20mph speed limit for Poole town centre could have many benefits, says councillor

Bournemouth Echo: CHANGE: A councillor thinks lowering the speed limit in Poole will benefit residents CHANGE: A councillor thinks lowering the speed limit in Poole will benefit residents

REDUCING the speed limit to 20mph in Poole town centre could have many benefits, according to a councillor.

Cllr Mark Howell, Poole People group leader who represents the ward, made his suggestion as a Borough of Poole economy committee considered public consultation on access and movement across the town.

“I believe that 20mph speed limits in residential areas would be supported by many residents of Poole,” he said.

“I also think there is merit in investigating whether reducing the speed limit in the town centre would improve the flow of traffic, increase the safety of pedestrians and cyclists and make the town centre more attractive to visitors.”

He said sometimes the council had to show leadership and make decisions, which could initially be unpopular, if it believed there would be benefits to residents in the longer term.

However this was attacked by Cllr Xena Dion, cabinet portfolio holder for the environment, transportation, and the local economy, who said Poole People had previously accused the council of not carrying out enough consultation on the gyratory road system feeding the two bridges.

“You cannot, as a councillor or anyone in a position of influence, go with or against the majority public opinion, or manipulate the consultation process, just because you don’t get the results that you want,” she said.

The consultation gave a clear indication that the majority of people, 93 per cent, agreed that the route from Holes Bay to the port needed to ensure that businesses could operate successfully, she said.

“A 20mph across our main routes is not conducive to a thriving economy, especially in accessing a busy port that brings millions of pounds each year to our local economy,” she added.

Comments (85)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:57am Fri 31 Jan 14

Chris@Bmouth says...

It's a suggestion. Let's keep it that way and hope that never comes to fruition.
It's a suggestion. Let's keep it that way and hope that never comes to fruition. Chris@Bmouth

7:19am Fri 31 Jan 14

billy bumble says...

Hard to believe how some people ever get elected to public office with the IQ's that they have
Hard to believe how some people ever get elected to public office with the IQ's that they have billy bumble

7:21am Fri 31 Jan 14

dvdr says...

The inference is that a 20mph limit is needed because of danger. Suppose all motorists travelling through the area (at 20mph or less, of course) constantly sounded their horns in the area to give warning of their approach and avoid the risk of accidents. Would the residents like that?

A similar scheme has been proposed for Broadstone, where it is quite unnecessary and difficult to exceed 20mph anyway during day time. In the case of Broadstone, it seems to be more likely that local minor politicians are seeking media exposure rather than any real concern for safety, but then that is politicians for you!
The inference is that a 20mph limit is needed because of danger. Suppose all motorists travelling through the area (at 20mph or less, of course) constantly sounded their horns in the area to give warning of their approach and avoid the risk of accidents. Would the residents like that? A similar scheme has been proposed for Broadstone, where it is quite unnecessary and difficult to exceed 20mph anyway during day time. In the case of Broadstone, it seems to be more likely that local minor politicians are seeking media exposure rather than any real concern for safety, but then that is politicians for you! dvdr

8:06am Fri 31 Jan 14

bluto999 says...

I think a 20 mph limit is a great idea for any area where pedestrians and cars mix. There's a lot of good science behind it too. Basically, human skulls have evolved to cope with impacts upto about 20mph (because that's the fastest we can travel by our own efforts). It'll make a massive difference to quality of life for people living around the area.
It may well make little difference to journey times of drivers anyway, around town your overall journey speed is limited by stopping for junctions and other traffic more than by how fast you go between stops.
I think a 20 mph limit is a great idea for any area where pedestrians and cars mix. There's a lot of good science behind it too. Basically, human skulls have evolved to cope with impacts upto about 20mph (because that's the fastest we can travel by our own efforts). It'll make a massive difference to quality of life for people living around the area. It may well make little difference to journey times of drivers anyway, around town your overall journey speed is limited by stopping for junctions and other traffic more than by how fast you go between stops. bluto999

8:16am Fri 31 Jan 14

BIGTONE says...

Donkey rides....
Donkey rides.... BIGTONE

8:41am Fri 31 Jan 14

Hessenford says...

20mph speed limit for Poole town centre could have many benefits, says councillor.
Would this refer to more revenue raising because drivers dared to drive at more than walking pace, town centres and high streets are declining rapidly because more and more people are fed up with extortionate parking charges and petty rules, are members of all councils from a different planet.
20mph speed limit for Poole town centre could have many benefits, says councillor. Would this refer to more revenue raising because drivers dared to drive at more than walking pace, town centres and high streets are declining rapidly because more and more people are fed up with extortionate parking charges and petty rules, are members of all councils from a different planet. Hessenford

8:46am Fri 31 Jan 14

EGHH says...

