Campaign for 20mph Watford backed by politicians (From Watford Observer)

Whoah!

What's the point of 20mph if people don't even keep close to 30mph, the current limit?

What we need is enforcement of the 30, not another speed limit to be ignored by boy (and adult) racers.

30 is fine, it just needs enforcing. Some people will do 40 or 50 in a 30, and those are the people that need targeting, not those doing 30 or 31mph.

Namby Pamby again from the green and Liberal council.

Cars are designed to do 30.Roads are designed for 30. If the Lib Dems and Greens can't drive safely at 30, well that's their problem. I (and many others, I am sure - in fact the vast majority) have driven at 30 for so many years and never had an accident. For me there is no problem, why does the council therefore feel the need to bring in a solution?

Have they nothing better to do than tell us how to run our lives, how to put out waste, how to recycle and now, how to drive safely?

Get back in the depot Dorothy and empty the bins. THAT'S your job. When I need someone to control my mind, I'll give you a ring. Until then, mind your own business.

Oh, and by the way, signs don't print and change themselves, it will cost money that we can ill afford, or haven't you heard there's a recession on?

Let us know the number of road deaths in the designated areas over the last ten years. Has there been a steady increase.......no. Thought not.

20mph fine why all the big rush all the time - chillout!

Please no more speed humps. So many of them are poorly designed/ constructed and they can't be doing our cars any good even when we drive over them at the correct speed.

No more chicanes the 3 succesive ones in Nascot Wood must have been designed by a blind 3rd degree Town planning student at some Poly in Stoke who'd never been to Watford!!

Speed dose not kill bad driving dose.The dangers on side roads come from poor driver habits like idiotic parking,pulling out without looking and a lack of concentration.

For Gods sakes 20mph is crawling pace! Speed restrictions like humps and chicane actual cause more emissions due slowing and accelerating! Give it a rest Watford council and do someothing useful for once!!!!

this is a good thing...

So long as they remove all the stupid speed bumps, chicanes and the rest.

this is bad thing...

More costly signage and more blanket attacks on drivers when the majority of drivers are perfectly responsible - why should we all be punished when it's only the minority who speed and cause accidents? Target them instead.

On the other hand, at certain times of day, Watford already grinds to a halt because of over-development...t
oo many houses/flats = too many cars = more potential for accidents. It's a simple equation that the council have been ignoring for years.

If a speed limit is going to be imposed, at least make it realistic, and then enforce it. 20 m.p.h. is too slow and will just be ignored.

Can we all have a man with a little flag to walk in front please ?
_____
| 20 |
|_____|
||
||

Leave the bloody Motorists alone we've had enough of this rubbish now!

Reg Edit wrote:
Whoah! What's the point of 20mph if people don't even keep close to 30mph, the current limit? What we need is enforcement of the 30, not another speed limit to be ignored by boy (and adult) racers. 30 is fine, it just needs enforcing. Some people will do 40 or 50 in a 30, and those are the people that need targeting, not those doing 30 or 31mph. Namby Pamby again from the green and Liberal council. Cars are designed to do 30.Roads are designed for 30. If the Lib Dems and Greens can't drive safely at 30, well that's their problem. I (and many others, I am sure - in fact the vast majority) have driven at 30 for so many years and never had an accident. For me there is no problem, why does the council therefore feel the need to bring in a solution? Have they nothing better to do than tell us how to run our lives, how to put out waste, how to recycle and now, how to drive safely? Get back in the depot Dorothy and empty the bins. THAT'S your job. When I need someone to control my mind, I'll give you a ring. Until then, mind your own business. Oh, and by the way, signs don't print and change themselves, it will cost money that we can ill afford, or haven't you heard there's a recession on?

"Cars are designed to do 30"??? What nonsense! If you look at your speedo you'll see it goes up to well over 100 - but the speed limit is still 70.
"Roads are designed for 30" - more nonsense. The road I live on, like countless other roads in Watford, is a Victorian terrace. It was designed for pedestrians and horses & carts!
Maybe Reg is a Top Gear fan who thinks speed limits are for cissies and women.

The problem with vertical speed controllers (i.e. humps, cushions) is that the vibrations will eventually cause a lot of damage to properties, the vehicles, the roads, the footways etc. especially in town where the structures are built so close to the carriageway, not to mention being a nuisance for emergency services, refuse collections and the like.

20mph zones are not a bad thing but they do have their flaws.

I'm more in favour of visual speed reductors such as cycle lanes, kerb-side lining to narrow the psychological driving space and even removing centre lines. People feel safe going fast with a centre line, as in today's blame culture can always argue "well I was on my side of the road".

These councillors are supposed to represent us! How about if they actually took the trouble to find out what the majority of Watford people actually want for a change rather than assuming that they know what's best. I'm sure the majority of Watford people don't want to drive at ridiculous and frustratingly slow speed for no reason whatsoever other than their say so. How about more road safety campaigns for pedestrians like there used to be and parents taking responsibility for teaching their kids not to run out into the road. Anyone remember the Green Cross code man?

