- Mobile site
- E-Newsletters
-
- News feed
- Find us on Twitter
@Observer_Owl
Follow Watford Observer on Twitter
- Find us on Facebook
Watford Observer
Like us on Facebook
County council rejects 20's Plenty campaign (From Watford Observer)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting WO to 80360, or email us
County council rejects 20's Plenty campaign
9:38am Friday 12th October 2012 in News
By Mike Wright, Chief Reporter
Hopes of turning Watford into a 20mph town have been dashed after county transport bosses have rejected the idea.
A senior Conservative politician at Hertfordshire County Council has said a blanket 20mph scheme is not appropriate for the town and only small zones will be considered.
The news comes after a concerted effort from politicians in Watford over the last six months to have the speed limit cut on all non-major routes.
Following the statement from county hall, Watford’s elected mayor, Dorothy Thornhill, she did not hold out much hope for the scheme.
She said: "I don’t think we are going to get any change out of county. The conversations I have been involved with have led me to believe they are not going to change their minds."
Mayor Thornhill added she hoped possible changes in speed limit legislation could further the cause of a 20mph Watford in the future.
Efforts to reduce the speed limit in the town were galvanised after all four political parties on Watford Borough Council voted unanimously to back the 20’s Plenty scheme in March.
At the time the councillors said cutting the speed limit would bring benefits to the town, including reducing serious car accidents, encouraging people to walk and reducing emissions.
The result was that Mayor Thornhill, a Liberal Democrat, wrote to Hertfordshire County Council, which controls roads, making the case for the scheme and asking them to look into it.
Yet early signals from the Conservative administration at county hall did not bode well for the 20mph scheme, with the leader of the council, Robert Gordon, expressing doubts about its practicality.
This week Phil Bibby, the county council’s deputy cabinet member for highways and transport, said the administration would only consider 20mph zones in certain areas of Watford, not a town-wide initiative.
He said: "The county council wants 20mph speed limits in place in appropriate locations in the county, but we do not believe that it would be appropriate to introduce a town-wide limit in Watford. "We are implementing 20mph limits and zones in some areas of the town, such as in Park Avenue, which is already up and running, and in roads west of St Albans Road, scheduled for later this year."
"Furthermore, we are investigating the feasibility of a 20mph limit in the Market Street area."
Councillor Bibby added the council would not be considering any changes in its policy until the government concluded its review nation-wide speed limits, which is expected in 2014.
Following the announcement Mayor Thornhill said hopes to make Watford a 20mph town would only be resurrected if people in the town got behind the scheme.
She said: "I think if this is something people really want for Watford then they have to get behind it, support it and campaign."
Comments(21)
Mike Watford
says...
10:15am Fri 12 Oct 12
I'm sure the four political parties on the council knock on more doors and speak to more people than you do.
TRT
says...
10:20am Fri 12 Oct 12
It's an intractable problem.
LSC
says...
11:35am Fri 12 Oct 12
TRT wrote:Agreed; and what is more, there is no conclusive proof it actually achieves much.
The problem with the smaller 20 zones is that they have to design physical enforcement in; bumps, pillows, chicanes etc. These are costly to the tax payer and to the motorist - they increase wear and tear on the road and the vehicles and hinder the emergency services. Not only that, but the addition of thousands of posts to carry the roundels spoils the street scene. It's an intractable problem.
Yes, if a child is run over at 20 it is better than 30; but the type of people who drive at 30 when kids are around aren't going to slow down for a signpost anyway.
Reg Edit
says...
3:05pm Fri 12 Oct 12
Mike Watford wrote:Mike,
Reg - how do you know people were not behind it?
I'm sure the four political parties on the council knock on more doors and speak to more people than you do.
there is no conclusive information one way or another. The WO poll was however heavily against it, about 4-1 against.
That is the closest we got to asking the people and so is the closest we have to an answer. Not scientifically proof positive, but it's the best we have.