Traffic jams, increased pollution as engines are not working efficiently, buses delayed, and the death of Poole centre. Stupid idea, pandering to the cyclists once again.
Traffic jams, increased pollution as engines are not working efficiently, buses delayed, and the death of Poole centre. Stupid idea, pandering to the cyclists once again. EGHH

9:01am Fri 31 Jan 14

Chris@Bmouth says...

EGHH wrote:
Traffic jams, increased pollution as engines are not working efficiently, buses delayed, and the death of Poole centre. Stupid idea, pandering to the cyclists once again.
Poole has already died anyway. Full of 99p stores, charity shops and BAD pubs. Hopefully the new owners of the shopping centre will flatten it very soon.
[quote][p][bold]EGHH[/bold] wrote: Traffic jams, increased pollution as engines are not working efficiently, buses delayed, and the death of Poole centre. Stupid idea, pandering to the cyclists once again.[/p][/quote]Poole has already died anyway. Full of 99p stores, charity shops and BAD pubs. Hopefully the new owners of the shopping centre will flatten it very soon. Chris@Bmouth

9:01am Fri 31 Jan 14

pigfarmer says...

WoooHoooo. Another ducking stupid idea from an elected plank.
Just like the unrealistic 50 mph limit on all the dual carridgeways, greed on green camera, camera cars, traffic lights on the roundabout by Tesco/B&Q.
Doing your best to bring trade into the town.
WoooHoooo. Another ducking stupid idea from an elected plank. Just like the unrealistic 50 mph limit on all the dual carridgeways, greed on green camera, camera cars, traffic lights on the roundabout by Tesco/B&Q. Doing your best to bring trade into the town. pigfarmer

9:11am Fri 31 Jan 14

crispy_pants says...

So where exactly is Poole Town centre?
So where exactly is Poole Town centre? crispy_pants

9:14am Fri 31 Jan 14

refman says...

How very interesting, unless I have miss-read this article councillor Xena Dion clearly states "You cannot, as a councillor or anyone in a position of influence, go with or against the majority public opinion, or manipulate the consultation process, just because you don’t get the results that you want" I seem to remember Cllr Dion was in the Yes vote for the Gypsy transit sites at Creekmoor!!!
How on earth can we believe anything these so call public servants say? or is vote for the transit site a vote for what she wants or not based upon the majority of public opinion?????
How very interesting, unless I have miss-read this article councillor Xena Dion clearly states "You cannot, as a councillor or anyone in a position of influence, go with or against the majority public opinion, or manipulate the consultation process, just because you don’t get the results that you want" I seem to remember Cllr Dion was in the Yes vote for the Gypsy transit sites at Creekmoor!!! How on earth can we believe anything these so call public servants say? or is vote for the transit site a vote for what she wants or not based upon the majority of public opinion????? refman

9:16am Fri 31 Jan 14

rayc says...

What is meant by Poole Town Centre? What area of the Borough does this apply to?
What is it about local politicians with their ever increasing desire to regulate traffic and parking. You never hear of them calling for measures to protect people from harm in hospitals or vulnerable children in problem families etc. If this is what localism means then the more central Government control the better.
What is meant by Poole Town Centre? What area of the Borough does this apply to? What is it about local politicians with their ever increasing desire to regulate traffic and parking. You never hear of them calling for measures to protect people from harm in hospitals or vulnerable children in problem families etc. If this is what localism means then the more central Government control the better. rayc

9:27am Fri 31 Jan 14

Melanie.Read12 says...

There is already a 20mph speed limit in place from the Slug and Lettuce in the Lower High Street, and all the way along the quay. No one takes any notice of it, and it is not enforced.
If Cllr Howell believes that increasing this limit throughout the town centre (where exactly is that? I thought most of the town centre was pedestrianised anyway) will make any difference to safety at all, then I am not sure he actually spends much time in the town.
Another waste of time and money IMO.
There is already a 20mph speed limit in place from the Slug and Lettuce in the Lower High Street, and all the way along the quay. No one takes any notice of it, and it is not enforced. If Cllr Howell believes that increasing this limit throughout the town centre (where exactly is that? I thought most of the town centre was pedestrianised anyway) will make any difference to safety at all, then I am not sure he actually spends much time in the town. Another waste of time and money IMO. Melanie.Read12

