won zero seats.

The Rover wrote:
With so many potholes there are not that many roads left in Watford that you could drive at over 20mph anyway.

Brilliant !

she's probably pondering if money can be made from the motorist! lower the speed to 20mph and double the amount of piggy banks opps sorry i meant speed cameras and bobs your uncle

crazyfrog wrote:

The Rover wrote:
With so many potholes there are not that many roads left in Watford that you could drive at over 20mph anyway.

Brilliant !

I would have thought the number one priority was to encourage HCC to make our roads safe to use especially with the light switch off. When snow is predicted why can't they distribute more salt bins in icy side streets. The poor condition of so many pavements and pot holed roads must already be accounting for alot of accidents and unimaginable extra costs all round. Surely an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

This is a stupid idea that is difficult to police/enforce equitably. What if the feasibility study finds it unfeasible, which it probably will, that's £50k of our tax money wasted. Dotty really has lost the plot. A smart mayor wouldn't talk to the press and appear so undecided and dithery. The money could be better allocated as suggested by preceding posters.

I can't see it costing less than that after one has factored in Council staff and management time, consultants, researchers and meetings.

Dorothy just drop it! Prove to us that road deaths in Watford have gone up over the last twelve months.

All the broken pencil policies are costing the good taxpayers of Hertfordshire a fortune. Purple flagging, pond bridging, allotment stealing, sign planting idiocy. And that's coming from a liberal!

OMG Dotty have you completely lost your sense of reality? Your towns people are suffering with the effects of massive cuts and the roads are full of holes! Yet you insist on this bloody ridiculous 20mph limit! For Gods Sakes GET REAL WOMAN!

They could cure a lot of the pot holes by getting rid of the stupid road humps. They also increase the cost and complexity of resurfacing as well.

Totally un-enforceable and therefore completely pointless talk.

I have to agree - in principle - with many of the comments above. The simple fact is that only the county council has the legal power to introduce any such legally enforceable speed limit in Watford - and they have made it abundantly clear that they will not be doing it. Even just one penny spent on this study of Watford council tax payers money will represent mere gesture or posture politics. It will not persuade any sensible person and it could lead to an electoral backlash due to the amount of money being spent/wasted on vanity projects.
Someone suggested that the organisers of 20s Plenty should pay for this "survey" if they are so keen for it to proceed. I agree. Let them pay for it, though it will end up being money totally wasted as the county council have made it clear as the highway authority that they will not support it. See; digest; learn.

With all the chicanes, humps, width/speed restrictions cluttering our roads already, do we really need a 20-zone to bring everything else to a stand-still? Isn't Watford one big car park as it is! Here's a revolutionary idea, how about someone taking the decision to stop cramming every vacant plot full of more flats, more people and more cars? it's only ever going to get worse.

raphaelmort wrote:
With all the chicanes, humps, width/speed restrictions cluttering our roads already, do we really need a 20-zone to bring everything else to a stand-still? Isn't Watford one big car park as it is! Here's a revolutionary idea, how about someone taking the decision to stop cramming every vacant plot full of more flats, more people and more cars? it's only ever going to get worse.

Hear hear to the above comments!

Mayor Thornhill's descent continues, as she spends more of our money on a project in which she has no say on whether it's findings are implemented or not. It's ridiculous - and it's with my money!

As @raphaelmort says, Mayor Thornhill is anyway turning Watford into a de facto 20mph zone. Seemingly endless housing estates are bringing more traffic to our choked roads. One can only imagine what the average speed will be in West Watford if the proposed Vicarage housing development goes ahead, (including the desecration of Field Farm Terrace). You'll be lucky to hit 20mph on any road in that part of town now, let alone when it's finally turned into one concrete jungle.

@WatfordAlex made reference to the fact that UKIP strongly opposes the "20's Plenty" campaign, and that at the last local elections the party won zero seats. Correct on both counts. But we've only just begun in this great town - we will win seats in time and at least give Watfordians a real alternative, based on common sense and watching your pennies wisely.

Nick Lincoln
Chairman, UKIP Watford

WatfordAlex wrote:
Not sure the comments above are entirely representative of local opinion!

To be fair, it is fairly simple. If you don't like the idea then vote for UKIP. In the last local election UKIP campaigned heavily on this issue...and won zero seats.

Not sure the comment quoted is entirely representative of local opinion.

I have seen you on this site before backing "anything Dotty", in fact, the dottier the better it seems, so you must be a Liberal apologist, sorry, councillor - no need to take your comments seriously then are there?

To be fair.....you haven't got a clue about fair, you are a Liberal councillor.

Farm Terrace Allotments, Bridge over the pond.... not a clue, certainly no fairness. Where was the democratic mandate for that? Did your council seek public opinion? No.

One question. Why don't Liberal Democrat councillors in Watford have the courage to post under their own names?

Is it because they do not have the courage of their own convictions or because they are ashamed of the things they say on this site? I would accept either answer.

Mohandas wrote:

crazyfrog wrote:

The Rover wrote:
With so many potholes there are not that many roads left in Watford that you could drive at over 20mph anyway.

Brilliant !

I would have thought the number one priority was to encourage HCC to make our roads safe to use especially with the light switch off. When snow is predicted why can't they distribute more salt bins in icy side streets. The poor condition of so many pavements and pot holed roads must already be accounting for alot of accidents and unimaginable extra costs all round. Surely an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

The streets are already safe as far as speed limits go. This 20's plenty nonsense is a croc.

TRT wrote:
All the broken pencil policies are costing the good taxpayers of Hertfordshire a fortune. Purple flagging, pond bridging, allotment stealing, sign planting idiocy. And that's coming from a liberal!

Well said.

The Liberals are not without brains, however when you get a majority of them they seem to go a bit loopy and out of control, a bit dotty in fact.

The Three Rivers mob, from what I read in the press, seem to have a far greater handle on reality and public service. Can we not just scrap Watford Council and join with them? That would save some money and also some sanity into the bargain.

The Town Hall would make a nice block of flats and would mean the Farm Terrace allotments could easily be saved into the bargain.

That said, I'm not sure they'd want us with the quality of councillors they might inherit.

TRT wrote:
They could cure a lot of the pot holes by getting rid of the stupid road humps. They also increase the cost and complexity of resurfacing as well.

Once again, very well said.

In Watford it seems to be a case of looking busy instead of being busy.

The Libs look for anything to make it look like they are working for us and they leave common sense and monetary sense outside the room when making their ludicrous plans.

Sorry, they have to shape up or go. I can't see them shaping up, even without Dotty at the helm, it seems inbred into them.

John Dowdle wrote:
I have to agree - in principle - with many of the comments above. The simple fact is that only the county council has the legal power to introduce any such legally enforceable speed limit in Watford - and they have made it abundantly clear that they will not be doing it. Even just one penny spent on this study of Watford council tax payers money will represent mere gesture or posture politics. It will not persuade any sensible person and it could lead to an electoral backlash due to the amount of money being spent/wasted on vanity projects.
Someone suggested that the organisers of 20s Plenty should pay for this "survey" if they are so keen for it to proceed. I agree. Let them pay for it, though it will end up being money totally wasted as the county council have made it clear as the highway authority that they will not support it. See; digest; learn.

Hear hear!

Nick Lincoln wrote:

raphaelmort wrote:
With all the chicanes, humps, width/speed restrictions cluttering our roads already, do we really need a 20-zone to bring everything else to a stand-still? Isn't Watford one big car park as it is! Here's a revolutionary idea, how about someone taking the decision to stop cramming every vacant plot full of more flats, more people and more cars? it's only ever going to get worse.

Hear hear to the above comments!

Mayor Thornhill's descent continues, as she spends more of our money on a project in which she has no say on whether it's findings are implemented or not. It's ridiculous - and it's with my money!

As @raphaelmort says, Mayor Thornhill is anyway turning Watford into a de facto 20mph zone. Seemingly endless housing estates are bringing more traffic to our choked roads. One can only imagine what the average speed will be in West Watford if the proposed Vicarage housing development goes ahead, (including the desecration of Field Farm Terrace). You'll be lucky to hit 20mph on any road in that part of town now, let alone when it's finally turned into one concrete jungle.

@WatfordAlex made reference to the fact that UKIP strongly opposes the "20's Plenty" campaign, and that at the last local elections the party won zero seats. Correct on both counts. But we've only just begun in this great town - we will win seats in time and at least give Watfordians a real alternative, based on common sense and watching your pennies wisely.

Nick Lincoln
Chairman, UKIP Watford

We need a real alternative to the Liberals, that's for sure.

They have had it their own way for far too long.

Businesses are already leaving Hertfordshire because of traffic congestion. This harebrained scheme would only increase congestion and cause more businesses to move to less congested counties.

The people all seem agreed on this one nice change.

Everyone but the Liberal plant WatfordAlex do seem to be agreed, this is one of Dotty's most disagreeable ideas and wastes of our money.

Common sense prevails, at least in the pages of the WO.

Schemes like this always intuitively feel that they must be good. After all, slowing down cars must prevent injuries, or even deaths. Mustn’t it?

That’s what makes it so difficult to appear to be against such schemes – you always look like the bad guy appearing to support speeding motorists mowing down cyclists and pedestrians.

The problem is that because of the negativity one faces if you appear to be a dissenter, that rarely is deeper consideration given to the implications of schemes such as these.

But there are many issues to consider.

1. Roads that have most serious accidents are not side roads, but busy roads and junctions. Children are most at risk within a few hundred yards of their school entrance. If Dorothy has money to spend on road safety, it will more likely reduce injury and deaths if applied to these areas. Creating blanket 20mph zones all over Watford sounds very caring and may win votes, but the reality is that it ignores the places where real accidents are happening and where proper use of money could vastly reduce injuries and deaths.

2. Motorists do not want to have an accident. Accordingly, most vary their speed to suit the conditions rather than the absolute speed limit. There are many roads in Watford where even 20mph is too fast and most motorists are sensible and adjust accordingly. The dangerous ones are those who take risks and do not care about others. Those same motorists will ignore 20mph speed limits unless they are strongly enforced. As enforcement costs a lot of money, it will never happen on side roads. So all that 20mph zones will do is effect those motorists who are careful anyway.

3. Forcing motorists to drive at 20mph on a clear road can cause inattention. Studies have shown that accidents increase at junctions that look ‘easy’ whilst junctions that look tricky have fewer incidents because drivers are forced to be attentive. A driver poodling along a wide road at 20mph could easily hit a child whilst adjusting their radio whereas at 30mph they would be paying more attention.

4. Pedestrians, particularly children, used to slower speeds will take increased risks crossing the roads. This is a fact well known to psychologists whereby as risks decrease, it’s human nature to take more chances. On slow roads, pedestrians will rush across a road when only yards from a crossing. On faster roads they will walk a long distance to use a crossing.

5. 20mph zones are very difficult to enforce. Uncaring motorists know this and will ignore the limit. This makes residents and children more at risk when they become used to slow motorists and are less careful in their approach to crossing roads and can get hit by some idiot travelling at 40mph.


5. It’s factors such as 3, 4 and 5 above that can work to make roads no safer at 20mph than 30mph. Indeed, accidents could even increase. It may be counter-intuitive but this 20mph scheme is clearly an example where a lot of money could be spent only to find that you have not improved road safety at all.


There’s something very PC about 20mph. My personal view is that cars are very dangerous and that if they were invented today they would only be allowed on specially built motorways away from pedestrians. But pragmatically, today we live in a world where we balance risk with convenience.

If we were truly worried about safety, we would set 20mph as the limit on all main roads in Watford, because that is where the vast majority of accidents happen. Then, if you were really serious about reducing the carnage, you would think 10mph would be better still. Finally, you would realise that bring back the red flag act with a man walking in front of each vehicle when it’s in a village or town would be the ultimate in safety, so why not do that?

But let’s get real. We all want the convenience of cars and long ago we accepted that some of us will get injured or killed as a result. What I am suggesting is that as most of those injuries are on main roads, let’s keep our minds and our money focussed on those areas rather than wasting money supporting political posturing for this, childish rhyming, ‘twenty’s plenty’ campaign that will do little to actually make the roads of Watford more safe.

I think D_Penn makes some good points.

The majority, if not all serious accidents happen on main roads in Watford which will be excluded from this scheme. The conclusion to draw from that is that this expensive scheme will make diddly squat difference to the serious accidents on the roads of Watford. So what's the point of it?