You'll never please all of the people all of the time. There are people out there who are demanding the installation of road humps left right and centre, and others, like myself, who would be glad to see the back of these car breaking, back twisting, skip-lorry rattling menaces. Unfortunately, as soon as the humps go, there will be the odd fraction of a percent of motorists who will just roar around the place as fast as they can steer. These people are not good drivers. Good drivers are those who can control the speed of their vehicle!
I'm in favour of a blanket 20mph on side roads within the centre, providing that means that the vertical deflection stuff goes. However, there is a spot in Camden with one of these big 20 zones, and at 6am on a Sunday morning, it is hard to keep below 20 as the road is 40 foot wide and empty of everything but a few newspapers!

Jenny,

I am a very safe driver and have not had an accident, points or a conviction in over 30 years driving. Some of my friends and colleagues even think my driving is tame for refusing to speed on motorways, tailgate other cars or park in disabled spots outside motorway services. I would say I am one of the safer drivers on the roads and my record supports that.

I agree that SOME roads are not suitable for 30m.p.h. and so SOME roads could sensibly have their limits reduced. But is even that neccessary?

Sensible people would not do 30mph on these small roads - it's called common sense and we all have it to varying degrees. Maybe a change to the limit is just not required, maybe common sense will prevail as it probably does already. If there is a proven issue, then look at changing the limit in that road, otherwise why not just leave it alone?

There are other roads like on the Cassiobury (wide roads, wide pavements) where driving at 20 would just be silly.

As for cars, they drive more efficiently at 56mph than at 30, but more efficiently at 30 than at 20. That's what I meant, when cars are designed they are meant to run reasonably efficiently at 30, a common limit in the developed world.

The only time I have ever done more than 100mph was on a fairground ride and that's the way I like to leave it. Even though my speedo may go that high (I don't know, I haven't looked that far round) I doubt it could actually do it, but that's irrelevant.

The issue for road safety is to make drivers drive with common sense and within the law, within the existing 30mph limits. By all means target specific roads for 20mph where the case justifies it, but not all roads and all drivers. That's just nanny state gone mad. It's not justified and it's not needed. It's just the Liberals and Greens being nanny again.

If you want a 20mph limit on a dangerous road, speak to your councillor, see if it is a good idea and can be done. I see no issues at all. But don't change every road because some roads can't take 30, and don't penalise every driver because a few choose to speed, drink and drive like maniacs.

We can all live safely enough within the existing laws without the council spending all this money on something that nobody really wants.

Finally, just because people do not want to be nannied by the state does not mean they are lawbreakers and Jeremy Clarkson fans. What a warped little view of the world you hold and I wonder - Is it lonely on your planet? Take those chips off your shoulders and get a sense of humour.

BTW, Jeremy Clarkson is rather good at what he does, isn't he?

TRT wrote:
You'll never please all of the people all of the time. There are people out there who are demanding the installation of road humps left right and centre, and others, like myself, who would be glad to see the back of these car breaking, back twisting, skip-lorry rattling menaces. Unfortunately, as soon as the humps go, there will be the odd fraction of a percent of motorists who will just roar around the place as fast as they can steer. These people are not good drivers. Good drivers are those who can control the speed of their vehicle! I'm in favour of a blanket 20mph on side roads within the centre, providing that means that the vertical deflection stuff goes. However, there is a spot in Camden with one of these big 20 zones, and at 6am on a Sunday morning, it is hard to keep below 20 as the road is 40 foot wide and empty of everything but a few newspapers!

SO because of a teeny minority of idiot drivers we all get stitched up with this nanny state speed limit? I say to Dot Thronehill put that to the peoples vote! Sick of being told whats good for us when the evidence points the opposite way as with speed cameras and hums etc

Absolutely pointless even if it could be enforced; which it can't. How much is a speed camera these days? Or a copper with a RADAR gun?
You need a lot of them to cover every yard of every street.
If you think the speeding fines might finance them, then you are already admitting they don't work and you are back to square one!

Is there actually a problem in Watford with accidents in side roads?

Or is the council just introducing an expensive solution to a problem that we don't have?

The Nanny state is trying to take over all our lives. This is just another example.

We need more width restrictions like Woodmere Avenue.

Dorothy,

if it's such a good idea, ask the people, don't tell them.

Lets face it some main roads at most times of day you cant reach 20mph anyway, and on others especially narrow residential roads with cars parked either side going more than 20 could constitute driving without due care. Is this proposed new limit actually going to affect us that much? Maybe more at night but then a 20mph limit may help to reduce noise polution.

Just think, in years to come you will be able to tell your children and grandchildren of your derring-do by racing down these Watford roads at up to 30m.p.h. and they won't believe you. You will be the stuff of legend.

30m.p.h. is such a sensible speed limit.

It's been the minor roads speed limit since 1934.

And now, after 78 years of success, with cars and streets safer than ever, with improved street lighting and pavements, improved car braking systems and more reliable cars, more stringent driving tests, the Lib Dems and the greens (a.k.a nanny1 and nanny2), those masters of the nanny state, have decided enough is enough and you will be forced to drive at only 20m.p.h. on Watford side roads.

I'm sure if the greens get their way they will destroy driving altogether, and the Lib Dems will be right behind them saying how wonderful that is for Watford.

I'm sorry but I voted in the council elections in the hope someone might empty my bins once a week and sweep the leaves from the pavements, grit the roads, that sort of thing.