9:29am Fri 31 Jan 14

TalkToTheTrees says...

rayc wrote:
What is meant by Poole Town Centre? What area of the Borough does this apply to?
What is it about local politicians with their ever increasing desire to regulate traffic and parking. You never hear of them calling for measures to protect people from harm in hospitals or vulnerable children in problem families etc. If this is what localism means then the more central Government control the better.
It means the centre of Poole Town: http://www.boroughof
poole.com/EasySiteWe
b/GatewayLink.aspx?a
lId=8935

There, not difficult is it?
[quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: What is meant by Poole Town Centre? What area of the Borough does this apply to? What is it about local politicians with their ever increasing desire to regulate traffic and parking. You never hear of them calling for measures to protect people from harm in hospitals or vulnerable children in problem families etc. If this is what localism means then the more central Government control the better.[/p][/quote]It means the centre of Poole Town: http://www.boroughof poole.com/EasySiteWe b/GatewayLink.aspx?a lId=8935 There, not difficult is it? TalkToTheTrees

9:49am Fri 31 Jan 14

nickynoodah says...

Best idea ever to lower the speed limit, 15 mph would be even better. We could style ourselves on Sri Lanka and gain a unique insight into their transport system, TukTuks are a great form of transport and would enhance the Old Town, with a scenic journey along the quay to Turly Moor and get to know the wonderful people. The alternative is to employ elephants to cover the journey, there is plenty of room in Upton Park to home the animals, and even a Buddhist Temple at Creekmoor. This would bring in more visitors and veer them away from the bus station and shopping centre where nothing is worth buying if it is over 99p. the weather at Poole is tropical anyway so we are 3/4 of the way there.
Best idea ever to lower the speed limit, 15 mph would be even better. We could style ourselves on Sri Lanka and gain a unique insight into their transport system, TukTuks are a great form of transport and would enhance the Old Town, with a scenic journey along the quay to Turly Moor and get to know the wonderful people. The alternative is to employ elephants to cover the journey, there is plenty of room in Upton Park to home the animals, and even a Buddhist Temple at Creekmoor. This would bring in more visitors and veer them away from the bus station and shopping centre where nothing is worth buying if it is over 99p. the weather at Poole is tropical anyway so we are 3/4 of the way there. nickynoodah

9:55am Fri 31 Jan 14

thevoiceofreason1 says...

the obsession this country has with speed being the major problem needs to stop.
accidents don't happen just because of speed there is always something else involved.
generally lack of attention/distractio
n...stereos.phones,b
eing more interested in the conversation with their passenger and such like.
problem is it would actually take some effort to prove these things where as it is easy to say "SPEED KILLS"
i suspect half the people on the road got there licence by cutting it out from the back of a cornflakes packet.
i base this on about a million miles on the british roads in the last 15 years.
the obsession this country has with speed being the major problem needs to stop. accidents don't happen just because of speed there is always something else involved. generally lack of attention/distractio n...stereos.phones,b eing more interested in the conversation with their passenger and such like. problem is it would actually take some effort to prove these things where as it is easy to say "SPEED KILLS" i suspect half the people on the road got there licence by cutting it out from the back of a cornflakes packet. i base this on about a million miles on the british roads in the last 15 years. thevoiceofreason1

9:55am Fri 31 Jan 14

thevoiceofreason1 says...

the obsession this country has with speed being the major problem needs to stop.
accidents don't happen just because of speed there is always something else involved.
generally lack of attention/distractio
n...stereos.phones,b
eing more interested in the conversation with their passenger and such like.
problem is it would actually take some effort to prove these things where as it is easy to say "SPEED KILLS"
i suspect half the people on the road got there licence by cutting it out from the back of a cornflakes packet.
i base this on about a million miles on the british roads in the last 15 years.
the obsession this country has with speed being the major problem needs to stop. accidents don't happen just because of speed there is always something else involved. generally lack of attention/distractio n...stereos.phones,b eing more interested in the conversation with their passenger and such like. problem is it would actually take some effort to prove these things where as it is easy to say "SPEED KILLS" i suspect half the people on the road got there licence by cutting it out from the back of a cornflakes packet. i base this on about a million miles on the british roads in the last 15 years. thevoiceofreason1

9:58am Fri 31 Jan 14

speedy231278 says...