Forget the argument that a car hitting you at 20 will do less damage than one at 30. This is a classic case of facts obscuring reality. The accidents don't happen now on roads that will be converted to 20mph, so the argument is rather meaningless. No-one will be hit at either 30 or 20 on roads in the 20's plenty zones.

One can only assume that the Liberals are looking for "a cause" to campaign on, they are a bit stupid, or they are such bad drivers they need this limit whereas the rest of us can drive perfectly safely on roads with a 30mph limit where we drive at speeds up to 30mph depending on the local road conditions.

My conclusion. The Liberals are jumping on board a bandwagon for the political goodwill it may generate from those that have not been given the full facts and have not spent the requisite time thinking about this scheme to come to the conclusion that it is a complete waste of time and money.

20's plenty make a good but extremely flimsy case. Scratch below the surface and you will find so many holes in the arguments that you will wonder why anyone with any intelligence ever seriously listened to this pressure group and went along with it. It says a lot about our councillors that they swallowed it whole.

Common sense says leave the limits at 30. Dotty says 20's plenty. That says a lot about Dotty and it's not complimentary of her thinking skills.

Dotty is weighing up whether the council can pay for a feasibility scheme....

Well, we can afford it Dotty, of course we can.

You know that already though, don't you?

You can spend our money on it, after all you are the Mayor and if you and Clarkie, sorry Sharpie, decide to do something, no matter how stupid, with our money than the Liberal bloc on the council will vote for it and away you go. There is literally nothing to stop you. You are the de facto dictator of Watford Council.

However, the question you should be asking is "Should we spend taxpayers money in this way".

The Council raised their income from car parking by about a third from 600,000 to 800,000 this last 12 months. That's £200,000 extra in the kitty. Thank you to all those who paid extra for their parking in Watford.

The Council are cutting council tax rebates here there and everywhere - how much has that saved the council?

Even more money in the kitty.

The question is not whether we can afford it, after all she can just put up our council taxes again if she wishes - she's done it before many a time.

No, the question really is "What is the job of our local council".

If there is money available should it be spent on vanity projects or half-baked projects like 20's plenty, or should it be handed back to the people of Watford in the form of a welcome cut in the stiflingly high council taxes imposed upon us by the Mayor.

It seems that being sensible with other peoples money is not the normal trait of a Liberal politician. That's a shame for all of us that have to pick up the bill for her schemes.

As for 20's plenty, it is a house of cards. One little gust of wind and it falls apart. The arguments just do not stack up to those with an inquisitive and logical mind.

Why fix something that isn't broke!?

They could get unemployed people to walk in front of all the cars carrying purple flags whilst pointing out the way to the new hospital and apologising for the loss of the allotments and Grade II train station; possibly also handing out 10% off vouchers for Harry Potter tours and relieving their boredom by making all kinds of deliberate confusion about "how to get Intu Watford".

TRT wrote:
They could get unemployed people to walk in front of all the cars carrying purple flags whilst pointing out the way to the new hospital and apologising for the loss of the allotments and Grade II train station; possibly also handing out 10% off vouchers for Harry Potter tours and relieving their boredom by making all kinds of deliberate confusion about "how to get Intu Watford".

Priceless!

Some facts to balance all the bluster: Last March Watford Borough Council unanimously supported a motion in support of making 20 the default limit for residential roads other than main roads. Introduction of 20 limits therefore has cross party support, it is not just a LibDem or Green Party proposal.
Right now 45 towns and cities round the country which have adopted 20 limits. St. Albans, another busy town you may have heard of also in Hertfordshire, now has introduced 20 limits over 50 streets in it's centre, see:http://www.herts
ad.co.uk/news/20mph_
speed_limits_come_in
to_force_in_st_alban
s_1_1796839. Interestingly the cost of this scheme (£50k) covering 50 streets is around the same as the recent humps and bumps scheme HCC introduced in Park Avenue covering just one street.
There are now more than 8 million people around England who live in areas covered by 20 limits and opinion polls of these areas clearly show that residents would not wish to go back to 30mph.
Government guidelines issued this month encourage traffic authorities to review their speed limits to make sure they are safe for all road users including cyclists and pedestrians and make it easier to introduce 20 limits and zones: https://www.gov.uk/g
overnment/uploads/sy
stem/uploads/attachm
ent_data/file/63975/
circular-01-2013.pdf

Contrary to the extreme views expressed in the comments so far, opinion polls demonstrate that the majority of the public support the introduction of lower speed limits I residential roads.
The evidence clearly shows that lower average speeds lead to safer streets for all, pedestrians, old people, children, cyclists, not just the car drivers.
I hesitate to mention this in the on line company of Watford's handful of UKIP supporters, but 30KPH which equates to 20MPH is the default speed for residential roads in Europe.
This is a movement who's time has come. It really is time we introduced it here in forward thinking Watford.

://www.dailymail.co.
uk/news/article-1317
430/20mph-zone-incre
ases-death-rates-swi
tching-cameras-reduc
es-accidents.html

20mph apparently increases death rates and scrapping camers reduces it!!

In point of fact, there has been research which has established that the setting-up of 20 pmh zones has actually led to increases in fatalities and injuries.
But whatever any of us say, it is the county council which exercises highway authority powers, not Watford Council.
Peter Jeffree and others can pontificate all they like; unless they have solid assurances from the county council that they are prepared to consider meeting the costs of setting up a Watford-wide 20 mph zone then they are just wasting their time - and (much more importantly) our money - with this fruitless exercise.

Mohandas wrote:

crazyfrog wrote:

The Rover wrote:
With so many potholes there are not that many roads left in Watford that you could drive at over 20mph anyway.

Brilliant !

I would have thought the number one priority was to encourage HCC to make our roads safe to use especially with the light switch off. When snow is predicted why can't they distribute more salt bins in icy side streets. The poor condition of so many pavements and pot holed roads must already be accounting for alot of accidents and unimaginable extra costs all round. Surely an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Once again Mo talks some sense, filling the potholes and repairing the roads should be a priority. The highways authority Herts CC and their contractor Ringway are falling down on the job. Remind me who runs Herts CC?...oh yes, the Conservatives

To be fair, HCC are constrained by cuts in funding from the central coaltion government, which is supported by both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. This will inevitably affect the county council highways budget, which explains why they are so reluctant to spend money on projects that only a tiny handful of people want.
If politicians support austerity policies, they should not be surprised when this results in cuts in public spending.

"Contrary to the extreme views expressed in the comments so far, opinion polls demonstrate that the majority of the public support the introduction of lower speed limits I residential roads.
The evidence clearly shows that lower average speeds lead to safer streets for all, pedestrians, old people, children, cyclists, not just the car drivers".

Spoken like a true LibDem who does not have the brains to see beyond the agenda of this 20's plenty pressure group. Not a thinker, clearly, but a follower. A sheep.

Has there been an opinion poll in Watford of the people who would be affected by this? Answer - NO.

Driving slower can be safer than driving faster. That's common sense largely, but it's not universally true, in fact it may be largely wrong! The real question is "What is the right balance between speeds and safety?" - The answer, having passed the test of time, for residential streets, is 30mph. You can tell that by the lack of serious accidents in residential streets at speeds over 20mph. I think the number is 0 in Watford. Peter, care to correct me?

Sorry Peter, you're just wrong. (Again).

BTW, weren't you that rude jumped-up little councillor that called the Farm Terrace protesters NIMBY's at the council meeting? Yes, you were. What an unpleasant little man you are.

crazyfrog wrote:
://www.dailymail.co.

uk/news/article-1317

430/20mph-zone-incre

ases-death-rates-swi

tching-cameras-reduc

es-accidents.html

20mph apparently increases death rates and scrapping camers reduces it!!

It's the old saying, there are lies, damned lies and then there are bogus statistics cobbled together by that dreadful right wing gossip sheet the Daily Mail.
An old boss of mine used to say that it was safer to drive around at 70 than 30 because you spent less time on the road. Wonderful logic and worthy of the bonkers crooked thinking of most of those contributing here

Peter Jeffree wrote:
Some facts to balance all the bluster: Last March Watford Borough Council unanimously supported a motion in support of making 20 the default limit for residential roads other than main roads. Introduction of 20 limits therefore has cross party support, it is not just a LibDem or Green Party proposal. Right now 45 towns and cities round the country which have adopted 20 limits. St. Albans, another busy town you may have heard of also in Hertfordshire, now has introduced 20 limits over 50 streets in it's centre, see:http://www.herts ad.co.uk/news/20mph_ speed_limits_come_in to_force_in_st_alban s_1_1796839. Interestingly the cost of this scheme (£50k) covering 50 streets is around the same as the recent humps and bumps scheme HCC introduced in Park Avenue covering just one street. There are now more than 8 million people around England who live in areas covered by 20 limits and opinion polls of these areas clearly show that residents would not wish to go back to 30mph. Government guidelines issued this month encourage traffic authorities to review their speed limits to make sure they are safe for all road users including cyclists and pedestrians and make it easier to introduce 20 limits and zones: https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/63975/ circular-01-2013.pdf Contrary to the extreme views expressed in the comments so far, opinion polls demonstrate that the majority of the public support the introduction of lower speed limits I residential roads. The evidence clearly shows that lower average speeds lead to safer streets for all, pedestrians, old people, children, cyclists, not just the car drivers. I hesitate to mention this in the on line company of Watford's handful of UKIP supporters, but 30KPH which equates to 20MPH is the default speed for residential roads in Europe. This is a movement who's time has come. It really is time we introduced it here in forward thinking Watford.

Peter Jeffree wrote:

“Contrary to the extreme views expressed in the comments so far, opinion polls demonstrate that the majority of the public support the introduction of lower speed limits I residential roads.
The evidence clearly shows that lower average speeds lead to safer streets for all, pedestrians, old people, children, cyclists, not just the car drivers.
I hesitate to mention this in the on line company of Watford's handful of UKIP supporters, but 30KPH which equates to 20MPH is the default speed for residential roads in Europe.
This is a movement who's time has come. It really is time we introduced it here in forward thinking Watford.”


Extreme views?

That is a typical non-argument response from someone who doesn’t want to read or listen to the facts. Peter, you are just closing your eyes and sticking your fingers in your ears because you are part of the “Aren’t those of us who support slowing down motorists and saving thousands of lives such jolly nice chaps”. Sounds good, but whilst throwing everyone’s hard earned dosh at any fancy un-thought through scheme, you are not actually thinking about the problem and analysing it properly.

Back in the real adult world, there are those who are willing to dissect the detailed arguments to see if the money being paid out is worthwhile whilst you seem happy to bandy around useless information, such as “They have lower limits in Europe so why don’t we copy?”. Let me remind you that it was such unthinking arguments that nearly lumbered us with the euro! Thankfully, there are those of us left who still can think for themselves.

So if you want a proper debate, how about you personally actually do some research and come up with some figures?

Look at figures for accidents in 30, 25, 20, 15 10 and 5 mph zones. Tell us how many less death/injuries would be for each 5 mph drop in speed, rather than just plumbing for 20mph because ‘twenty’s plenty’ sounds like a good slogan.

Then tell us how much the scheme would cost.

Finally, show what deaths/injuries could be saved if the same amount of money was put into improving known accident black spots.

Then you might have something to say that is worth listening to because that Peter, is the way these difficult issues should be dealt with. Proper analysis that saves the most people from accidents for the amount of money spent.

I love it when low grade politicians engage in what Americans refer to as "Mom and apple pie" politics.
It really is so incredibly funny to see them trying to work themselves up into some sort of moral lather when it is apparent to any numb skull (including themselves) that this is just a cheap and shoddy attempt to gain votes.
Like others have said, if you and the stupidly named 20s Plenty brigade feel so strongly about this, why don't you set up a fund raising initiative to meet - in full - the entire cost of this project, from survey to full and final implementation - and spend your own money on it, not ours.
Just leave the rest of us out of it where spending our (not yours or the council's) money on this nonsense.
You raise the money involved through public subscription and fund raising activities - and leave our council tax money alone.

Wacko Jacko wrote:

crazyfrog wrote:
://www.dailymail.co.


uk/news/article-1317


430/20mph-zone-incre


ases-death-rates-swi


tching-cameras-reduc


es-accidents.html

20mph apparently increases death rates and scrapping camers reduces it!!