I didn't realise I was voting for a new nanny. Next time, I will be voting to remove nanny from my life.

It seems that the Liberal Democrat council, supported by the Greens and Conservatives all support this proposal. You will get this whether you agree with it or not. You can complain to your councillor but he/she has already publicly supported it. Once again, the political parties have conspired to give you, the electorate, no choice in the matter.

We at UKIP in Watford would like to raise the following points: We would like to inject a little common sense, objectivity and cost saving into the council thinking if we can.

1 Has the council done any surveys of the people of Watford to see if this is supported? Do the people of Watford actually want this change and do they think it an overwhelmingly good idea?
2 Has the Council done any work on how much a feasibility study would cost?
3 Has the council any idea of the cost of replacing all the speed signs that will be required around Watford?
4 Has Watford Council studied the facts of where and why RTAs (Road Traffic Accidents) happen on our roads? For instance,
a. Are side roads a real issue?
b. Are the existing laws enough to reduce the number of accidents that occur if they were properly enforced? We are thinking of law-breaking drink drivers and drivers who exceed the existing 30m.p.h. speed limit by driving at 40, 50 or even 60 m.p.h. on our 30m.p.h. roads? We remain unconvinced that a 20m.p.h. limit would be of any more significance to those drivers than a 30m.p.h. limit.

Before spending our money on feasibility studies and changing the signs and the law, we would like the council to do the following two things:

1 Ask the people of Watford whether they want it. UKIP policy would be to hold a referendum in Watford if such a policy was seriously considered for implementing. The least the council could do is to hold random statistically significant surveys of town residents.
2 If people want it, then find out whether it is needed – would it make a significant difference on the side streets of Watford?


Cars and roads work well at 30m.p.h.

The amount of accidents on side roads is low.

Why is there then a need to make this expensive and unnecessary change to our roads?

There is a pressure group “20’s plenty”. It campaigns for a 20m.p.h. limit on side roads. The Greens and Liberals seem to have jumped onto this bandwagon and are now determined to impose this on Watford. The 20’s Plenty website shows that the vast majority of serious accidents in Watford are clustered around main roads where this policy will have NO effect at all. There is no information on the details of each accident, whether drink or excessive speeding was involved.

Accidents happen. Accidents will always happen. Accidents are an unfortunate fact of life. Should we stop everyone in Watford from driving in a perfectly safe way at the nationally recognised speed limit, which is deemed overwhelmingly safe for use throughout the land, because a very small number of people have accidents? Most of these accidents are not on side roads, they are overwhelmingly on main roads where limits will not be changed.

This seems to be, on the face of what’s been written in this article in the W.O., a case of the local council coming up with another way of telling you how to run your lives. Another example of the Nanny State that cannot trust the people and so must tell them what to do or think. We in UKIP believe there is another way. If you agree, come and join us and help make the difference.

Details on our website.

BTW Well done W.O for holding a vote on these proposals on your website.

It seems that the Liberal Democrat council, supported by the Greens and Conservatives all support this proposal. You will get this whether you agree with it or not. You can complain to your councillor but he/she has already publicly supported it. Once again, the political parties have conspired to give you, the electorate, no choice in the matter.

We at UKIP in Watford would like to raise the following points: We would like to inject a little common sense, objectivity and cost saving into the council thinking if we can.

1 Has the council done any surveys of the people of Watford to see if this is supported? Do the people of Watford actually want this change and do they think it an overwhelmingly good idea?
2 Has the Council done any work on how much a feasibility study would cost?
3 Has the council any idea of the cost of replacing all the speed signs that will be required around Watford?
4 Has Watford Council studied the facts of where and why RTAs (Road Traffic Accidents) happen on our roads? For instance,
a. Are side roads a real issue?
b. Are the existing laws enough to reduce the number of accidents that occur if they were properly enforced? We are thinking of law-breaking drink drivers and drivers who exceed the existing 30m.p.h. speed limit by driving at 40, 50 or even 60 m.p.h. on our 30m.p.h. roads? We remain unconvinced that a 20m.p.h. limit would be of any more significance to those drivers than a 30m.p.h. limit.

Before spending our money on feasibility studies and changing the signs and the law, we would like the council to do the following two things:

1 Ask the people of Watford whether they want it. UKIP policy would be to hold a referendum in Watford if such a policy was seriously considered for implementing. The least the council could do is to hold random statistically significant surveys of town residents.
2 If people want it, then find out whether it is needed – would it make a significant difference on the side streets of Watford?


Cars and roads work well at 30m.p.h.

The amount of accidents on side roads is low.

Why is there then a need to make this expensive and unnecessary change to our roads?

There is a pressure group “20’s plenty”. It campaigns for a 20m.p.h. limit on side roads. The Greens and Liberals seem to have jumped onto this bandwagon and are now determined to impose this on Watford. The 20’s Plenty website shows that the vast majority of serious accidents in Watford are clustered around main roads where this policy will have NO effect at all. There is no information on the details of each accident, whether drink or excessive speeding was involved.

Accidents happen. Accidents will always happen. Accidents are an unfortunate fact of life. Should we stop everyone in Watford from driving in a perfectly safe way at the nationally recognised speed limit, which is deemed overwhelmingly safe for use throughout the land, because a very small number of people have accidents? Most of these accidents are not on side roads, they are overwhelmingly on main roads where limits will not be changed.