Councillors going round knocking on doors - you are having a laugh aren't you? That's meaningless, as were the two meetings where 20's plenty went and spoke to audiences counted in the tens. There was no-one there to put a counter argument and the audience was not statistically significant. In other words, that exercise has no true merit.
Either do democracy properly or not at all. Knocking on a few doors - the best one I've heard for a while - is that really your idea of democracy? No-one knocked on my door to ask me, and that is likely true for 99% of the population of Watford. Therefore any premise that this is meaningful is just false.
20's plenty is not honest with the people it presents to, it hides information that contradicts its message. It is propaganda that sounds good but does not stand up to strong investigation.
Dotty fell for it, but being open-minded and questioning does not seem to be a strength of hers. A pity, as she is the Mayor and can do a lot of damage while she is in office if she gets things wrong, and it seems she is getting more and more wrong for the people of Watford.
cameluk
says...
5:25pm Fri 12 Oct 12
It wouldn't do anything, people that break the 30mph limit wouldn't take any notice of a 20mph limit
Nick Lincoln
says...
7:08pm Fri 12 Oct 12
I hope not too much of my money has been spent in this dialogue between Town and County councils.
Hornets number 12 fan
says...
10:29pm Fri 12 Oct 12
Reg Edit
says...
12:06pm Sat 13 Oct 12
Hornets number 12 fan wrote:Accurate, succinct and grammatically correct to boot.
Victory for common sense!
Even Nascot may be able to agree with your comment.
I would just add, a victory for common sense and a defeat for Watford Council and Dotty, who lack the aforesaid attribute.
Well done County for putting dotty back in her box. Let's hope she stays there.
WatfordAlex
says...
7:09pm Sat 13 Oct 12
I don't think anyone would oppose further research into gauging the public view on this. Why the local UKIP gang want to do this is rather odd though. If this really was such an electoral issue then surely UKIP would have won some council seats.
Sadly there is no easy answer to speeding. You can't put cameras everywhere or have police officers on every street
Reg Edit
says...
8:57am Mon 15 Oct 12
how do you know about what central government are thinking? May we assume you are a local politician? If so, which one are you? I don't think elected politicians should mask their identity, they should stand by their convictions.
If you were a politician, you would know that UKIP is the party that is increasing its vote nationally and the fastest growing party nationally.
UKIP is a party in touch with the national mood, who would dare to go against the "conventional wisdom" of keeping us in the EU, putting up daft green schemes like Windmills and taxing the people of this country highly whilst wasting said tax money on a myriad of unnecessary schemes.
There is nothing odd about UKIP standing up for the people of Watford against an overbearing and out-of-touch Mayor with poor judgement. Somebody has to.
As for your post, your post is, well, confused. Maybe you are confused yourself, or like many a politician you are trying to blur several issues for personal political gain. Which is it?
Are you talking about 20's plenty or speeding? I feel I must point out to you that they are completely separate issues. Ask anyone if you are not sure.
We already have a speed limit in this country, it is predominantly 30mph on urban roads. Speeding is classed as driving at over 30mph on such roads.
20's plenty is proposing putting a 20mph limit on minor roads whilst keeping the 30mph or greater limit on the roads where almost all the serious accidents happen. Therefore serious accidents will continue to happen as before. 20's plenty will have no effect except to increase journey times for drivers, and taxi fares for those who pay to travel by the minute.
So Alex, what are you actually talking about? 20's plenty or speeding?
Muddled thinking and muddled posts do not add to the debate, they take away from it.
Peter Jeffree
says...
11:49am Mon 15 Oct 12
For the same spend HCC could deliver much more ambitious schemes if they adopted the 'limits' approach proposed by the 20's Plenty campaign, rather than their engineering heavy approach.
It is worth reminding readers that the Watford proposal was jointly promoted by the Greens and the LibDems and had full cross party support gaining a unanimous vote in favour at full council. That suppport did not of course include UKIP since, sorry Reg, your views are so out of touch with public opinion here that you have no elected representatives at council.