Rather than waste time and effort with yet more cash cow, unnecessary speed limits, why do they not put their efforts into sorting out the myriad issues with the Twin Fails Bodge or finding somewhere less controversial for the transit sites for the caravan using nomadic travelling society?
Rather than waste time and effort with yet more cash cow, unnecessary speed limits, why do they not put their efforts into sorting out the myriad issues with the Twin Fails Bodge or finding somewhere less controversial for the transit sites for the caravan using nomadic travelling society? speedy231278

10:06am Fri 31 Jan 14

Buzetti says...

A better idea would be to insist that all cars have a man walking ahead, waving a red flag - much safer
A better idea would be to insist that all cars have a man walking ahead, waving a red flag - much safer Buzetti

10:11am Fri 31 Jan 14

nickynoodah says...

I cant believe the idiots voted for an Irish site at crackmoor
any thing but,
this is why I propose a mosque instead.
20mph is a ROFL
I cant believe the idiots voted for an Irish site at crackmoor any thing but, this is why I propose a mosque instead. 20mph is a ROFL nickynoodah

10:35am Fri 31 Jan 14

stevesuk says...

Road safety professionals are far from convinced about the merits of 20 MPH speed limits. See http://www.roadsafet
ygb.org.uk/news/3191
.html. But of course, our councillors with their "jack of all trades" knowledge of the World must be better qualified?
Road safety professionals are far from convinced about the merits of 20 MPH speed limits. See http://www.roadsafet ygb.org.uk/news/3191 .html. But of course, our councillors with their "jack of all trades" knowledge of the World must be better qualified? stevesuk

10:53am Fri 31 Jan 14

Benagain says...

20 mph would be an improvement on present day speeds. Try driving to town on 'traffic light alley' between 8am and 9am any weekday morning.
20 mph would be an improvement on present day speeds. Try driving to town on 'traffic light alley' between 8am and 9am any weekday morning. Benagain

11:24am Fri 31 Jan 14

bluto999 says...

thevoiceofreason1 wrote:
the obsession this country has with speed being the major problem needs to stop.
accidents don't happen just because of speed there is always something else involved.
generally lack of attention/distractio

n...stereos.phones,b

eing more interested in the conversation with their passenger and such like.
problem is it would actually take some effort to prove these things where as it is easy to say "SPEED KILLS"
i suspect half the people on the road got there licence by cutting it out from the back of a cornflakes packet.
i base this on about a million miles on the british roads in the last 15 years.
"accidents don't happen just because of speed there is always something else involved"
At lower speeds accidents are more easily avoided and when an accident does happen, the speed involved makes a difference to the injuries and damage.
[quote][p][bold]thevoiceofreason1[/bold] wrote: the obsession this country has with speed being the major problem needs to stop. accidents don't happen just because of speed there is always something else involved. generally lack of attention/distractio n...stereos.phones,b eing more interested in the conversation with their passenger and such like. problem is it would actually take some effort to prove these things where as it is easy to say "SPEED KILLS" i suspect half the people on the road got there licence by cutting it out from the back of a cornflakes packet. i base this on about a million miles on the british roads in the last 15 years.[/p][/quote]"accidents don't happen just because of speed there is always something else involved" At lower speeds accidents are more easily avoided and when an accident does happen, the speed involved makes a difference to the injuries and damage. bluto999

11:49am Fri 31 Jan 14

muscliffman says...

A 20mph speed limit? Ridiculous because where is there any proper detailed evidence of a serious problem arising from the existing limit? Aside from erecting a barbed wire fence around the centre of Poole to keep people out of there is little more left the Council can do to dissuade us all from going anywhere near there.

I suspect most people in Poole will oppose this silly idea, but on recent evidence what does that matter to those supposedly representing the public's views in Poole?
A 20mph speed limit? Ridiculous because where is there any proper detailed evidence of a serious problem arising from the existing limit? Aside from erecting a barbed wire fence around the centre of Poole to keep people out of there is little more left the Council can do to dissuade us all from going anywhere near there. I suspect most people in Poole will oppose this silly idea, but on recent evidence what does that matter to those supposedly representing the public's views in Poole? muscliffman

11:53am Fri 31 Jan 14

we-shall-see says...