This seems to be, on the face of what’s been written in this article in the W.O., a case of the local council coming up with another way of telling you how to run your lives. Another example of the Nanny State that cannot trust the people and so must tell them what to do or think. We in UKIP believe there is another way. If you agree, come and join us and help make the difference.

Details on our website.

B.T.W. Well done Watford Observer for holding a vote on these proposals on your website.

It seems that the Liberal Democrat council, supported by the Greens and Conservatives all support this proposal. You will get this whether you agree with it or not. You can complain to your councillor but he/she has already publicly supported it. Once again, the political parties have conspired to give you, the electorate, no choice in the matter.

We at UKIP in Watford would like to raise the following points: We would like to inject a little common sense, objectivity and cost saving into the council thinking if we can.

1 Has the council done any surveys of the people of Watford to see if this is supported? Do the people of Watford actually want this change and do they think it an overwhelmingly good idea?
2 Has the Council done any work on how much a feasibility study would cost?
3 Has the council any idea of the cost of replacing all the speed signs that will be required around Watford?
4 Has Watford Council studied the facts of where and why RTAs (Road Traffic Accidents) happen on our roads? For instance,
a. Are side roads a real issue?
b. Are the existing laws enough to reduce the number of accidents that occur if they were properly enforced? We are thinking of law-breaking drink drivers and drivers who exceed the existing 30m.p.h. speed limit by driving at 40, 50 or even 60 m.p.h. on our 30m.p.h. roads? We remain unconvinced that a 20m.p.h. limit would be of any more significance to those drivers than a 30m.p.h. limit.

Before spending our money on feasibility studies and changing the signs and the law, we would like the council to do the following two things:

1 Ask the people of Watford whether they want it. UKIP policy would be to hold a referendum in Watford if such a policy was seriously considered for implementing. The least the council could do is to hold random statistically significant surveys of town residents.
2 If people want it, then find out whether it is needed – would it make a significant difference on the side streets of Watford?


Cars and roads work well at 30m.p.h.

The amount of accidents on side roads is low.

Why is there then a need to make this expensive and unnecessary change to our roads?

There is a pressure group “20’s plenty”. It campaigns for a 20m.p.h. limit on side roads. The Greens and Liberals seem to have jumped onto this bandwagon and are now determined to impose this on Watford. The 20’s Plenty website shows that the vast majority of serious accidents in Watford are clustered around main roads where this policy will have NO effect at all. There is no information on the details of each accident, whether drink or excessive speeding was involved.

Accidents happen. Accidents will always happen. Accidents are an unfortunate fact of life. Should we stop everyone in Watford from driving in a perfectly safe way at the nationally recognised speed limit, which is deemed overwhelmingly safe for use throughout the land, because a very small number of people have accidents? Most of these accidents are not on side roads, they are overwhelmingly on main roads where limits will not be changed.

This seems to be, on the face of what’s been written in this article in the W.O., a case of the local council coming up with another way of telling you how to run your lives. Another example of the Nanny State that cannot trust the people and so must tell them what to do or think. We in UKIP believe there is another way. If you agree, come and join us and help make the difference.

Details on our website.

B.T.W. Well done Watford Observer for holding a vote on these proposals on your website.

It seems that the Liberal Democrat council, supported by the Greens and Conservatives all support this proposal. You will get this whether you agree with it or not. You can complain to your councillor but he/she has already publicly supported it. Once again, the political parties have conspired to give you, the electorate, no choice in the matter.

We at UKIP in Watford would like to raise the following points: We would like to inject a little common sense, objectivity and cost saving into the council thinking if we can.

1 Has the council done any surveys of the people of Watford to see if this is supported? Do the people of Watford actually want this change and do they think it an overwhelmingly good idea?
2 Has the Council done any work on how much a feasibility study would cost?
3 Has the council any idea of the cost of replacing all the speed signs that will be required around Watford?
4 Has Watford Council studied the facts of where and why RTAs (Road Traffic Accidents) happen on our roads? For instance,
a. Are side roads a real issue?
b. Are the existing laws enough to reduce the number of accidents that occur if they were properly enforced? We are thinking of law-breaking drink drivers and drivers who exceed the existing 30m.p.h. speed limit by driving at 40, 50 or even 60 m.p.h. on our 30m.p.h. roads? We remain unconvinced that a 20m.p.h. limit would be of any more significance to those drivers than a 30m.p.h. limit.

Before spending our money on feasibility studies and changing the signs and the law, we would like the council to do the following two things:

1 Ask the people of Watford whether they want it. UKIP policy would be to hold a referendum in Watford if such a policy was seriously considered for implementing. The least the council could do is to hold random statistically significant surveys of town residents.
2 If people want it, then find out whether it is needed – would it make a significant difference on the side streets of Watford?


Cars and roads work well at 30m.p.h.

The amount of accidents on side roads is low.

Why is there then a need to make this expensive and unnecessary change to our roads?

There is a pressure group “20’s plenty”. It campaigns for a 20m.p.h. limit on side roads. The Greens and Liberals seem to have jumped onto this bandwagon and are now determined to impose this on Watford. The 20’s Plenty website shows that the vast majority of serious accidents in Watford are clustered around main roads where this policy will have NO effect at all. There is no information on the details of each accident, whether drink or excessive speeding was involved.