It's the old saying, there are lies, damned lies and then there are bogus statistics cobbled together by that dreadful right wing gossip sheet the Daily Mail.
An old boss of mine used to say that it was safer to drive around at 70 than 30 because you spent less time on the road. Wonderful logic and worthy of the bonkers crooked thinking of most of those contributing here

Great idea, I am sure we can start some sort of pressure group, find a name that rhymes, produce some bogus and biased statistics and make a presentation to the council.

Honestly, they're stupid enough to go for it - after all, they fell for 20's plenty propaganda without asking pertinent questions.

Now all we need is a catchy rhymy name. Ideas anyone?

On second thoughts. 70's wrong for residential roads, my common sense tells me that's far too fast. How about 30mph? Seems a sensible compromise and it's been tried before, successfully.

How about she gets the newspaper to print an article saying that the residents can "vote" for 20mph limits by simply driving around the streets at 20mph? If enough people "vote" in this way, the limit will fall automatically and the "benefits" will be realised and the speed humps can all be dug up, no cost for surveys, no cost for new signs...

I suspect, however, that the status quo will endure.

John Dowdle wrote:
I love it when low grade politicians engage in what Americans refer to as "Mom and apple pie" politics.
It really is so incredibly funny to see them trying to work themselves up into some sort of moral lather when it is apparent to any numb skull (including themselves) that this is just a cheap and shoddy attempt to gain votes.
Like others have said, if you and the stupidly named 20s Plenty brigade feel so strongly about this, why don't you set up a fund raising initiative to meet - in full - the entire cost of this project, from survey to full and final implementation - and spend your own money on it, not ours.
Just leave the rest of us out of it where spending our (not yours or the council's) money on this nonsense.
You raise the money involved through public subscription and fund raising activities - and leave our council tax money alone.

Fantastic idea John, and I have worked out exactly how it could work in practice.

Dotty and her supporters like Petty Peter start a campaign to gain support for 20's plenty in Watford.

They raise, through public subscription, enough money to do the feasibility study and a referendum. Then they hold a referendum in Watford to see if the majority of residents want it implemented. The referendum will come as two questions.

Q1. Do you want Watford to become 20mph in all residential side streets?

Q2. Would you be prepared to personally subscribe to pay for this scheme if implemented (let's say £5,000,000 between you)?

If more than 50% of the electorate vote in favour of it then it can go ahead subject to full funding being found.

If more than 50% of the electorate (not voters, but electorate) vote to pay for it, then it is paid for by through local taxes. If less than 50% of the electorate vote to pay towards it, then those that voted for it are asked to pay whatever they can afford into a fund. When that fund reaches the amount required (say £5million) then 20's plenty is implemented in Watford. No EU or other outside funding to be sought or accepted, this must be something for Watford by Watford, not unduly influenced by outsiders.

That seems not only fair but democratic and fiscally responsible. Of course the LibDems will not do that in a million years, because...it is fair, democratic and fiscally responsible - All the things the LibDems in Watford are not.

There's the plan Dotty, now go and start fundraising for your feasibility study. To show no hard feelings and that I'm fair-minded, I'll contribute the first pound, you'll know where to stick it.

TRT wrote:
How about she gets the newspaper to print an article saying that the residents can "vote" for 20mph limits by simply driving around the streets at 20mph? If enough people "vote" in this way, the limit will fall automatically and the "benefits" will be realised and the speed humps can all be dug up, no cost for surveys, no cost for new signs...

I suspect, however, that the status quo will endure.

TRT, you've just saved me a load of taxes and the Mayor a load of embarrassment by not having to spend our taxes on another dotty scheme.

Thank you for your simple yet effective answer, a voluntary 20mph limit in Watford.

Let people vote with their feet.

MarsLander wrote:

Wacko Jacko wrote:

crazyfrog wrote: ://www.dailymail.co. uk/news/article-1317 430/20mph-zone-incre ases-death-rates-swi tching-cameras-reduc es-accidents.html 20mph apparently increases death rates and scrapping camers reduces it!!

It's the old saying, there are lies, damned lies and then there are bogus statistics cobbled together by that dreadful right wing gossip sheet the Daily Mail. An old boss of mine used to say that it was safer to drive around at 70 than 30 because you spent less time on the road. Wonderful logic and worthy of the bonkers crooked thinking of most of those contributing here

Great idea, I am sure we can start some sort of pressure group, find a name that rhymes, produce some bogus and biased statistics and make a presentation to the council. Honestly, they're stupid enough to go for it - after all, they fell for 20's plenty propaganda without asking pertinent questions. Now all we need is a catchy rhymy name. Ideas anyone? On second thoughts. 70's wrong for residential roads, my common sense tells me that's far too fast. How about 30mph? Seems a sensible compromise and it's been tried before, successfully.

MarsLander wrote:

“On second thoughts. 70's wrong for residential roads, my common sense tells me that's far too fast. How about 30mph? Seems a sensible compromise and it's been tried before, successfully.”


Sensible? Sorry, that can’t be right. Peter Jefree’s post above shows that he believes that thinking it’s safe for people to drive in residential areas at 30mph qualifies as an ‘extreme view’.

John Dowdle wrote:
I love it when low grade politicians engage in what Americans refer to as "Mom and apple pie" politics.
It really is so incredibly funny to see them trying to work themselves up into some sort of moral lather when it is apparent to any numb skull (including themselves) that this is just a cheap and shoddy attempt to gain votes.
Like others have said, if you and the stupidly named 20s Plenty brigade feel so strongly about this, why don't you set up a fund raising initiative to meet - in full - the entire cost of this project, from survey to full and final implementation - and spend your own money on it, not ours.
Just leave the rest of us out of it where spending our (not yours or the council's) money on this nonsense.
You raise the money involved through public subscription and fund raising activities - and leave our council tax money alone.

John Dowdle? would that perhaps be the same local Labour politician who was roundly beaten into second place behind the succcessful LibDem candidate in the 2003 Central Ward election? I'm beginning to understand why such a person might have totally unbiased views and scant regard for 'low grade politicians' http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Watford_Cou
ncil_election,_2003

John Dowdle wrote:
I love it when low grade politicians engage in what Americans refer to as "Mom and apple pie" politics.
It really is so incredibly funny to see them trying to work themselves up into some sort of moral lather when it is apparent to any numb skull (including themselves) that this is just a cheap and shoddy attempt to gain votes.
Like others have said, if you and the stupidly named 20s Plenty brigade feel so strongly about this, why don't you set up a fund raising initiative to meet - in full - the entire cost of this project, from survey to full and final implementation - and spend your own money on it, not ours.
Just leave the rest of us out of it where spending our (not yours or the council's) money on this nonsense.
You raise the money involved through public subscription and fund raising activities - and leave our council tax money alone.

John Dowdle? would that perhaps be the same local Labour politician who was roundly beaten into second place behind the succcessful LibDem candidate in the 2003 Central Ward election? I'm beginning to understand why such a person might have totally unbiased views and scant regard for 'low grade politicians' http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Watford_Cou
ncil_election,_2003

Yes - and look who the winning Liberal Democrat candidate was: Sheila Smillie. Remember her? In case you have forgotten, she was the councillor who went over to Florida - and never came back! How much in councillor's allowances did she draw while she was there? Do you remember her promise to pay the money back? Did she? I do not believe she ever paid a single penny back. Yet again, financial profligacy with other peoples' money where the Liberal Democrats are concerned. Thank you for reminding us all about just how wasteful with other peoples money some Lib Dem councillors are.

John Dowdle wrote:
Yes - and look who the winning Liberal Democrat candidate was: Sheila Smillie. Remember her? In case you have forgotten, she was the councillor who went over to Florida - and never came back! How much in councillor's allowances did she draw while she was there? Do you remember her promise to pay the money back? Did she? I do not believe she ever paid a single penny back. Yet again, financial profligacy with other peoples' money where the Liberal Democrats are concerned. Thank you for reminding us all about just how wasteful with other peoples money some Lib Dem councillors are.

John makes a good point about spending other peoples money and claiming monies not due. Most MPs did that and many of them got away with it from all the parties. I remember J Smith (Lab Home Sec) wriggling at the questions put to her after she pocketed wrongly £116,000 and then kept it.

What a poor gene pool of politicians we have both in Westminster and more locally in Watford.

Watford deserves better.

Are @Wacko Jacko and @Peter Jeffree secretly rooting against the LibDems?

Thanks to you both for your contributions to this thread - priceless. Amazing what people unintentionally reveal of themselves and their party.

Nice.

WatfordAlex wrote:
MarsLander: While this concept might make you're poor head spin: no, i'm not a member of any political party. I support this plan because the evidence shows it will make the residential roads of watford safer and encourage more people to cycle, which will reduce congestion and pollution.

Given that you post below every article on this website slagging people off, may I be right in postulating that you are a miserable little ****?

Well said, but sadly he's just one of many on these pages

Opponents of this plan seem to say:
1) It's pointless because you can't drive at more than 20mph in residential streets anyway. AND
2) It's pointless because people will continue speeding!

Anyone who has ever gone around Watford will know that '1' is only true of some streets, while '2' could be used to justify scrapping all speed limits.

Enforcement could pay for itself. Send out a couple of PCSOs on bikes with small speed monitors and cameras. They would catch enough chavs speeding around each day to pay for their wages fairly easily.

Cost of setting up the scheme would be lower that the existing approach of heavy engineering on small stretches of road.

Cherry picking data from a Daily Mail article is not an argument - it's confirmation bias.

Finally, local elections are a referendum on this matter...and the only party that opposes safer steets (UKIP) lost. (Incidentally, don't UKIP hate waste? Referendums cost hundreds of thousands of pounds; how does that sit with saving money? The entire local party appears to be commenting on this thread, so maybe someone can answer!?)

I am not a member of UKIP or any other political party. I suggest that 20s Plenty meet the cost of the referendum and the entire cost of the project. That way, no costs will accrue to Watford residents.
You do know there already are 20 mph zones in Watford?
At the end of the day, we have to rely upon the good sense of Watford drivers and other people to act rationally in order to avoid fatalities or injuries for anyone.
This simplistic 20s Plenty nonsense is wholly unnecessary and can be seen as an insult to the intelligence of Watford residents.

WatfordAlex wrote:
“Opponents of this plan seem to say:
1) It's pointless because you can't drive at more than 20mph in residential streets anyway. AND 2) It's pointless because people will continue speeding!”
“Cherry picking data from a Daily Mail article is not an argument”


You obviously have not read my post listing the reasons why the scheme is likely to be a waste of money and has absolutely nothing to do with the two points you listed. So never mind about the Daily Mail, now who’s cherry picking his points to make an argument?

Safety is an important subject, but there is not an infinite amount of money. It has to be spent sensibly and wisely. How can it be wrong to ask those who glibly declare reducing speed limits will make Watford roads safer begin by at least having some real data to back up their arguments and demonstrate that the money couldn’t be better spent elsewhere?

I have personally sat through a talk about ‘twenty’s plenty’ but absolutely no figures were forthcoming. How many accidents causing injuries have occurred on Watford roads that would become limited to 20mph was asked? ‘Nobody knows for sure.’ was the answer!

That should ring alarm bells in itself because if this was a major issue in Watford then the statistics would be available.

So what we are left with is the council threatening to spend money on a scheme because a few people wave their arms in the air and say ‘20mph must be safer’. That is no way to run a council and certainly no way to treat other peoples’ money.

Wacko Jacko wrote:

WatfordAlex wrote:
MarsLander: While this concept might make you're poor head spin: no, i'm not a member of any political party. I support this plan because the evidence shows it will make the residential roads of watford safer and encourage more people to cycle, which will reduce congestion and pollution.

Given that you post below every article on this website slagging people off, may I be right in postulating that you are a miserable little ****?

Well said, but sadly he's just one of many on these pages

You Liberals seem to be outnumbered on these pages by people with common sense. Why does that surprise you so?

You come out with things like "evidence shows.." when there is no evidence for Watford. If there is, then show it, where's the link? More empty words.

Just saying something doesn't make it true, not even for Clarkie/Sharpie/Dori
s or whatever names he posts under who makes up ten "facts" before breakfast each day.

It's no wonder people are getting fed up with the Liberals in Watford. I know I am.

WatfordAlex wrote:
Opponents of this plan seem to say:
1) It's pointless because you can't drive at more than 20mph in residential streets anyway. AND
2) It's pointless because people will continue speeding!