As WatfordAlex says, Government is actively encouraging local highway authorities to extend 20mph limits and many other local authorities around the country have done so successfully.
It is only a matter of time before 20mph becomes generally accepted as the appropriate maximum speed for residential areas, making our streets safer and more pleasant to live in and use for all, not just those driving their cars. The sooner this change comes the better.
Reg Edit
says...
12:30pm Mon 15 Oct 12
When 20's plenty is so full of holes, one is inclined to wonder why our elected councillors seemed to swallow the campaign whole and without questioning. I suppose that's what having an agenda is all about, as opposed to democracy and doing what is best for the people of Watford.
What a shame we do not have better councillors in Watford.
LSC
says...
4:36pm Mon 15 Oct 12
School? 20 mph max.
School turning out time? 5 mph.
Elstree Road with a 30 mph limit at 3 in the morning and good visiblity? 40-50.
I know that is criminal but I haven't crashed yet.
This is Nanny state politics. The onus is on the driver to set speeds appropriate for conditions.
WatfordAlex
says...
10:44pm Mon 15 Oct 12
WatfordAlex
says...
10:54pm Mon 15 Oct 12
UKIP are indeed on the up. Only problem is that the up is emanating from a very low base, which explains why you still have ZERO mps and ZERO councillors in watford.
There is nothing muddled about my post. I simply provide evidence on the wider context on national policy, the fallacy of believing you are on the side of 'common sense' - when electoral results prove you are not. Finally, I had the honesty to admit there were no easy answers - an approach that your tiny mind may one day reach.
By the way, look up opinion polls on 'windmills' and you will discover that the vast majority of the population don't agree with you swivel eyed views.
Reg Edit
says...
1:41am Tue 16 Oct 12
you have the drop on me there. I haven't heard the government thinking on 20mph. Please could you quote the newspaper and date (if possible) you read that story. I am surprised I haven't heard as I try to keep abreast of the news.
Unfortunately, in your post you appeared to muddle speeding and 20's plenty. Re-read your posting, that's how I read it.
I would agree with the many people who do not look beyond the headlines and propaganda, that in principle windmills and 20's plenty sound great. If they worked I would quite possibly vote for them myself.
They will simultaneously stop Road Traffic Accidents and therefore deaths AND solve all our future power problems at a stroke. Or rather, they won't because the premise behind them is false, regardless of what it may say in your broadsheet.
I will agree with you that there are no easy answers on traffic issues. 20's plenty is not the solution although we are being sold it as the solution. I am pleased that on this we can agree.
As for your views on politics, they seem a bit simplistic, equating election victory with common sense. If only it were true!
Peter Jeffree
says...
2:11pm Tue 16 Oct 12
k/consultations/dft-
2012-32/ and then follow the links to the supporting documents. The DFT website also has initial outcome analysis of recent 20mph schemes such as Portsmouth.
Worth reading them, you might learn something.
Reg Edit
says...
3:26pm Tue 16 Oct 12
thank you for that reference.
Are there minutes available of the council meeting where the 20's plenty was adopted as council policy?
Peter Jeffree
says...
8:58am Wed 17 Oct 12
Yes, all council meeting minutes are posted on the www.watford.gov.uk website - click on the letter M for meetings on the home page and a list of what's available should appear on your screen
Reg Edit
says...
9:31am Wed 17 Oct 12
many thanks
Reg Edit says...
10:05am Fri 12 Oct 12
The 20's plenty argument is attractive at first sight yet greatly flawed. They only present half the evidence, the evidence that supports their case.
The councillors were a bit gullible to fall for it hook line and stinker without actually thinking about it and asking probing questions. There seems to be a lack of free thought (or any thought) in many of our councillors.
It would have been wrong to impose a 20mph limit on Watford. It might have given some lib dem councillors a damp dream but for the rest of us it would have been a pain and completely unnecessary.
Thanks goodness the county had the good sense to snub this dopey initiative by dotty. It's a shame they can't also override the council scheme for a bridge over the pond and her other pet vanity projects.
The sooner she goes, the better.