Accidents happen. Accidents will always happen. Accidents are an unfortunate fact of life. Should we stop everyone in Watford from driving in a perfectly safe way at the nationally recognised speed limit, which is deemed overwhelmingly safe for use throughout the land, because a very small number of people have accidents? Most of these accidents are not on side roads, they are overwhelmingly on main roads where limits will not be changed.

This seems to be, on the face of what’s been written in this article in the W.O., a case of the local council coming up with another way of telling you how to run your lives. Another example of the Nanny State that cannot trust the people and so must tell them what to do or think. We in UKIP believe there is another way. If you agree, come and join us and help make the difference.

Details on our website.

B.T.W. Well done Watford Observer for holding a vote on these proposals on your website.

It seems that the Liberal Democrat council, supported by the Greens and Conservatives all support this proposal. You will get this whether you agree with it or not. You can complain to your councillor but he/she has already publicly supported it. Once again, the political parties have conspired to give you, the electorate, no choice in the matter.

We at UKIP in Watford would like to raise the following points: We would like to inject a little common sense, objectivity and cost saving into the council thinking if we can.

1 Has the council done any surveys of the people of Watford to see if this is supported? Do the people of Watford actually want this change and do they think it an overwhelmingly good idea?
2 Has the Council done any work on how much a feasibility study would cost?
3 Has the council any idea of the cost of replacing all the speed signs that will be required around Watford?
4 Has Watford Council studied the facts of where and why RTAs (Road Traffic Accidents) happen on our roads? For instance,
a. Are side roads a real issue?
b. Are the existing laws enough to reduce the number of accidents that occur if they were properly enforced? We are thinking of law-breaking drink drivers and drivers who exceed the existing 30m.p.h. speed limit by driving at 40, 50 or even 60 m.p.h. on our 30m.p.h. roads? We remain unconvinced that a 20m.p.h. limit would be of any more significance to those drivers than a 30m.p.h. limit.

Before spending our money on feasibility studies and changing the signs and the law, we would like the council to do the following two things:

1 Ask the people of Watford whether they want it. UKIP policy would be to hold a referendum in Watford if such a policy was seriously considered for implementing. The least the council could do is to hold random statistically significant surveys of town residents.
2 If people want it, then find out whether it is needed – would it make a significant difference on the side streets of Watford?


Cars and roads work well at 30m.p.h.

The amount of accidents on side roads is low.

Why is there then a need to make this expensive and unnecessary change to our roads?

There is a pressure group “20’s plenty”. It campaigns for a 20m.p.h. limit on side roads. The Greens and Liberals seem to have jumped onto this bandwagon and are now determined to impose this on Watford. The 20’s Plenty website shows that the vast majority of serious accidents in Watford are clustered around main roads where this policy will have NO effect at all. There is no information on the details of each accident, whether drink or excessive speeding was involved.

Accidents happen. Accidents will always happen. Accidents are an unfortunate fact of life. Should we stop everyone in Watford from driving in a perfectly safe way at the nationally recognised speed limit, which is deemed overwhelmingly safe for use throughout the land, because a very small number of people have accidents? Most of these accidents are not on side roads, they are overwhelmingly on main roads where limits will not be changed.

This seems to be, on the face of what’s been written in this article in the W.O., a case of the local council coming up with another way of telling you how to run your lives. Another example of the Nanny State that cannot trust the people and so must tell them what to do or think. We in UKIP believe there is another way. If you agree, come and join us and help make the difference.

Details on our website.

B.T.W. Well done Watford Observer for holding a vote on these proposals on your website.

Apologies for the multiple posting. A slow Chrome browser is to blame so I clicked on submit several times by mistake.

Unfortunately there is no way for me to remove the extra submissions.

Reg Edit says.... "And now, after 78 years of success, with cars and streets safer than ever, with improved street lighting....."

They turn it off now! Maybe we should have a 10mph limit after dark.....

Johnhornet,

I see where you're coming from!

You're right, 10m.p.h. until the council learns how to turn on it's own lights!

You couldn't make it up....

I wonder if they'll figure it out before the evenings become light of their own accord?

Anyone know how much this mess is costing to sort out?

Thank you WatfordUKIP for filling up my and others inboxes. Press "Submit" and let go, you cant do it multiple times as it takes you to the confirm page from which you can go back.

There's another W.O. article asking you to vote on this proposal. If the Libs and Greens won't give you a vote, this might be your only chance!

Please tell your friends and vote yourselves.

Reg Edit wrote:
There's another W.O. article asking you to vote on this proposal. If the Libs and Greens won't give you a vote, this might be your only chance! Please tell your friends and vote yourselves.

Hi Mr Edit, is it online, if yes can you print the link please ?

http://www.watfordob
server.co.uk/news/96
10376.Should_Watford
_be_a_20mph_zone_/

That's a limitation of the comment box.

Search in the WO search box for 20mph and it will bring it up.

Some say 'Twentys Plenty'
I say ' Two Oh, too slow'

Bobbio,

all you need to do is set up a website and get some councillors to jump on board.

I think you'll be alright in Watford.