Anyone who has ever gone around Watford will know that '1' is only true of some streets, while '2' could be used to justify scrapping all speed limits.

Enforcement could pay for itself. Send out a couple of PCSOs on bikes with small speed monitors and cameras. They would catch enough chavs speeding around each day to pay for their wages fairly easily.

Cost of setting up the scheme would be lower that the existing approach of heavy engineering on small stretches of road.

Cherry picking data from a Daily Mail article is not an argument - it's confirmation bias.

Finally, local elections are a referendum on this matter...and the only party that opposes safer steets (UKIP) lost. (Incidentally, don't UKIP hate waste? Referendums cost hundreds of thousands of pounds; how does that sit with saving money? The entire local party appears to be commenting on this thread, so maybe someone can answer!?)

Logic is clearly not a strong point for LiberalWatfordAlex.

If you can logically make the jump from the comments here to "you might as well scrap all speed limits" then that is more a reflection on your intellect or wish to mislead the readers than it is on the contents of this thread. Only a politician would try this "scare story" and fail so miserably.

Will we see in the next liberal rag "extremist drivers in Watford demand ending of speed limits"? Go back and look at your potholes LiberalAlex, it's all you're good for.

Mrs Thornhill should not be spending Watford taxpayers money on a scheme that falls under the jurisdiction of the county Council and not the Town Council.

It is not her job nor the job of her council to spend our taxes or any other of the funds of our town council in this way.

Is that simple enough for our Council masters to understand?

Is it even legal for her to spend money on political issues outside of her jurisdiction?

For context on the 'representative' comments below this article:

UKIP Watford:

Chairman
Nick Lincoln

Vice Chairman
Phil Cox

Elections Officer/Agent
David Penn

Last election - Central Ward - Nov 2012: UKIP vote:

WatfordAlex wrote:
For context on the 'representative' comments below this article:

UKIP Watford:

Chairman
Nick Lincoln

Vice Chairman
Phil Cox

Elections Officer/Agent
David Penn

Last election - Central Ward - Nov 2012: UKIP vote:

Thanks for the name check, @WatfordAlex.

I've never hidden who I am or the party I represent.

What's your point? That we disagree with you? God forbid.

So do @TRT, @gusgreen, @MarsLander, @The Rover, @pr76uk, @Razor Sharp, @Harold Hornet, @Hornets number 12 fan, @LSC, @John Dowdle, @raphaelmort and a lot more.

Are these people "representative" enough for you?

Keep digging.

WatfordAlex wrote:
For context on the 'representative' comments below this article: UKIP Watford: Chairman Nick Lincoln Vice Chairman Phil Cox Elections Officer/Agent David Penn Last election - Central Ward - Nov 2012: UKIP vote:

You are trying to obfuscate by talking about politics rather than the issue in hand. That is because you have clearly failed to back your argument with any facts and as such, you are rapidly losing credibility.

For what it's worth, on a vote taken after a 'twenty's plenty' talk, I abstained on the basis that more information was needed to justify spending the money. I don't make knee jerk decisions and am happy to give people time to gather information to support their suggestions.

Over the months since, all I have heard is more waffle and absolutely nothing factual to support the assertion that paying thousands of pounds to set up 20mph zones would be anything other than a waste of money.

So please stop trying to pretend that arguments against the plan is a political issue. It's not. It's about arguing for everyone's council tax to be spent wisely by decision makers exercising proper diligence in advance of any significant budget allocation.

All I am asking is for a little professionalism to be applied here - which is nothing to do with politics.

It has struck me that the use of the word 'ponders' in the headline for this article may be an oblique reference to another item of expenditure which may also be questionable?
Is Mike Wright (Chief Reporter of the WO) being too clever by half or am I in danger of reading too much into his use of the word?

John Dowdle wrote:
It has struck me that the use of the word 'ponders' in the headline for this article may be an oblique reference to another item of expenditure which may also be questionable?
Is Mike Wright (Chief Reporter of the WO) being too clever by half or am I in danger of reading too much into his use of the word?

You thing the WO is subtly picking up on wasteful council spending plans?

Let's hope so!

Having a go at the council a lot meant destroying our few remaining green spaces in west watford is showing up the LibDems for what they are, builders and developers. So long as their green areas are safe, it doesn't really matter what gets built over elsewhere.

Getting back to the topic itself and away from petty politics and unsubstantiated opinions, I quote directly from the latest DfT guidance:

"20 mph zones are very effective at reducing collisions and injuries. Research in 1996 showed that overall average annual collision frequency could fall by around 60%, and the number of collisions involving injury to children could be reduced by up to two-thirds. Zones may also bring further benefits, such as a modal shift towards more walking and cycling and overall reductions in traffic flow, where research has shown a reduction by over a quarter (Webster and Mackie, 1996). There is no evidence of migration of collisions and casualties to streets outside the zone. (Grundy et al, 2008; Grundy et al, 2009)."

Surely these are benefits to the quality of life we should all wish to see here in watford

Well managed 20mph zones probably, the ones they knew were going to be scrutinised. The only thing I'd trust HCC/WBC to do is to **** it up, as they have done with so many other things. Remember speed bumps? Worked rather well on the test track where the height was spot on and the data were collected over a couple of years. Not so good when Paddy McTarmac holds his thumb sideways, squints and says "Ah, that looks about right now." and it's only after two dozen broken oil sumps that someone comes out with a tape measure and finds it's 60mm over the maximum allowable height like on Leavesden High Road, or that the road surface has collapsed under the new load and added 100mm to the effective height like on Park Avenue. Or that a width restriction needs for some reason twelve heavy duty square section steel posts set at the forward edge of the kerb at a height easily able to smash the wing mirrors off a car like at Woodmere Avenue. Or that a yellow plastic road surface that looks like brick paviers and is half the price of doing the job properly can take the weight of the traffic using the road without breaking up into loose shrapnel after a month like happened at the corner of Queens Road Broadway.

Peter Jeffree wrote:
Getting back to the topic itself and away from petty politics and unsubstantiated opinions, I quote directly from the latest DfT guidance:

"20 mph zones are very effective at reducing collisions and injuries. Research in 1996 showed that overall average annual collision frequency could fall by around 60%, and the number of collisions involving injury to children could be reduced by up to two-thirds. Zones may also bring further benefits, such as a modal shift towards more walking and cycling and overall reductions in traffic flow, where research has shown a reduction by over a quarter (Webster and Mackie, 1996). There is no evidence of migration of collisions and casualties to streets outside the zone. (Grundy et al, 2008; Grundy et al, 2009)."

Surely these are benefits to the quality of life we should all wish to see here in watford

Pothole Peter,

Firstly, do you retract your NIMBY slur you made to the Farm Terrace allotment protesters yet? It was rather a cheap shot from an elected councillor.

So, where are the accidents and collisions in Watford? Do you even know (or care)?

They're not where you are going to put a 20mph zone are they?

They are predominantly on the 30mph roads you will not be touching.

Maybe you didn't know that, after all facts do not always come easily to Liberal Democrat councillors, ask Clarkie who has gone strangely silent since being "outed" as Cllr Sharpe.

What's the point then, apart from to make it look like you are actually doing something as councillors? Sometimes, less is more.

All these words, based on studies elsewhere, "could", "may", all from 16 years ago. Not a very solid base upon which to spend large sums of council money, particularly when it's none of the councils business to do the work of the County Council. That smacks of stupidity and arrogance to me.

Legally, Pothole Peter, are you able to spend this money? I think you'd better find out and let us know, otherwise the County's sensible decision stands to ignore Dotty's plea for a 20mph zone across all of Watford and you and Dotty are just wasting everybodys time.

WatfordAlex wrote:
Not sure the comments above are entirely representative of local opinion!

To be fair, it is fairly simple. If you don't like the idea then vote for UKIP. In the last local election UKIP campaigned heavily on this issue...and won zero seats.

I'm not sure it's your idea that's simple, WatfordAlex.

Whilst I welcome your urging people to vote UKIP at the next election I hope that you will recognise that people will seldom vote for a party at an election based on a single issue. People and their lives are a bit more complex than that.

I hope you will therefore not consider the next or any other election to be a referendum on this issue.

If you want a referendum on 20's plenty, be brave, hold one. Give people the facts on 20's plenty and hold public debates, but don't pick and choose a completely different vote and misrepresent it as some sort of proxy referendum on 20's plenty. It isn't.

That would be dishonest, wouldn't it?

Peter Jeffree wrote:
Getting back to the topic itself and away from petty politics and unsubstantiated opinions, I quote directly from the latest DfT guidance: "20 mph zones are very effective at reducing collisions and injuries. Research in 1996 showed that overall average annual collision frequency could fall by around 60%, and the number of collisions involving injury to children could be reduced by up to two-thirds. Zones may also bring further benefits, such as a modal shift towards more walking and cycling and overall reductions in traffic flow, where research has shown a reduction by over a quarter (Webster and Mackie, 1996). There is no evidence of migration of collisions and casualties to streets outside the zone. (Grundy et al, 2008; Grundy et al, 2009)." Surely these are benefits to the quality of life we should all wish to see here in watford

Peter, thank you for at least making an effort to provide some figures, though of course, I’m sure you see the problem. Having a science background, I like to see some real meat on the bones and not flimsy reports before I back something.

The opening lines make me suspicious that there is no real useful data behind the statements…

“Research in 1996 showed that overall average annual collision frequency could fall by around 60%, and the number of collisions involving injury to children could be reduced by up to two-thirds”

The ‘could fall’ and ‘could be’ phrases are do not engender confidence, and the use of fractions instead of hard figures gives no indication of how reliable the study might be.

For example, ‘Injury to children could be reduced by up to two thirds’. That could mean that after scouring hundreds of areas worldwide that are 20mph now but were 30mph, that they have only recorded one child injured where previously there were three – hardly significant! Indeed, the three may have all been injured in one incident – we can’t see the figures so we just don’t know!

We have all seen this statistics game played long enough to know that when actual figures are supplanted by fractions to be very suspicious of the motives for reporting in that way. When it’s combined with the use of the ‘could be’ phrase, well, that rings the bell that warns me to dig deep and look at the real figures very carefully indeed. Somebody, for whatever reason, is probably hiding the true picture. However, we do know that studies often find a way of reporting what they expected, or even hoped, to see.

So before we spend a penny of council tax payer’s money Peter, is there any way you can get hold of the actual figures from the 1996 study? That would allow everyone to assess its validity.

As for the rest of the DfT statement, “The zones may bring further benefits…”, there’s that vague word ‘may’. All very unconvincing, isn’t it?

Peter, even though you are an advocate, surely you must admit it’s all a bit wishy-washy. If a salesman came to your door trying to get you to buy a product spouting its benefits in such a dubious manner, you would keep your money in your pocket and send him on his way.

I respectfully suggest that unless some detailed figures and arguments showing that 20mph zones are the best way to spend money to make Watford roads safer are forthcoming from the ‘20’s plenty’ pressure group, that you send them on their way too.

PhilCox wrote:

WatfordAlex wrote:
Not sure the comments above are entirely representative of local opinion!

To be fair, it is fairly simple. If you don't like the idea then vote for UKIP. In the last local election UKIP campaigned heavily on this issue...and won zero seats.

I'm not sure it's your idea that's simple, WatfordAlex.

Whilst I welcome your urging people to vote UKIP at the next election I hope that you will recognise that people will seldom vote for a party at an election based on a single issue. People and their lives are a bit more complex than that.

I hope you will therefore not consider the next or any other election to be a referendum on this issue.

If you want a referendum on 20's plenty, be brave, hold one. Give people the facts on 20's plenty and hold public debates, but don't pick and choose a completely different vote and misrepresent it as some sort of proxy referendum on 20's plenty. It isn't.

That would be dishonest, wouldn't it?

Phil,

Labour, Lib Dem, Greens and Conservatives support safer streets. The only party that opposes the plan is UKIP. Your party is campaigning heavily on this issue – just look at this thread! In the last election in Watford the UKIP candidate campaigned on this issue and got less than 4% of the vote and came last. We live in a representative democracy where voters support politicians to represent them; clearly the people of Watford feel comfortable voting for representatives who support safer streets.

As a non-political resident I don’t have power or money to hold a referendum. As UKIP oppose wasting public money, presumably you are happy to pay yourselves for one?

To be honest this whole thing is becoming a bit ‘Monty Python’! UKIP oppose the safer streets proposal because they say there is no electoral mandate, but there is one: it’s called local elections.