To be honest, Poole is always so chock-a-block with heavy traffic that you would be lucky to get up to 20mph for most of the day, so bringing in legislation to enforce it would be a total waste of time and OUR money Mr. Howell …… Do us a favour and try sorting out some of Poole's more pressing problems like the proposal to fill the harbour bed with concrete for a car park would you? There's a good chap :o/
To be honest, Poole is always so chock-a-block with heavy traffic that you would be lucky to get up to 20mph for most of the day, so bringing in legislation to enforce it would be a total waste of time and OUR money Mr. Howell …… Do us a favour and try sorting out some of Poole's more pressing problems like the proposal to fill the harbour bed with concrete for a car park would you? There's a good chap :o/ we-shall-see

1:15pm Fri 31 Jan 14

blackdog1 says...

What a joke! Where do these people get their stupid ideas...Lets hammer the motorist even more................
..........and make Poole even less car friendly than it already is.Eventually the only people going into Poole will be pensioners using the bus and Chavs off to the jobcentre!...
What a joke! Where do these people get their stupid ideas...Lets hammer the motorist even more................ ..........and make Poole even less car friendly than it already is.Eventually the only people going into Poole will be pensioners using the bus and Chavs off to the jobcentre!... blackdog1

1:33pm Fri 31 Jan 14

dmaber says...

What's next bringing back the person with a red flag to walk in front of a car, another example of the council being out of touch with what the people of Poole want
What's next bringing back the person with a red flag to walk in front of a car, another example of the council being out of touch with what the people of Poole want dmaber

1:39pm Fri 31 Jan 14

GaryC67 says...

I thought Mark Howell was quite sensible when he first appeared on the political scene (so I voted for him). Obviously becoming a Councillor has over the course of time impaired his ability to see a good idea from a bad idea.
We have a 20mph limit near where I live with the added benefit of speed humps. Does it work? Yes and no, cars still travel faster than the prescribed limit when possible and the speed humps just wear out the suspensions quicker. Also pedestrians and cyclists have managed to keep avoiding the motor vehicles since the reduction from 30mph, so no change there. It all just cost a lot of money to implement.
I thought Mark Howell was quite sensible when he first appeared on the political scene (so I voted for him). Obviously becoming a Councillor has over the course of time impaired his ability to see a good idea from a bad idea. We have a 20mph limit near where I live with the added benefit of speed humps. Does it work? Yes and no, cars still travel faster than the prescribed limit when possible and the speed humps just wear out the suspensions quicker. Also pedestrians and cyclists have managed to keep avoiding the motor vehicles since the reduction from 30mph, so no change there. It all just cost a lot of money to implement. GaryC67

1:48pm Fri 31 Jan 14

skydriver says...

I guess if and when this comes into force the signage will be about the size of a 50 pence piece so the motorist will not see them clearly and then get fined, .
Read the headline councillors say,COULD HAVE MANY BENEFITS, Yes as a cash cow , yet again the motorist pays!!
I guess if and when this comes into force the signage will be about the size of a 50 pence piece so the motorist will not see them clearly and then get fined, . Read the headline councillors say,COULD HAVE MANY BENEFITS, Yes as a cash cow , yet again the motorist pays!! skydriver

1:50pm Fri 31 Jan 14

Uptonian2 says...

I don't go to Poole very often because of the way traffic is controlled. Nothing seems to flow properly, the lights are all out of synch with each other and with a large majority of crisp packet drivers adding to the mix it's not a good place to be.

A 20 mph limit is good for side roads off the main drag but it takes a bit of time to get out of Poole the majority of days and speed is lowered somewhat but 20mph across the town would do no one any favours through more blockages elsewhere.
I don't go to Poole very often because of the way traffic is controlled. Nothing seems to flow properly, the lights are all out of synch with each other and with a large majority of crisp packet drivers adding to the mix it's not a good place to be. A 20 mph limit is good for side roads off the main drag but it takes a bit of time to get out of Poole the majority of days and speed is lowered somewhat but 20mph across the town would do no one any favours through more blockages elsewhere. Uptonian2

2:20pm Fri 31 Jan 14

apm1954 says...

great news thats five mph quicker than now.
great news thats five mph quicker than now. apm1954

3:31pm Fri 31 Jan 14

dorsetspeed says...

“A 20mph across our main routes is not conducive to a thriving economy, especially in accessing a busy port that brings millions of pounds each year to our local economy,” Most sensible thing I've seen from Dion but as others have said, you can't trust them as far as you can throw them and they have always ignored the residents in the past.

"“I believe that 20mph speed limits in residential areas would be supported by many residents of Poole,” he said". Halving the council tax would be supported by many residents of Poole as well, so will you be doing that at the same time? What about the residents who would not support it?