How about 29 and feeling fine or 33 and feeling free?

Or even 70's plenty?

It's all just silly, like our council. Anyone available with common sense to save us from our Liberal and green masters? As I recall alien invaders were green in all the old films. How appropriate.

WatfordUKIP wrote:
It seems that the Liberal Democrat council, supported by the Greens and Conservatives all support this proposal. You will get this whether you agree with it or not. You can complain to your councillor but he/she has already publicly supported it. Once again, the political parties have conspired to give you, the electorate, no choice in the matter.

We at UKIP in Watford would like to raise the following points: We would like to inject a little common sense, objectivity and cost saving into the council thinking if we can.

1 Has the council done any surveys of the people of Watford to see if this is supported? Do the people of Watford actually want this change and do they think it an overwhelmingly good idea?
2 Has the Council done any work on how much a feasibility study would cost?
3 Has the council any idea of the cost of replacing all the speed signs that will be required around Watford?
4 Has Watford Council studied the facts of where and why RTAs (Road Traffic Accidents) happen on our roads? For instance,
a. Are side roads a real issue?
b. Are the existing laws enough to reduce the number of accidents that occur if they were properly enforced? We are thinking of law-breaking drink drivers and drivers who exceed the existing 30m.p.h. speed limit by driving at 40, 50 or even 60 m.p.h. on our 30m.p.h. roads? We remain unconvinced that a 20m.p.h. limit would be of any more significance to those drivers than a 30m.p.h. limit.

Before spending our money on feasibility studies and changing the signs and the law, we would like the council to do the following two things:

1 Ask the people of Watford whether they want it. UKIP policy would be to hold a referendum in Watford if such a policy was seriously considered for implementing. The least the council could do is to hold random statistically significant surveys of town residents.
2 If people want it, then find out whether it is needed – would it make a significant difference on the side streets of Watford?


Cars and roads work well at 30m.p.h.

The amount of accidents on side roads is low.

Why is there then a need to make this expensive and unnecessary change to our roads?

There is a pressure group “20’s plenty”. It campaigns for a 20m.p.h. limit on side roads. The Greens and Liberals seem to have jumped onto this bandwagon and are now determined to impose this on Watford. The 20’s Plenty website shows that the vast majority of serious accidents in Watford are clustered around main roads where this policy will have NO effect at all. There is no information on the details of each accident, whether drink or excessive speeding was involved.

Accidents happen. Accidents will always happen. Accidents are an unfortunate fact of life. Should we stop everyone in Watford from driving in a perfectly safe way at the nationally recognised speed limit, which is deemed overwhelmingly safe for use throughout the land, because a very small number of people have accidents? Most of these accidents are not on side roads, they are overwhelmingly on main roads where limits will not be changed.

This seems to be, on the face of what’s been written in this article in the W.O., a case of the local council coming up with another way of telling you how to run your lives. Another example of the Nanny State that cannot trust the people and so must tell them what to do or think. We in UKIP believe there is another way. If you agree, come and join us and help make the difference.

Details on our website.

B.T.W. Well done Watford Observer for holding a vote on these proposals on your website.

So you're concerned with 'cost', but you want to hold an expensive referendum? You're concerned with 'evidence', but you reject all the academic studies that show the 20mph limit for local roads improves safety and enhances the local environment?
Incidentally, you forgot to mention that Labour also support it. Not sure if the BNP do as well. In recent opinion polls 70% of people say they support this approach and last time I checked your party has zero councilors in Watford and zero MPs nationally - if that is not a 'referendum' on the fact most people reject your irrational cornucopian thinking, I don't know what is! Even the Greens have an MP and run a Council...

Please Watford Alex what academic studies show 20 zones improve safety? The biggest Zone in England is in Portsmouth and since it was imposed accidents have gone up. Nearer to home St Peter's Street in St Albans has seen injuries up by a third since a 20 zone was imposed.. In 20 zones drivers tend to become distracted from the road and pedestrians become more reckless - recipe for disaster.

WatfordAlex,

I think you may be being a bit disingenuous here. Yes the greens have one MP, their first ever. One swallow does not a summer make, as they say and they have little credibility as a party of government. More a pressure group.

I agree that referendums are likely to be costly, but on the other hand they are democratic. Foisting a policy on the people of Watford, putting up new signs everywhere, that's also costly. I don't remember seeing the councillors campaigning on that. Here's a cheap idea. Don't do anything, but campaign on it at the next election. That's a pseudo referendum thrown in free. Who could object to that? Ask on the doorsteps. What annoys me is the greens and Libs think they can just force this sort of thing on the people of Watford whether they like it or not. We are to be told what to do, not asked what we want for Watford.

What would you rather do. Force the change on Watford and incur those costs, or find out what the people of Watford want and do that? Both could be a waste of money but only one is democratic.

A democrat might want to represent the views of the constituents rather than force them to do something against their will. What is the green policy on democracy - is it to tell everyone how to live their lives? - It seems that way to me. I am green in actions and thoughts but I would hate a green government and would never vote green as there seems to be too much telling people how to live and not enough letting people live.

70% of people want a 20% limit. Was that in Watford?