UKIP oppose the safer streets plan because they say there is a lack of local evidence…and yet they are opposing a Feasibility Study…which would provide the local evidence! You couldn't make it up.

Mr Penn has not provided a single piece of peer reviewed evidence to support his opinions. All that has been provided is a list of things he thinks, with no references to studies. When another poster has bothered to provide quotes from real research, the response is to attack it with zero counter evidence; just more anecdotal rambling.

Moreover, if Mr Penn is indeed a ‘scientist’ – how can he support a political party that denies climate change exists (an approach comparable with denying gravity)?

WatfordAlex wrote:
To be honest this whole thing is becoming a bit ‘Monty Python’! UKIP oppose the safer streets proposal because they say there is no electoral mandate, but there is one: it’s called local elections. UKIP oppose the safer streets plan because they say there is a lack of local evidence…and yet they are opposing a Feasibility Study…which would provide the local evidence! You couldn't make it up. Mr Penn has not provided a single piece of peer reviewed evidence to support his opinions. All that has been provided is a list of things he thinks, with no references to studies. When another poster has bothered to provide quotes from real research, the response is to attack it with zero counter evidence; just more anecdotal rambling. Moreover, if Mr Penn is indeed a ‘scientist’ – how can he support a political party that denies climate change exists (an approach comparable with denying gravity)?

Don’t be daft. Of course UKIP supports safer streets. You lose credibility when you try to twist the argument. Anyone who has read the posts here can see that the discussion has been around whether 20mph limits will make a blind bit of difference. Not once has anyone come forward with a figure for the number of injuries on roads that would become 20mph limits. How can you say it will make roads safer when you have not yet shown that they are unsafe?

Why you do not seem to grasp that all people here (UKIP and non-UKIP) are asking for is proof that paying money to put 20mph zones in Watford is an effective use of tax payers cash?

As for research, it is a fact that the best way of reducing accidents is to identify black spots and improve the traffic control in those areas. That element of road safety has appeared so many times in the press (and several summary articles over the years in ‘New Scientist’) that it hardly needs researching. In any case, if the council is proposing to go down the 20mph route it is THEIR responsibility to get the FULL facts – something they appear unable or unwilling to do.

Off topic, I do not know why you bizarrely bring up climate change here, but as it happens I did study atmospheric chemistry in the past and am lucky to have a strong grasp of the subject. But first, let me correct you. UKIP do not deny climate change. The climate has changed hugely many times in the past from snowball earth to being considerably hotter than today. That natural change happened without human interference, it is still happening now without human interference and yes, it will continue happening in the future – without human interference. The only question is whether our activities are having any measurable effect, and if so, to what degree.

Only a fool thinks that in the few short years we have been looking at data that we have anything close to the definitive answer to that question. It’s hugely complex and many aspects confuse the finest minds on our planet. So I suggest you stop being so arrogant because for those who really understand what they are talking about, the jury is still out.

Let us assume a feasibility study is held, preferably at no cost to Watfordv residents.
The combined amount of Liberal Democrat salaries and allowances drawn from Watford Council annually would easily cover the cost of such a feasibility study.
Assuming the feasibility study has been carried out - then what?
The county council has made it plain that they will not meet the costs of implementation of any results of any such study.
So, what will have been the point of the feasibility study - other than for some posing and posturing by low grade local politicans at local residents' expense.
It that a sensible outcome?

John Dowdle wrote:
Let us assume a feasibility study is held, preferably at no cost to Watfordv residents.
The combined amount of Liberal Democrat salaries and allowances drawn from Watford Council annually would easily cover the cost of such a feasibility study.
Assuming the feasibility study has been carried out - then what?
The county council has made it plain that they will not meet the costs of implementation of any results of any such study.
So, what will have been the point of the feasibility study - other than for some posing and posturing by low grade local politicans at local residents' expense.
It that a sensible outcome?

No point at all, just some mutual back-slapping of the local LibDems and a big black hole where our tax money used to be.

Dotty doesn't know when she's flogging a dead horse and she doesn't mind how much of our money she spends doing it. It's not good management, whichever way you look at it, and she's our Mare, I mean Mayor, and therefore should know better.

Anyone know which councillor WatfordAlex is?

I don't believe elected councillors should post under pseudonyms, it is cowardly and shallow.

WatfordAlex wrote:

PhilCox wrote:

WatfordAlex wrote:
Not sure the comments above are entirely representative of local opinion!

To be fair, it is fairly simple. If you don't like the idea then vote for UKIP. In the last local election UKIP campaigned heavily on this issue...and won zero seats.

I'm not sure it's your idea that's simple, WatfordAlex.

Whilst I welcome your urging people to vote UKIP at the next election I hope that you will recognise that people will seldom vote for a party at an election based on a single issue. People and their lives are a bit more complex than that.

I hope you will therefore not consider the next or any other election to be a referendum on this issue.

If you want a referendum on 20's plenty, be brave, hold one. Give people the facts on 20's plenty and hold public debates, but don't pick and choose a completely different vote and misrepresent it as some sort of proxy referendum on 20's plenty. It isn't.

That would be dishonest, wouldn't it?

Phil,

Labour, Lib Dem, Greens and Conservatives support safer streets. The only party that opposes the plan is UKIP. Your party is campaigning heavily on this issue – just look at this thread! In the last election in Watford the UKIP candidate campaigned on this issue and got less than 4% of the vote and came last. We live in a representative democracy where voters support politicians to represent them; clearly the people of Watford feel comfortable voting for representatives who support safer streets.

As a non-political resident I don’t have power or money to hold a referendum. As UKIP oppose wasting public money, presumably you are happy to pay yourselves for one?

You say you're not a LibDem Councillor.

Forgive my scepticism, however it does appear that Liberal Councillors regularly appear on these sites under pseudonyms trying to pass themselves off as ordinary residents and not councillors whilst heavily supporting the Liberal Democrat Council. Would you join me in condemning that?

Secondly, you claim the central ward by-election was a "referendum on 20's plenty".

We both know that is simply not true.

UKIP supports safer streets. We have looked in detail at the 20's plenty scheme (they were kind enough to come to a meeting and do a presentation for us) and have found it to be based on a fair amount of wishful thinking and incomplete studies lacking critical statistics.

That's no basis for spending large amounts of taxpayers money in Watford and I would hope any right-minded politician would agree.

Mr Cox: We're just gonna have to agree to disagree. To be fair, if all the elected politicians were ignoring the 20mph plan then I guess I too would be asking for a referendum. You still haven't explained how expensive referendums work with UKIP's opposition to public spending? Also, given that the 20mph plan would save money over time, I struggle to see why you oppose it.

MrLander: Given that you don't even have your christian name on here, it's somewhat hypocritical for you to be attacking others! Clearly you can't read, so my best advise is you go to an adult education course. I'v got nothing to do with any political party, hence why I haven't commented on any articles on this website about the Lib Dems. This story is apolitical as all the parties in watford with elected members support the plan.

Mr Penn: You still haven't provided a single piece of evidence to support your views. The fact you deny climate change says it all. No amount of evidence will change you ideological hangups, so there is no point trying to win you around to reality!

WatfordAlex wrote:
“Mr Penn: You still haven't provided a single piece of evidence to support your views. The fact you deny climate change says it all. No amount of evidence will change you ideological hangups, so there is no point trying to win you around to reality!”

Why don’t you go back and read my post carefully? You might notice that I neither deny man made climate change nor do I accept it. Your arrogant certainty is typical of many who have being battered by many years of propaganda and have never made your own efforts to look deeply into the empirical data and question its findings. If you took the trouble, you would quickly realise that the massive changes in climate that take place naturally makes predictions taken from data that we have gathered over a miniscule period of geological time both highly inaccurate and unreliable. Your simplistic approach is to not look any deeper than the rubbish summaries shoved under your nose by pressure groups whose views are wholly one-sided and often have agendas that mean they are not interested in the truth.

The same applies to your blasé and unprofessional attitude to ‘20’s plenty’ campaign. Never let facts get in the way of supporting a campaign that can make you look good, eh?

My opinions are at least based on scientific items I have read on and off over the years. Unsurprisingly, I did not write down the references at the time because I never expected to need them. I would have hoped that the people involved in professional traffic management would do the proper research when needed and find the relevant articles. However, it turns out that people like you are not really interested in detailed analysis. All you want to do is create a cosy public image for yourselves to appear as ‘a very nice person making Watford roads safer’.

As things stand, the only thing you are likely to achieve is to make the people of Watford poorer, because you cannot make streets that are already safe safer how ever much money you throw at them.

I say once again, I don't understand why there is even a debate here. All the salient points have been made above.

Sensible drivers go 20 when going 20 is appropriate.
Stupid drivers do not. A road sign won't change that and we do not have the money to enforce that they do. In another story on this site the PCC admits we only catch 4 in 10 criminals anyway, and he is CUTTING resources despite that. Is this REALLY what we want our money spent on?
There is a lot of blood on the road after a Saturday night in Watford and it has nothing to do with a difference of 10mph of vehicles on side roads.

We can't even protect a 'vandal-proof' mirror for 24 hours and you want coppers spending their time chasing, reporting, filing and fining people going 22 mph on an empty street?

Honestly you'd think it's death race 2013 on the side roads of Watford! The Statistics and the amount of accidents/injuries and deaths in this town do not require such drastic action!
The Councillors of this town need to listen to the people who vote them in more and not keep running roughshod over peoples wishes! There are MUCH MUCH more important issues facing the people of Watford this year so please stop trying to change things thathat do NOT need changing

Alex,

open your mind and next time someone tells you something, try thinking "is that really true? Maybe I should investigate that a little further, view the data, see what people are saying on both sides of the argument".

The way you are trying to twist what some people are saying leads me to believe you are in the same vein as Clarkie750, aka Mr Dotty. Are you Clarkie750?

Only LibDem councillors tend to go to so much trouble to rubbish the opposition whilst misrepresenting what they have said.

You accused D_Penn of denying climate change which he clearly refuted in a later posting. You then did the same thing again afterwards. I know you can read because you can write, so you must be deliberately misrepresenting the facts. The question must be "Why?", why would you do that?

For me, it shows a lack of intellect and/or integrity on your part.

Keep banging the drum for dotty WatfordAlex, it's people like you who will drive away LibDem support in Watford and that can only be a good thing for Watford.

When you are losing the argument, attacking the people is not the answer. Unless of course, you are Clarkie750 or a LibDem clone.

Now, shall we get back to what a bad idea and waste of money it would be for Dotty to do this?

This is not just an issue of raw statistics about accident, injury or death. It is about perceptions of road safety for all road users and quality of life for residents. How many children are driven to school instead of cycling or walking because their parents think the roads are too dangerous? How many residents have their lives blighted by road noise, dirt and pollution which would be much reduced by lower speeds? How many old people stay at home rather than risk walking around their neighbourhood because they can't move quickly enough when they have to cross the road? How many commuters would prefer to go green and cycle but are put off by concerns about road safety? We don't need to wait for the road injuries and deaths to reach an intolerable level, we need to act long before then to achieve a better balance for all road users particularly the more vulnerable pedestrians and cyclists, and reduce the dominance of the car. We also need to reduce our carbon emissions and slower road speeds can help us all be a bit greener.

This is not just an issue of raw statistics about accident, injury or death. It is about perceptions of road safety for all road users and quality of life for residents. How many children are driven to school instead of cycling or walking because their parents think the roads are too dangerous? How many residents have their lives blighted by road noise, dirt and pollution which would be much reduced by lower speeds? How many old people stay at home rather than risk walking around their neighbourhood because they can't move quickly enough when they have to cross the road? How many commuters would prefer to go green and cycle but are put off by concerns about road safety? We don't need to wait for the road injuries and deaths to reach an intolerable level, we need to act long before then to achieve a better balance for all road users particularly the more vulnerable pedestrians and cyclists, and reduce the dominance of the car. We also need to reduce our carbon emissions and slower road speeds can help us all be a bit greener.

Wacko Jacko seems like a true fascist. He must be a closet Nazi. He is determined that we will all live according to his strictures. Adolf Hitler or his Propaganda Minister Goebbels could not make it any clearer for him.
This is another paltry excuse to try and rule over the lives of other individuals.
This sort of mindset is truly frightening.
We all know what the outcome was of encouraging individuals like him before.