“I also think there is merit in investigating whether reducing the speed limit in the town centre would improve the flow of traffic, increase the safety of pedestrians and cyclists and make the town centre more attractive to visitors.” No need to investigate. It hasn't worked anywhere else.
“A 20mph across our main routes is not conducive to a thriving economy, especially in accessing a busy port that brings millions of pounds each year to our local economy,” Most sensible thing I've seen from Dion but as others have said, you can't trust them as far as you can throw them and they have always ignored the residents in the past. "“I believe that 20mph speed limits in residential areas would be supported by many residents of Poole,” he said". Halving the council tax would be supported by many residents of Poole as well, so will you be doing that at the same time? What about the residents who would not support it? “I also think there is merit in investigating whether reducing the speed limit in the town centre would improve the flow of traffic, increase the safety of pedestrians and cyclists and make the town centre more attractive to visitors.” No need to investigate. It hasn't worked anywhere else. dorsetspeed

4:47pm Fri 31 Jan 14

stalisman says...

It would be interesting to see how many early morning speed freaks who head over TownGate Bridge in excess of 40 mph most early mornings would even notice a change in the limit. Every day twixt 6:30 and 7:15 police are absent and late for work jerks simply race as it they and cyclists are immortal. Put a speed camera on that brdge westwards and you'd make net 7 out of 10 drivers during this early morning period.

But then if the police don't care why should anybody else ..have the Dorset police ever set a temporary camera van on the island facing up hill to catch the critters? Nope ... too darn comfy on country roads.
It would be interesting to see how many early morning speed freaks who head over TownGate Bridge in excess of 40 mph most early mornings would even notice a change in the limit. Every day twixt 6:30 and 7:15 police are absent and late for work jerks simply race as it they and cyclists are immortal. Put a speed camera on that brdge westwards and you'd make net 7 out of 10 drivers during this early morning period. But then if the police don't care why should anybody else ..have the Dorset police ever set a temporary camera van on the island facing up hill to catch the critters? Nope ... too darn comfy on country roads. stalisman

4:52pm Fri 31 Jan 14

suzigirl says...

They dropped the speed limit on the Dorset Way from 70 mph to 50 mph. At the weekends at night (usually after 10 o'clock) it sounds like a race track.
They dropped the speed limit on the Dorset Way from 70 mph to 50 mph. At the weekends at night (usually after 10 o'clock) it sounds like a race track. suzigirl

6:35pm Fri 31 Jan 14

GAHmusic says...

Let's increase it to 70. That way we can reduce acidents because cyclists and pedestrians would go nowhere near it :-)
Let's increase it to 70. That way we can reduce acidents because cyclists and pedestrians would go nowhere near it :-) GAHmusic

7:10pm Fri 31 Jan 14

Old Colonial says...

20 mph limit on cyclists in the pedestrian precinct maybe? Just thought I'd bring in cycling.
20 mph limit on cyclists in the pedestrian precinct maybe? Just thought I'd bring in cycling. Old Colonial

7:36pm Fri 31 Jan 14

nickynoodah says...

20 mph for one person in one car
so if there's 4 in a car
does that mean your allowed to drive at 80 mph
20 mph for one person in one car so if there's 4 in a car does that mean your allowed to drive at 80 mph nickynoodah

7:42pm Fri 31 Jan 14

joeinpoole says...

GaryC67 wrote:
I thought Mark Howell was quite sensible when he first appeared on the political scene (so I voted for him). Obviously becoming a Councillor has over the course of time impaired his ability to see a good idea from a bad idea.
We have a 20mph limit near where I live with the added benefit of speed humps. Does it work? Yes and no, cars still travel faster than the prescribed limit when possible and the speed humps just wear out the suspensions quicker. Also pedestrians and cyclists have managed to keep avoiding the motor vehicles since the reduction from 30mph, so no change there. It all just cost a lot of money to implement.
Seems to me that Howell changes his mind according to the direction of the wind. He was a major champion of the Marston Rd scheme when TSB was built ... until the accident outside the Queen Mary ... when he decides he was actually against it all along.

According to the 'policies' on the PP website a major priority is safeguarding Poole's recreational areas. Then Howell and his cronies all voted against the transit camp for travellers ... presumably preferring the travellers to spend the summer camping and trashing the aforementioned recreation grounds.