Can you tell me how the greens poll nationally compared to the other main parties? I believe UKIP is 4th, just behind the Lib Dems. That must mean the greens are somewhere behind that. Pressure group? Of course, because you would have to be mad to have a green government. The country would collapse under loony green policies and business would be finished.

If Sir Humphrey was here he would say:
That is a courageous decision Madam Mayor"

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-england-bed
s-bucks-herts-174879
80

Here's a link. Conservative Phil Bibby says it will receive full support (i.e. go ahead) if it is feasible.

There is seemingly no hope.

This is a decision to request feasibility investigation by Herts CC, not a decision to implement a scheme. And there would be public consultation before any implementation. So Watford BC's decision was not undemocratic.

It is easy to scoff at a blanket 20 mph limit, as some comments do. But the fact remains that the prospect of a vehicle collision killing a pedestrian is drastically reduced at 20 mph. And reduced traffic speed would make our residential streets much more pleasant for pedestrians and cyclists.

If the cyclists wanted to be safer more of them would invest in some form of lighting.
I've seen police cars at night drive past cyclists who have no lighting whatsoever why don't they enforce the law or is it simply that it is more fashionable to hassle the motorist.

Graham Everett says this is just a request for a feasibility scheme. County has said where feasible it will be implemented. The message I receive from these two statements is that it will go ahead if feasible.

There will be a public consultation before implementation. What does that mean exactly? Will the council hold meetings stuffed full of green and Lib Dem supporters? Does the council actually care if the people of Watford want this or not?

Will the council please declare that they will hold statistical surveys of Watford residents (not just meetings) in order to get a representative view of support for this policy, and if negative will drop it?

The council seem unable or unwilling to find out if people want this and act accordingly. It really is a case of nanny knows best and don't answer back.

How many people were killed last year in Watford side roads where this limit would take effect? How many lives could this have saved? Will the Liberals tell us? Does anybody know?

Is it not true that the vast majority of accidents on Watfords roads occur on main roads where the limit would remain at 30? This change would likely make very little if any difference to the deaths on Watfords roads. I think we are being sold this under false pretences.

Also, nobody has come up with any costs of doing this. I think we should be told.

For the first time, cyclists will be able to regularly exceed the speed limit. As they have no speedo, will they too be fined for exceeding the speed limit?

Who will get the money raised from fines from people exceeding 20mph accidentally? Will the council benefit in any way?

Bobbio wrote:
Please Watford Alex what academic studies show 20 zones improve safety? The biggest Zone in England is in Portsmouth and since it was imposed accidents have gone up. Nearer to home St Peter's Street in St Albans has seen injuries up by a third since a 20 zone was imposed.. In 20 zones drivers tend to become distracted from the road and pedestrians become more reckless - recipe for disaster.

Bobbio,
If you want to know what studies show 20 mph improves safety, try this one from the BMJ (British Medical Journal): http://www.bmj.com/c
ontent/339/bmj.b4469
.full
It's main finding: "The introduction of 20 mph zones was associated with a 41.9% reduction in road casualties. The percentage reduction was greatest in younger children and greater for the category of killed or seriously injured casualties than for minor injuries."
There are many others you can find if you Google 20 mph research.

And Mr Edit (can I call you Reg, now?), I would like to introduce you to a professional driving instructor who wrote this in the Daily telegraph:
"One sunny evening many moons ago whilst I was driving along the 'high street' in Carterton, (heading for work at RAF Brize Norton) an 8 year old girl ran from the pavement into the path of my car. As I was travelling at about 20 mph I was able to stop my car very, very, quickly. As it stopped, the girl turned her head towards me and then fell onto the front end of my car before ending up in a heap on the road surface, but without injury. As I had seen the 'vulnerable youngster' a few seconds before impact, I anticipated she might act as she subsequently did, so decided to slow my speed down from 30 mph. Had I not done so, and the impact occur at the higher speed, she would have been seriously injured, or worse.

The following year when in Germany, I attended the scene of a collision on a 50 kph (30mph equivilant) speed limit road which was alongside a large air force residential area. The German driver was travelling at a speed of at least the legal limit, and very probably more. The British 10 year old boy had no chance of survival after the impact. He was pronounced dead whilst on the stretcher, as I helped place him into the ambulance.. Just 3 years previously, his 11 year brother had met the same fate whilst in the UK.

Just a few years ago I was travelling past a local primary school just as the children were exiting it. The road was congested due to irresponsible parents parking on the adjacent pavements, (being t0o lazy to park elsewhere and walk to the school entrance) making visibility very poor, and a bus was parked on the off side, directly opposite the school entrance. The school crossing patrol lady had the 'lollypop' in the 'down' position. I anticipated the possibility of a child running from behind the bus so travelled at 10 mph. And sure enough, a 5 year old girl ran from behind the bus and across the road. I was able to stop without my car making contact with her. I looked at the 'lollypop' lady and she looked at me with shock written all over her face. She realised that I had been driving at 'the appropriate speed for the prevailing conditions'. We knew each other as I had taught her daughter to drive a couple of years previously. As we discussed later, the little girl had escaped with her life. Had I travelled at a greater speed and struck her, there would have been a very different outcome. How many other drivers would have driven as carefully as I did in the circumstances? Exceptionally few I venture to say, as they would claim the limit was 30 mph, etc, etc, and therefore it was the little girl's fault.