WackoJacko, what's this about "deaths and injuries hitting an intolerable level"? Talk about over-dramatisation! The 30mph limit has been in force for decades and it's hardly been the cause of carnage on side roads. If it had, the limit would have been lowered already.

The current demand for 20mph is not backed up by any hard statistics to show that roads would be safer. I have asked Peter Jefree to unearth them from the 1996 study he mentioned and have yet to see them. Indeed, for months I have asked for such figures from various people supporting the campaign and now I am strongly suspecting that they do not exist. The whole thing is becoming a farce where councillors across the country want to spend money on a scheme devoid of any evidence to back it would make roads safer. It's an insane way to run a council.

As for driving at 20mph to reduce emissions as you suggest, that is totally wrong. it would actually increase carbon emissions. Cars driving slowly in 2nd/3rd gear stay on the road for longer than driving at 30mph in 4th gear. They use more petrol overall on their journey resulting in MORE carbon emissions.

Wacko Jacko has apparently thrown in the towel about 20's plenty being about preventing or lessening the impact of accidents in Watford. Such subconscious honesty is welcome in this debate. He might as well because the statistics, such as they are, do not support 20's plenty having any or much of an effect on them.

Wacko now says it's more about pollution - wrong again, it will make it worse if people still drive but more slowly. He is hoping of course to force people from their cars, but surely it is not for the council to force people from their perfectly legal cars, is it? If it's not against the law, why should motorists suffer at the hands of the local council? Is dotty anti-motorist? Answers on a postcard...

Wacko and probably all the LibDem councillors think there are hordes of people just waiting for roads to become ultra safe for cyclists and old people so they can come out and take over the roads.

He is, of course, quite a deluded fascist determined to make us all live his image of how we should live our lives.

Wacko, you are probably one of the few on this site who post under your own name, for you truly are, and ever will be, at least to me, quite wacko.

Here's a compromise for the council.

Make the Cassiobury estate a 20mph zone. Leave the rest of Watford alone. The majority of councillors will probably not notice anything happening beyond the cassiobury anyway and it will give them that warm feeling of having achieved something. In fact, why not give them the whole wet dream and make it pedestrian only? Dotty and her chums can walk around it minding the bicycles that glide serenely past while chatting to the pensioners who have not dared step foot outside their houses for decades for the fear of all that nasty dangerous traffic.

Pathetic I know, but if we give them their own lalaland they might keep away from doing damage where I live - the real world!

Several writers seem to doubt the evidence for 20mph limits, and ask to see something more 'scientific', so why not try these for starters:

http://www.publicati
ons.parliament.uk/pa
/cm200102/cmselect/c
mtlgr/557/557ap80.ht
m

and
http://www.bmj.com/c
ontent/339/bmj.b4469


and
http://www.autoliv.c
om/ProductsAndInnova
tions/Documents/Rese
arch%20Papers/1.%20R
osenSander.pdf

There are more research references in the back of the latest DfT guidance which you can find here:

https://www.gov.uk/g
overnment/uploads/sy
stem/uploads/attachm
ent_data/file/63975/
circular-01-2013.pdf


Now perhaps the doubters and sceptics would respond and publish their own research evidence (not just their opinions) in support of their assertions that 20mph zones and limits don't bring worthwhile benefits

Peter,

please spell out exactly what benefits you believe a 20mph limit would bring to Watford so we can deal with them one by one. It would also be helpful if you could give an idea of when these perceived benefits would come to fruition, i.e. immediately, within 6 months, one year, five years.


Thanks for the references, I hope contributors will find the time to take a look at them and respond accordingly.

The BMJ article seems to be reasonable and well controlled. I'm still reading it, though.

MarsLander wrote:
Peter,

please spell out exactly what benefits you believe a 20mph limit would bring to Watford so we can deal with them one by one. It would also be helpful if you could give an idea of when these perceived benefits would come to fruition, i.e. immediately, within 6 months, one year, five years.


Thanks for the references, I hope contributors will find the time to take a look at them and respond accordingly.

The potential benefits were spelled out in the minutes of the Council meeting in March 2012 which referred schemes elsewhere which achieved:

significantly reduced speeds in just the first year of operation; after
several years in operation reduced urban accident rates by up to two thirds (with numbers killed and seriously injured reduced by even more);
• encouraged walking and cycling, especially for the elderly and younger
children;
• benefited communities, with residents a quarter more likely to stop and
talk on footpaths;
• increased the journey time of a 15 minute journey by just 1 minute;
• reduced vehicle emissions by 12% due to less acceleration and
deceleration;
• and been supported by 72% of drivers surveyed as part of the British
Social Attitudes Survey conducted for the Department for Transport in
2010

All councillors agreed with the proposal and have nothing to add to it

By many accounts the 72% who support lowering of speed limits is now out of date. It was 72% in the survey Peter mentioned in 2005, not 2010, and in 2010 the number had dropped to 60%. (Source Transport Research Lab)

In 2010 72% of drivers admitted to breaking the speed limit in 30mph zones by going over 35mph.

Surely we would be better off enforcing existing speed limits before putting an even bigger strain on our police? That's the problem for me, not ordinary drivers driving between 20 and 30mph.

One other little aside. Councils seem to be raising money from dubious means such as parking (26% increase last year for WBC) and things like litter fines (see links below). Could this be another part of the fundraising jigsaw by making more "criminals" to pay fines? How long will it be before Watford is in partnership with private speed enforcement agencies levying fines on drivers doing over 20mph on our roads?

Big Brother?

http://www.trl.co.uk
/trl-news-hub/transp
ort-news/latest-tran
sport-news/drivers-w
ant-speed-limits-low
ered_800076187.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-england-lon
don-21200058

http://www.thisismon
ey.co.uk/money/cars/
article-2259588/How-
did-Council-make-par
king-fees-2011-12.ht
ml

The fact that all councillors agreed with the proposal only goes to prove the kind of pseudo-moralistic pressure such an idea generates. Some of them almost certainly knew that the county council would never implement it so they could vote for the idea safe in the knowledge that the county council alone has the power to implement it - and wouldn't.
In some cases, it was a case of good old-fashioned "Mom and apple pie" politics, as they say in the USA, combined with a cynical degree of calculation that they would not be held financially or politically responsible for any such measures being adopted.
After the Woodmere Avenue fiasco, this is hardly surprising, as no one in their right mind would want to go through all that malarkey again.
Yet, amazingly, there are still people who never learn: the ones advocating the introduction of a scheme which will never be introduced.
All the posing and posturing that goes with it are positively nauseating, don't you think?

For the record, I agree completely with lowered speeds on residential roads, and there is no way to argue that it helps save lives, reduces injuries and generally improves the standard of living. BUT, I don't agree with speed humps etc because of the bone jarring, car damaging, road destroying nature of these things. I don't agree with a council that is strapped for cash (although looking at WBC's record of spends on stupid projects you;d be forgiven for thinking otherwise) spending yet more dosh on a survey about a project which isn't backed by the highway authority. I don't believe that Hert's County Council could be trusted to implement the scheme sensibly anyway. I don't believe that the police can afford to enforce the limit.
So, this one goes into the box labelled wishful thinking along with all the other impractical and un-cost-effective things.

John Dowdle wrote:
Wacko Jacko seems like a true fascist. He must be a closet Nazi. He is determined that we will all live according to his strictures. Adolf Hitler or his Propaganda Minister Goebbels could not make it any clearer for him.
This is another paltry excuse to try and rule over the lives of other individuals.
This sort of mindset is truly frightening.
We all know what the outcome was of encouraging individuals like him before.

John, perhaps you should take a little lie down and look after your blood pressure. The way you're carrying on you're likely to give yourself a seizure. Let's try to keep the debate rational and avoid offensive name-calling. If you have something worthwhile to say, all you have to do is back it up with some evidence. Tough, because you don't have any.

Wacko Jacko wrote:

John Dowdle wrote:
Wacko Jacko seems like a true fascist. He must be a closet Nazi. He is determined that we will all live according to his strictures. Adolf Hitler or his Propaganda Minister Goebbels could not make it any clearer for him.
This is another paltry excuse to try and rule over the lives of other individuals.
This sort of mindset is truly frightening.
We all know what the outcome was of encouraging individuals like him before.

John, perhaps you should take a little lie down and look after your blood pressure. The way you're carrying on you're likely to give yourself a seizure. Let's try to keep the debate rational and avoid offensive name-calling. If you have something worthwhile to say, all you have to do is back it up with some evidence. Tough, because you don't have any.

If Fascist and Nazi are not the correct terms what would you suggest is the correct term Wacky?

It is truly frightening when our politicians try to force a certain style of behaviour on its citizens and influence/control their thought processes and lives.

Sinister.

Names like Wacko Jacko or Waccy Baccy raise the prospect that no one should take the slightest notice of them.
Why should anyone extend credibility to someone posing under a stupid name?
Poseurs like Wacko Jacko do not deserve to be taken at all seriously if they are incapable of commenting under their own true identity.
You are a false wo/man putting forward statements which are equally false.
It really is that simple.

Peter, I appreciate the references you have supplied and it will take me quite a while to go through them. I will give my analysis on each as I have time to read them.

On a first read through, the Kingston upon Hull figures look impressive. Over the seven year period they seem to have outperformed the national average for reducing injuries, although it is impossible to compare like for like as for some inexplicable reason the national figures only cover six years making whilst the Hull figures are over seven – thus letting them report a higher percentage change that makes their results look better than they are. Very naughty!!

It is also unclear exactly what changes were responsible for the reductions in injuries since there is no breakdown of the figures that matches changes made with effect on accident frequency. What can be seen immediately though is that they implemented not just 20mph zones with a few signposts but installed aggressive traffic calming measures.
This is confirmed by the two paragraphs below as from the report…
“It is estimated that at the end of 1999, 390 injury accidents had been prevented within the 20 mph zones which had been previously installed. 122 of these would have involved injuries to children.
The reason for these reductions is simply because of the reductions in average vehicle speeds which 20 mph zones enforce through their engineering measures. For example, road hump schemes typically see reductions in speed from the high 20's to around 17 mph.”
This is a completely different ballgame to what is being proposed for Watford. To get the same measurable effect as Hull we would need to follow the whole plan through with road humps all over areas such as Cassiobury. Even then, we can see from the figures that nationally injuries have been falling anyway. Roads have been getting safer. I guess they have been getting safer in Watford as well and if the national trend has continued since 2001 when Hull reported, then the streets of Watford, like the rest of the UK have never been safer. It becomes increasingly difficult (and expensive) to reduce accidents even further once you get below a certain figure.
What is also missing from the data is whether new measures were put in place on just 20mph zones or whether other traffic areas, such as main roads or junction were targeted by adding speed cameras; schools entrances by installing railings and parking restrictions etc. This could have a big effect if black spots were also being targeted, yet all the accident figures are bundled in together regardless of location.
Finally, we cannot see from the figures the actual accident figures on the 20mph roads before and after humps etc. were installed. That would have been very instructive, but without this information it still leaves very many questions to be answered on the true effectiveness of traffic calming enforced speed reduction.
So overall, whilst this study is certainly worth a look, it is also clear that they have considerably talked up the success whilst leaving many holes (potholes?) in the argument.

What is clear though is that the Hull approach used a vast amount of money to install traffic calming measures to enforce the 20mph zones and possibly at black spot areas. In that vein, it does not support the proposal being put forward for Watford as it is a vastly different beast by comparison.

Many people post under false names and I would not criticise that too strongly.

I do believe however that elected councillors like Sharpe and others should only post under their real names.

The reason not to take seriously the postings of people like Wacko are not because of the false name but because of the lack of quality argument in their posts. Judge them by what they say, people will make up their own minds easily enough.

Clarkie never argued well, he even lied and he was a leading LibDem councillor it seems. I would not be at all surprised if other councillors were on here doing exactly the same. Wacko may well be one of them although I would hope our councillors weren't really that weak although I suspect some are.

Peter,

if speed limits are reduced from 30mph to 20mph could you explain the mathematics of how a 15 minute journey is only increased by 1 minute?

If this were a school maths question the answer would not come out at anything like 1 minute. I'd like to know how you get to this answer.

I look forward to your reply.

Meanwhile back in the real world there are those of us whose hearts leap into our mouths whenever thoughtless drivers whizz past our kids. Do I want to drive at 20mph? No. But would I be in favour of a lower limit if it meant some people calmed their speeds a bit? Yes. Probably.