I certainly won't be voting for him again.
[quote][p][bold]GaryC67[/bold] wrote: I thought Mark Howell was quite sensible when he first appeared on the political scene (so I voted for him). Obviously becoming a Councillor has over the course of time impaired his ability to see a good idea from a bad idea. We have a 20mph limit near where I live with the added benefit of speed humps. Does it work? Yes and no, cars still travel faster than the prescribed limit when possible and the speed humps just wear out the suspensions quicker. Also pedestrians and cyclists have managed to keep avoiding the motor vehicles since the reduction from 30mph, so no change there. It all just cost a lot of money to implement.[/p][/quote]Seems to me that Howell changes his mind according to the direction of the wind. He was a major champion of the Marston Rd scheme when TSB was built ... until the accident outside the Queen Mary ... when he decides he was actually against it all along. According to the 'policies' on the PP website a major priority is safeguarding Poole's recreational areas. Then Howell and his cronies all voted against the transit camp for travellers ... presumably preferring the travellers to spend the summer camping and trashing the aforementioned recreation grounds. I certainly won't be voting for him again. joeinpoole

8:07pm Fri 31 Jan 14

fairandsquared says...

Well said joeinpoole. What a ridiculous idea. If Cllr Howells had his way the whole town would be a ghost town. Businesses need to be able to move goods in and out without crawling around at 20mph. Yes bring in your 20mph and we will move out of town and all that will be left will be pedestrians without any jobs to go to.
Keep fighting for local businesses Cllr Dion, you certainly have our vote. The sooner we get rid of people like Poole People Party who think they own Poole, the better.
Well said joeinpoole. What a ridiculous idea. If Cllr Howells had his way the whole town would be a ghost town. Businesses need to be able to move goods in and out without crawling around at 20mph. Yes bring in your 20mph and we will move out of town and all that will be left will be pedestrians without any jobs to go to. Keep fighting for local businesses Cllr Dion, you certainly have our vote. The sooner we get rid of people like Poole People Party who think they own Poole, the better. fairandsquared

8:10pm Fri 31 Jan 14

goingsolo says...

Good Grief, another Howeller. Does Cllr Howell not understand that main roads are for traffic and for traffic to get across town properly. Yes, perhaps right along some of the back ads, where you can't go faster than about 15mph anyway, but think it through and don't hold up people getting from Hamworthy across the bridges into Town or beyond. I voted for PPP last election but certainly won't be again. what a bunch of amateurs.
Good Grief, another Howeller. Does Cllr Howell not understand that main roads are for traffic and for traffic to get across town properly. Yes, perhaps right along some of the back ads, where you can't go faster than about 15mph anyway, but think it through and don't hold up people getting from Hamworthy across the bridges into Town or beyond. I voted for PPP last election but certainly won't be again. what a bunch of amateurs. goingsolo

10:24pm Fri 31 Jan 14

alyce says...

Haha Nicky, your comments made me laugh... What about the bikers night then? Speed should be 5 miles an hour. Oh that's what it is anyway along Green Road and Ballard Road - last year I was hour late for work as the whole area was clogged with bikes :(
Anyway, it's going to get a whole lot worse when the lovely harbour is filled with concrete!
Haha Nicky, your comments made me laugh... What about the bikers night then? Speed should be 5 miles an hour. Oh that's what it is anyway along Green Road and Ballard Road - last year I was hour late for work as the whole area was clogged with bikes :( Anyway, it's going to get a whole lot worse when the lovely harbour is filled with concrete! alyce

2:13pm Sat 1 Feb 14

pete woodley says...

And this is the same pp boy who wants to help creekmoor residents,heaven help them, the boys a publicity seeking nonentity.
And this is the same pp boy who wants to help creekmoor residents,heaven help them, the boys a publicity seeking nonentity. pete woodley

6:16pm Sat 1 Feb 14

nickynoodah says...

From Poole Quay
on the hour every hour
we can have a slow boat to Alum China
From Poole Quay on the hour every hour we can have a slow boat to Alum China nickynoodah

9:24pm Sat 1 Feb 14

tim m says...

I can't remember the last time I was able to reach 20 mph in the middle of Poole.
I can't remember the last time I was able to reach 20 mph in the middle of Poole. tim m

1:29am Sun 2 Feb 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
“A 20mph across our main routes is not conducive to a thriving economy, especially in accessing a busy port that brings millions of pounds each year to our local economy,” Most sensible thing I've seen from Dion but as others have said, you can't trust them as far as you can throw them and they have always ignored the residents in the past.

"“I believe that 20mph speed limits in residential areas would be supported by many residents of Poole,” he said". Halving the council tax would be supported by many residents of Poole as well, so will you be doing that at the same time? What about the residents who would not support it?