Then there was the case of one of my learner driver's not anticipating what might happen as he went to pass a bus which was stationary at a set of green traffic lights controlling a pedestrian crossing. 2 primary school pupils ran across in front of the bus. I was anticipating the unexpected and was able to stop the car easily. My driver said, ''But I had a green light and they should not have been doing that''. I asked him what a green light mean't, and he remembered, ''Go if safe to do so'', he replied. It was the most valuable lesson of his driver training course. Later, when his younger sisters took driving lessons with me, they told me how the incident had frightened him. But I already knew that, of course, as his face had turned white at the time of the incident. Now, whenever I see him driving his Corsa, he is always driving sensibly. He will never ever forget that 'near miss'.

So, a 20 mph instead of 30mph? Bring it on, soon, very soon."

Why? congestion takes longer to clear, not enough road space anyway. LEAVE IT ALONE!!! believe it or not some people have to use roads to get to work at unsocial times and on routes that are not covered by buses. You tree huggers and yoghurt knitters need to move to a fielded commune and let the rest of us try and get on with our lives.

I see the W.O. has stopped the public vote on this 20mph change.

The results were against the 20mph by a decent margin. I hope the politicians are watching and will ask the people of Watford whether to spend all this money on this policy.

This poll was only indicative, and not statistically an accurate reflection of the people of Watford, but it was firmly against the change.

Nascot Eye wrote:

Bobbio wrote:
Please Watford Alex what academic studies show 20 zones improve safety? The biggest Zone in England is in Portsmouth and since it was imposed accidents have gone up. Nearer to home St Peter's Street in St Albans has seen injuries up by a third since a 20 zone was imposed.. In 20 zones drivers tend to become distracted from the road and pedestrians become more reckless - recipe for disaster.

Bobbio,
If you want to know what studies show 20 mph improves safety, try this one from the BMJ (British Medical Journal): http://www.bmj.com/c

ontent/339/bmj.b4469

.full
It's main finding: "The introduction of 20 mph zones was associated with a 41.9% reduction in road casualties. The percentage reduction was greatest in younger children and greater for the category of killed or seriously injured casualties than for minor injuries."
There are many others you can find if you Google 20 mph research.

And Mr Edit (can I call you Reg, now?), I would like to introduce you to a professional driving instructor who wrote this in the Daily telegraph:
"One sunny evening many moons ago whilst I was driving along the 'high street' in Carterton, (heading for work at RAF Brize Norton) an 8 year old girl ran from the pavement into the path of my car. As I was travelling at about 20 mph I was able to stop my car very, very, quickly. As it stopped, the girl turned her head towards me and then fell onto the front end of my car before ending up in a heap on the road surface, but without injury. As I had seen the 'vulnerable youngster' a few seconds before impact, I anticipated she might act as she subsequently did, so decided to slow my speed down from 30 mph. Had I not done so, and the impact occur at the higher speed, she would have been seriously injured, or worse.

The following year when in Germany, I attended the scene of a collision on a 50 kph (30mph equivilant) speed limit road which was alongside a large air force residential area. The German driver was travelling at a speed of at least the legal limit, and very probably more. The British 10 year old boy had no chance of survival after the impact. He was pronounced dead whilst on the stretcher, as I helped place him into the ambulance.. Just 3 years previously, his 11 year brother had met the same fate whilst in the UK.

Just a few years ago I was travelling past a local primary school just as the children were exiting it. The road was congested due to irresponsible parents parking on the adjacent pavements, (being t0o lazy to park elsewhere and walk to the school entrance) making visibility very poor, and a bus was parked on the off side, directly opposite the school entrance. The school crossing patrol lady had the 'lollypop' in the 'down' position. I anticipated the possibility of a child running from behind the bus so travelled at 10 mph. And sure enough, a 5 year old girl ran from behind the bus and across the road. I was able to stop without my car making contact with her. I looked at the 'lollypop' lady and she looked at me with shock written all over her face. She realised that I had been driving at 'the appropriate speed for the prevailing conditions'. We knew each other as I had taught her daughter to drive a couple of years previously. As we discussed later, the little girl had escaped with her life. Had I travelled at a greater speed and struck her, there would have been a very different outcome. How many other drivers would have driven as carefully as I did in the circumstances? Exceptionally few I venture to say, as they would claim the limit was 30 mph, etc, etc, and therefore it was the little girl's fault.

Then there was the case of one of my learner driver's not anticipating what might happen as he went to pass a bus which was stationary at a set of green traffic lights controlling a pedestrian crossing. 2 primary school pupils ran across in front of the bus. I was anticipating the unexpected and was able to stop the car easily. My driver said, ''But I had a green light and they should not have been doing that''. I asked him what a green light mean't, and he remembered, ''Go if safe to do so'', he replied. It was the most valuable lesson of his driver training course. Later, when his younger sisters took driving lessons with me, they told me how the incident had frightened him. But I already knew that, of course, as his face had turned white at the time of the incident. Now, whenever I see him driving his Corsa, he is always driving sensibly. He will never ever forget that 'near miss'.

So, a 20 mph instead of 30mph? Bring it on, soon, very soon."

Yes god forbid children are taught not to run out in front of live traffic.

Ever heard of Darwin?