Tara1978 wrote:
Meanwhile back in the real world there are those of us whose hearts leap into our mouths whenever thoughtless drivers whizz past our kids. Do I want to drive at 20mph? No. But would I be in favour of a lower limit if it meant some people calmed their speeds a bit? Yes. Probably.

I quite agree with you about dangerous drivers.

What about a compromise where we get people to obey the current speed limit of a maximum of 30mph?

That would suit me.

If people drive over 30mph, what chance is there of them turning into law-abiding citizens and driving at under 20mph? Not much I would guess.

Tara1978 wrote:
Meanwhile back in the real world there are those of us whose hearts leap into our mouths whenever thoughtless drivers whizz past our kids. Do I want to drive at 20mph? No. But would I be in favour of a lower limit if it meant some people calmed their speeds a bit? Yes. Probably.

Nice straightforward post, Tara.

Your point about children and speeding cars I find particularly poignant.

Over 40 years ago, a few days before the Christmas holiday, 13 year old Angela Downey was killed outside my school in Pinner. She ran into the road as she left school straight into the path of a speeding GPO van. She died a few days later. Her death affected the whole school deeply and left a profound effect on me, even though I did not know the girl personally. Not a Christmas has gone by that I haven’t thought of Angela and her family. It has shaped my attitude to road safety and ever since and I have ever paid particular attention to road safety schemes.

You cannot imagine how upset I felt when history repeated itself and while I was a governor at Laurance Haines School in 1998, little Ryan Moorhead was tragically killed outside the school. The governors and parents had been asking for traffic calming measures because we could all see what a dangerous junction the school entrance was. Sadly, it took the loss of a little boy’s life before anything was done. (Archive: http://www.watfordob
server.co.uk/archive
/1998/09/12/Hertford
shire+Archive/577935
6.Child_death_highli
ghts_safety_issue/ )

You may ask why I raise these tragedies now when all my previous posts appear unemotional and focussed on technical detail?

The answer is because of the past that what I want more than anything is EFFECTIVE road safety measures.

The ‘twenty’s plenty’ campaign is well meaning, of course it is, but using scarce money in a blanket approach will not protect children and, for reasons I have already stated, may even put them more at risk. Just putting up 20mph signs will not create safer drivers. It will not stop idiots who speed.

The two tragic incidents highlight the need to concentrate money on known dangerous areas and to use physical methods to make these places safer. The Laurance Haines School entrance is now vastly safer thanks to measures since taken and the chances of another tragic accident is considerably reduced. That shows how important it is for councillors to focus on high risk areas rather than waste money on a scattergun approach.

Peter Jefree, if you are still reading this topic, can I suggest an alternative use for the money if you have cash to spare on road safety? Why don’t we look at the cost of installing Average Speed cameras to cover roads 100 yards either side of every school entrance. We could set the maximum speed to be TEN miles an hour. That would provide massive protection for children entering and leaving school – the place where most injuries to children occur. It may take several years to implement, but the riskiest schools could be protected first.

Such a scheme I would happily back tomorrow Peter, and we could agree for none of us to make political capital out of it. I would be more than willing to work with you on trying to get it implemented. It could be ground breaking and it would certainly save many children if it eventually was implemented country wide. Thoughts?

Tara1978 wrote:
Meanwhile back in the real world there are those of us whose hearts leap into our mouths whenever thoughtless drivers whizz past our kids. Do I want to drive at 20mph? No. But would I be in favour of a lower limit if it meant some people calmed their speeds a bit? Yes. Probably.

But that's the whole point! If I see kids in a 30 mph zone then I slow down in case they run out. The 'thoughtless' drivers you mention won't do 20 in a 20 zone anyway, so what is the gain?
I have no problem at all driving at 20 past a school etc, but I don't need to be told that.
I have little idea how to make our roads safer, but flag waving schemes and just throwing money at it is not the best way.

MarsLander wrote:
Peter,

if speed limits are reduced from 30mph to 20mph could you explain the mathematics of how a 15 minute journey is only increased by 1 minute?

If this were a school maths question the answer would not come out at anything like 1 minute. I'd like to know how you get to this answer.

I look forward to your reply.

Obviously if you are able to drive along a stretch of straight residential road at a constant 30mph, your journey time will be one third shorter than doing the same distance at a constant 20mph. However in Watford there isn't anywhere you can actually drive for 15 minutes at a constant 30 around residential roads without having to make some sort of manoevre which would reduce your speed. So in real world journeys around built-up residential areas where you need to take into account starting off, stopping, negotiating corners, waiting at junctions, lights,crossings etc. etc. journey times within a 30 limit take significantly longer than the same journey would be at a constant 30. What practical tests demonstrate is that reducing the maximum legal speed along the journey to 30 only affects those parts of the journey where you would be able to travel at between 20 and 30 mph.
Obviously the actual difference in journey time you experience would vary depending on the particular journey, but the point is that on average, short journeys in residential areas take very little longer in a 20 limit than they would in a 30.
I trust you understand the logic, but if you doubt it, why not try it out for yourself?

Peter: as you have so ably demonstrated above, no one - in reality - ever drives constantly at 30 mph in a residential 30 mph zone.
Indeed, it could well be that the average speed is just 20 mph. Therefore, a specific 20 mph zone is unnecessary and unwanted - don't you agree? - as it is already - in real terms - in existence, and the cost and disruption of introducing an artificial speed restriction zone is not needed.

D_Penn wrote:

Tara1978 wrote:
Meanwhile back in the real world there are those of us whose hearts leap into our mouths whenever thoughtless drivers whizz past our kids. Do I want to drive at 20mph? No. But would I be in favour of a lower limit if it meant some people calmed their speeds a bit? Yes. Probably.

Nice straightforward post, Tara.

Your point about children and speeding cars I find particularly poignant.

Over 40 years ago, a few days before the Christmas holiday, 13 year old Angela Downey was killed outside my school in Pinner. She ran into the road as she left school straight into the path of a speeding GPO van. She died a few days later. Her death affected the whole school deeply and left a profound effect on me, even though I did not know the girl personally. Not a Christmas has gone by that I haven’t thought of Angela and her family. It has shaped my attitude to road safety and ever since and I have ever paid particular attention to road safety schemes.

You cannot imagine how upset I felt when history repeated itself and while I was a governor at Laurance Haines School in 1998, little Ryan Moorhead was tragically killed outside the school. The governors and parents had been asking for traffic calming measures because we could all see what a dangerous junction the school entrance was. Sadly, it took the loss of a little boy’s life before anything was done. (Archive: http://www.watfordob

server.co.uk/archive

/1998/09/12/Hertford

shire+Archive/577935

6.Child_death_highli

ghts_safety_issue/ )

You may ask why I raise these tragedies now when all my previous posts appear unemotional and focussed on technical detail?

The answer is because of the past that what I want more than anything is EFFECTIVE road safety measures.

The ‘twenty’s plenty’ campaign is well meaning, of course it is, but using scarce money in a blanket approach will not protect children and, for reasons I have already stated, may even put them more at risk. Just putting up 20mph signs will not create safer drivers. It will not stop idiots who speed.

The two tragic incidents highlight the need to concentrate money on known dangerous areas and to use physical methods to make these places safer. The Laurance Haines School entrance is now vastly safer thanks to measures since taken and the chances of another tragic accident is considerably reduced. That shows how important it is for councillors to focus on high risk areas rather than waste money on a scattergun approach.

Peter Jefree, if you are still reading this topic, can I suggest an alternative use for the money if you have cash to spare on road safety? Why don’t we look at the cost of installing Average Speed cameras to cover roads 100 yards either side of every school entrance. We could set the maximum speed to be TEN miles an hour. That would provide massive protection for children entering and leaving school – the place where most injuries to children occur. It may take several years to implement, but the riskiest schools could be protected first.

Such a scheme I would happily back tomorrow Peter, and we could agree for none of us to make political capital out of it. I would be more than willing to work with you on trying to get it implemented. It could be ground breaking and it would certainly save many children if it eventually was implemented country wide. Thoughts?

D_Penn, yes I'm still reading, and thank you for your thoughtful and though provoking post. You make a very good point about schools. I'm aware of speed cameras along Gammons Lane which enforce the 30 limit near to Orchard and Beechfield schools but like you I would prefer that these were enforcing a lower limit than 30 given the real danger of through traffic at these points, however I would suggest 20 is more realistic target than 10 for these roads, knowing HCC's reluctance to address these issues.
I haven't visited all the schools in Watford (although I have written to them all on the topic of 20 speed limits) but I know of several which have no active speed controls along their access roads at all.
My view would be that active enforcement measures and/or physical traffic calming measures are needed outside all schools.
This does not alter my views that in primarily residential roads 20 should become the default speed limit. A key consideration for me is making all roads safer for school children on their way from home to school whether on foot or by bike or scooter, not just to concentrate on the immediate area outside the school entrance.
I think it should be a case of both-and rather than either-or.

John Dowdle wrote:
Peter: as you have so ably demonstrated above, no one - in reality - ever drives constantly at 30 mph in a residential 30 mph zone.
Indeed, it could well be that the average speed is just 20 mph. Therefore, a specific 20 mph zone is unnecessary and unwanted - don't you agree? - as it is already - in real terms - in existence, and the cost and disruption of introducing an artificial speed restriction zone is not needed.

John, not entirely. Speed limits are about limiting maximum speeds, not setting average speeds. I have an example of a local residential road where speeds have been recorded in excess of 60mph whilst the average speed measured in that road is around 23-24mph. The point of 20 limits is to help bring down the maximum speeds to a safer and more socially acceptable level. What my example demonstrates is that limiting the maximum speed increases safety for all whilst having only a small disadvantage in terms of average journey times.

Peter Jeffree wrote:

MarsLander wrote:
Peter,

if speed limits are reduced from 30mph to 20mph could you explain the mathematics of how a 15 minute journey is only increased by 1 minute?

If this were a school maths question the answer would not come out at anything like 1 minute. I'd like to know how you get to this answer.

I look forward to your reply.

Obviously if you are able to drive along a stretch of straight residential road at a constant 30mph, your journey time will be one third shorter than doing the same distance at a constant 20mph. However in Watford there isn't anywhere you can actually drive for 15 minutes at a constant 30 around residential roads without having to make some sort of manoevre which would reduce your speed. So in real world journeys around built-up residential areas where you need to take into account starting off, stopping, negotiating corners, waiting at junctions, lights,crossings etc. etc. journey times within a 30 limit take significantly longer than the same journey would be at a constant 30. What practical tests demonstrate is that reducing the maximum legal speed along the journey to 30 only affects those parts of the journey where you would be able to travel at between 20 and 30 mph.
Obviously the actual difference in journey time you experience would vary depending on the particular journey, but the point is that on average, short journeys in residential areas take very little longer in a 20 limit than they would in a 30.
I trust you understand the logic, but if you doubt it, why not try it out for yourself?

Peter,

that's not the same as we were told by Kevin (?) from 20's plenty when he gave his presentation to UKIP.

He told us that average 15 minute journey times were increased by only 1 minute because traffic left the 20mph zone a.s.a.p. and went onto the 30mph roads and then only re-entered the 20mph zone near the end of the journey.

Were you aware of that explanation?

I tend to agree with the need for traffic control in the vicinity of schools; and I add the fact that the most dangerous part of any journey is at the beginning and end of the journey, which applies equally to young children walking.
I recall reading in the WO that HCC were planning to phase out paid lollipop ladies and men. Have they done this?
If they have, what has the result been?
Surely, it would be better to focus on this aspect of personal safety for school children, rather than waste time and money on trying to persuade HCC to implement something they have already said they will not implement?
Something else that could be done is to review the situation at all school gates, i.e. what physical barriers do they have in place to avoid a similar event to that described by D Penn earlier?

The most dangerous thing around the school gates isn't speed, although of course the slower the better, but idiotic selfish parents parking on the zig-zags and pavements, throwing open doors without looking and then doing a 3 point turn in a busy road in the rush hour.

This has been a problem for many years but doesn't seem to have been addressed or enforced; so if we can't even stop the danger at the school gates, how the crivens would you enforce it Town-wide? Especially as said above, lollipop staff are being cut, and the PCC announced plans to cut 60 front line police!

Cameras don't work if they work; ie, if everyone obeyed them, then they don't pay for themselves and I don't want my taxes spent on one of the few remaining coppers standing there on a deserted street with a RADAR nicking people doing 23mph.

PhilCox wrote:

Peter Jeffree wrote:

MarsLander wrote:
Peter,

if speed limits are reduced from 30mph to 20mph could you explain the mathematics of how a 15 minute journey is only increased by 1 minute?

If this were a school maths question the answer would not come out at anything like 1 minute. I'd like to know how you get to this answer.

I look forward to your reply.

Obviously if you are able to drive along a stretch of straight residential road at a constant 30mph, your journey time will be one third shorter than doing the same distance at a constant 20mph. However in Watford there isn't anywhere you can actually drive for 15 minutes at a constant 30 around residential roads without having to make some sort of manoevre which would reduce your speed. So in real world journeys around built-up residential areas where you need to take into account starting off, stopping, negotiating corners, waiting at junctions, lights,crossings etc. etc. journey times within a 30 limit take significantly longer than the same journey would be at a constant 30. What practical tests demonstrate is that reducing the maximum legal speed along the journey to 30 only affects those parts of the journey where you would be able to travel at between 20 and 30 mph.
Obviously the actual difference in journey time you experience would vary depending on the particular journey, but the point is that on average, short journeys in residential areas take very little longer in a 20 limit than they would in a 30.
I trust you understand the logic, but if you doubt it, why not try it out for yourself?

Peter,

that's not the same as we were told by Kevin (?) from 20's plenty when he gave his presentation to UKIP.

He told us that average 15 minute journey times were increased by only 1 minute because traffic left the 20mph zone a.s.a.p. and went onto the 30mph roads and then only re-entered the 20mph zone near the end of the journey.

Were you aware of that explanation?

Phil, can't say I was, what I wrote is based on my working assumption of comparing journeys entirely in a 30 limit against those entirely in a 20 limit. Clearly if journeys are in mixed speed limits the equation would be different. The point is that whatever your journey, travel time differences overall are slight between the two, the exact time difference is not important, and is entirely dependent on the actual journey undertaken.

LSC wrote:

Tara1978 wrote:
Meanwhile back in the real world there are those of us whose hearts leap into our mouths whenever thoughtless drivers whizz past our kids. Do I want to drive at 20mph? No. But would I be in favour of a lower limit if it meant some people calmed their speeds a bit? Yes. Probably.

But that's the whole point! If I see kids in a 30 mph zone then I slow down in case they run out. The 'thoughtless' drivers you mention won't do 20 in a 20 zone anyway, so what is the gain?
I have no problem at all driving at 20 past a school etc, but I don't need to be told that.
I have little idea how to make our roads safer, but flag waving schemes and just throwing money at it is not the best way.

I suppose what I am saying is that there are undoubtedly people who will always drive at whatever speed they want to and ignore all rules. Then there are those of us who know right from wrong, who will always slow at a school gate, and resent the idea that we need to be told how to drive. But I don't imagine the only people to cause accidents fall into the first category. Why I believe a 20mph limit would work to a certain extent at least is that, I often drive at 35-40 mph when I should be doing 30, and I drive 45-50 when I should be doing 40, so if I'm supposed to do 20 then i will most likely drive slower than I do now. And that's probably no bad thing. That's not to say I won't feel irritated by imposed new limits! So long as they're only on residential roads!

Tara,

words (almost) fail me.

Because you personally break the speed limit you think that a lower speed limit, imposed on everyone, will reduce your speeding from 35-40 to 25-30. Maybe it would, but the logic is quite twisted.

Have you ever considered just sticking within the existing speed limits of 30mph?

I'm afraid, at the risk of sounding insulting, that's the most stupid justification for a 20mph limit I could imagine.

If you have too much trouble you can always send your licence back to the DVLA explaining why it is no longer appropriate for you to hold it.

I'd rather we didn't have 20mph limits but that we tried to catch drivers like you and ban them.

I have reached the point where I am finding this debate boring and stupid. My final comment is to ask those individuals who seem to be in favour of poseur politics: "How do you feel about spending £50,000 of your own money on this pointless empty exercise?"
Any offers from you guys?

I will not waste one penny of my own money on this.

I hope Dotty sees sense and takes the same stance. (Fat chance)

Maybe my logic is twisted but I don't imagine I'm the only person who generally adheres to laws yet will push boundaries a little. It's human nature. We like to break rules, but only a little. Or maybe you are right and I should immediately fess up to the DVLA as you suggest. One for me to ponder, much as our mayor is pondering the feasibility study!!

Peter Jeffree wrote:

PhilCox wrote:

Peter Jeffree wrote:

MarsLander wrote:
Peter,

if speed limits are reduced from 30mph to 20mph could you explain the mathematics of how a 15 minute journey is only increased by 1 minute?

If this were a school maths question the answer would not come out at anything like 1 minute. I'd like to know how you get to this answer.

I look forward to your reply.

Obviously if you are able to drive along a stretch of straight residential road at a constant 30mph, your journey time will be one third shorter than doing the same distance at a constant 20mph. However in Watford there isn't anywhere you can actually drive for 15 minutes at a constant 30 around residential roads without having to make some sort of manoevre which would reduce your speed. So in real world journeys around built-up residential areas where you need to take into account starting off, stopping, negotiating corners, waiting at junctions, lights,crossings etc. etc. journey times within a 30 limit take significantly longer than the same journey would be at a constant 30. What practical tests demonstrate is that reducing the maximum legal speed along the journey to 30 only affects those parts of the journey where you would be able to travel at between 20 and 30 mph.
Obviously the actual difference in journey time you experience would vary depending on the particular journey, but the point is that on average, short journeys in residential areas take very little longer in a 20 limit than they would in a 30.
I trust you understand the logic, but if you doubt it, why not try it out for yourself?

Peter,

that's not the same as we were told by Kevin (?) from 20's plenty when he gave his presentation to UKIP.

He told us that average 15 minute journey times were increased by only 1 minute because traffic left the 20mph zone a.s.a.p. and went onto the 30mph roads and then only re-entered the 20mph zone near the end of the journey.

Were you aware of that explanation?

Phil, can't say I was, what I wrote is based on my working assumption of comparing journeys entirely in a 30 limit against those entirely in a 20 limit. Clearly if journeys are in mixed speed limits the equation would be different. The point is that whatever your journey, travel time differences overall are slight between the two, the exact time difference is not important, and is entirely dependent on the actual journey undertaken.

Sorry for this long post but I believe it raises some important issues.

Peter,

you should have been aware of the basis for the claims that 20's Plenty made to you. After all, you are now proposing spending large amounts of taxpayers money based upon these claims.

If you are not able to accurately quote the basis upon which you make a claim for the benefits of 20’s Plenty, instead using your own (made up) working assumptions, then what faith can we, the public, have that the council has given proper scrutiny to the claims made by 20’s Plenty and the related policies adopted by the council?

This is our council tax you will be spending, a quite substantial amount no less, and the taxpayers of Watford would like to think that it is being spent wisely by our elected councillors.

When 20’s Plenty presented to UKIP last year we asked questions about how their figures and claims had been arrived at. The presenter was unable to satisfactorily or at all answer a great many of those questions. We had conducted some prior research on the claims regularly made by 20’s Plenty and there had been much discussion in the local press prior to that presentation.

At the end of the meeting our impression was that the claims made by 20's Plenty and repeated above by you were not able to be substantiated by the data and that in many cases the claims were based upon spurious baselines and painted in the most favourable light possible by and for the pressure group 20’s Plenty. In other words, the underlying basis upon which the claims were made, in the cases where there was a basis for them, was quite a biased reading of events. As such, we believed 20’s Plenty lacked credibility on the claims they made.

We would all like a greener country and safer roads, I believe that is true of all political parties and sensible-minded people. We would even be prepared to spend our money where the benefits would be cost-effective and worthwhile. 20’s Plenty is unfortunately not that scheme. It makes attractive claims but in reality it will not deliver them - the basis upon which those claims are made is skewed from what I would call “real world” motoring.

I would therefore urge you to think again about supporting Mrs Thornhill’s push towards implementing a 20mph limit in Watford. If the underlying basis of the claims, however superficially attractive, does not stack up and the claimed benefits are not likely to be delivered, then why spend our taxes on it?

Phil, we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
My support for the 20's Plenty movement stems from a whole range of things: my own personal experiences as a driver and also as a motorcyclist, pedal cyclist and pedestrian; my safety concerns as a grandparent, my observations of the behaviour of other road users; plus the recommendations in the latest DfT circular; the road research data (some of which I've already quoted to you); the experience of other towns where 20 limits have been adopted and last but not least the information which is available about driver reaction times and stopping distances at different speeds plus the simple medical facts about the severity of injuries sustained in accidents at different vehicle speeds.
You stress costs, but when looking at the costs of road safety measures you must also to look at the cost benefits. Road traffic accidents come at a substantial cost to the taxpayer. I've heard it said that the cost of a typical road fatality is around £1m. Whether that figure is correct or not is no doubt debatable and no-doubt someone out there can give the exact figure, but it will be clear to anyone with good sense that the cost of emergency services action following a fatality or other serious traffic accident plus the clear up, hospital, investigation, disruption costs etc etc will be very substantial.
You might be interested to learn that in Liverpool the local health authority contributed substantial amounts to the cost of their 20mph limit scheme as they recognised the benefits it would bring in reduced numbers of road traffic accidents.
I believe the relatively small cost of doing some research on speed limits in Watford and implementing a 20 limit in residential areas would be far outweighed by savings to the taxpayer.
Today's Watford Observer carries stories of a four car accident in Kings Langley and a female pedestrian knocked down in Watford, and I spoke just this morning to local resident who witnessed a fatal accident in the residential road outside his house, so don't for a moment imagine it can't happen round here.
I don't expect 20 limits to be a cure-all for the everything dangerous that happens on roads, but I do see it as an important step in the direction of lowering average speeds, the frequency and severity of accidents and making our residential roads safer for non-motorised road users.

Just quickly Peter, you will of course acknowledge that the A41 in Kings Langley where the 4-car crash happened will not be covered by a 20'sPlenty scheme, being a main road.

There is some confusion about where the unfortunate woman was knocked over in Watford. Rickmansworth Road would not be changed whereas Cassiobury Park Avenue might be.

If this poor woman was knocked over in Rickmansworth Road then the 20mph scheme would not have made any difference. Without knowledge of how fast the car hitting her was going it is difficult to say whether your scheme would have made any difference to the likelihood or severity of such as accident. Regardless of the location I am sure everybody wishes her a good and speedy recovery.

This takes me back to the point that almost all serious accidents involving motor vehicles occur on main roads that will not be covered by 20's Plenty 20mph scheme. The scheme would therefore make little if any difference to the number and severity of accidents happening on Watford side roads as so few serious accidents happen there anyway.

Looking at the statistics, there are very few serious accidents in residential roads in Watford. As the main roads will not be changed it is difficult to see a meaningful reduction in accidents in Watford as a result of 20's plenty, so we would be spending out on the scheme but not necessarily recouping any costs at all through reduced accidents.

Liverpool may have its own traffic problems and maybe the scheme worked differently there, but Watford is already a safe town as far as accidents go on the residential side roads where 20mph would be introduced.

We would be far better off getting bad and speeding drivers off our streets by enforcing the existing laws.

There are women who put on make-up while driving, there are people who drink and drive, there are people who take drugs and drive, there are those with bad eyesight who drive and there are those who speed and race along our streets. We should remove these drivers first and then see if there still is a problem.

Phil, you are right to say that our the 20mph proposal is only intended to apply to residential roads other than main roads, but one of the main reasons for commissioning a study would be to determine exactly which roads the limits might apply to and which would be exempt in order to come up with a scheme which works for Watford.
On the topic of busy main roads, I came across this example of innovative ways of dealing with trffic calming which might interest you: https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=-vzDDMzq
7d0&feature=player_e
mbedded
This sort of thing may begin to gain some traction in other towns where traffic on main roads needs to be made safer. There are several examples of 'shared surface' schemes based on these principles already in operation in London - e.g. parts of Sloane Square and Exhibition Road in Chelsea and Kensington
Going back to 20 limits, the Economist has an interesting review here which is worth a read: http://www.economist
.com/news/britain/21
571200-stringent-res
trictions-are-coming
-road-near-you-slowi
ng-britain
I don't disagree with you about the issue of people driving under the influence of drink and /or drugs and using 'phones etc. but for me it's a case of both-and rather than either-or