“I also think there is merit in investigating whether reducing the speed limit in the town centre would improve the flow of traffic, increase the safety of pedestrians and cyclists and make the town centre more attractive to visitors.” No need to investigate. It hasn't worked anywhere else.
So everything written here is rubbish then:

http://www.britac.ac
.uk/templates/asset-
relay.cfm?frmAssetFi
leID=13280

And your qualifications in this field to make your sweeping assumption is what exactly?
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: “A 20mph across our main routes is not conducive to a thriving economy, especially in accessing a busy port that brings millions of pounds each year to our local economy,” Most sensible thing I've seen from Dion but as others have said, you can't trust them as far as you can throw them and they have always ignored the residents in the past. "“I believe that 20mph speed limits in residential areas would be supported by many residents of Poole,” he said". Halving the council tax would be supported by many residents of Poole as well, so will you be doing that at the same time? What about the residents who would not support it? “I also think there is merit in investigating whether reducing the speed limit in the town centre would improve the flow of traffic, increase the safety of pedestrians and cyclists and make the town centre more attractive to visitors.” No need to investigate. It hasn't worked anywhere else.[/p][/quote]So everything written here is rubbish then: http://www.britac.ac .uk/templates/asset- relay.cfm?frmAssetFi leID=13280 And your qualifications in this field to make your sweeping assumption is what exactly? tbpoole

10:06am Sun 2 Feb 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
“A 20mph across our main routes is not conducive to a thriving economy, especially in accessing a busy port that brings millions of pounds each year to our local economy,” Most sensible thing I've seen from Dion but as others have said, you can't trust them as far as you can throw them and they have always ignored the residents in the past.

"“I believe that 20mph speed limits in residential areas would be supported by many residents of Poole,” he said". Halving the council tax would be supported by many residents of Poole as well, so will you be doing that at the same time? What about the residents who would not support it?

“I also think there is merit in investigating whether reducing the speed limit in the town centre would improve the flow of traffic, increase the safety of pedestrians and cyclists and make the town centre more attractive to visitors.” No need to investigate. It hasn't worked anywhere else.
So everything written here is rubbish then:

http://www.britac.ac

.uk/templates/asset-

relay.cfm?frmAssetFi

leID=13280

And your qualifications in this field to make your sweeping assumption is what exactly?
yep, it's rubbish alright. And I'm an engineer with an unblemished and long track record for being right on a wide variety of things, however, you hardly need to be an expert to recognise nonsence like that for what it is.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: “A 20mph across our main routes is not conducive to a thriving economy, especially in accessing a busy port that brings millions of pounds each year to our local economy,” Most sensible thing I've seen from Dion but as others have said, you can't trust them as far as you can throw them and they have always ignored the residents in the past. "“I believe that 20mph speed limits in residential areas would be supported by many residents of Poole,” he said". Halving the council tax would be supported by many residents of Poole as well, so will you be doing that at the same time? What about the residents who would not support it? “I also think there is merit in investigating whether reducing the speed limit in the town centre would improve the flow of traffic, increase the safety of pedestrians and cyclists and make the town centre more attractive to visitors.” No need to investigate. It hasn't worked anywhere else.[/p][/quote]So everything written here is rubbish then: http://www.britac.ac .uk/templates/asset- relay.cfm?frmAssetFi leID=13280 And your qualifications in this field to make your sweeping assumption is what exactly?[/p][/quote]yep, it's rubbish alright. And I'm an engineer with an unblemished and long track record for being right on a wide variety of things, however, you hardly need to be an expert to recognise nonsence like that for what it is. dorsetspeed

11:10am Sun 2 Feb 14

nickynoodah says...

More drivel on here than last year
whats up George
take a break PLEASE
More drivel on here than last year whats up George take a break PLEASE nickynoodah

4:20pm Sun 2 Feb 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
“A 20mph across our main routes is not conducive to a thriving economy, especially in accessing a busy port that brings millions of pounds each year to our local economy,” Most sensible thing I've seen from Dion but as others have said, you can't trust them as far as you can throw them and they have always ignored the residents in the past.

"“I believe that 20mph speed limits in residential areas would be supported by many residents of Poole,” he said". Halving the council tax would be supported by many residents of Poole as well, so will you be doing that at the same time? What about the residents who would not support it?

“I also think there is merit in investigating whether reducing the speed limit in the town centre would improve the flow of traffic, increase the safety of pedestrians and cyclists and make the town centre more attractive to visitors.” No need to investigate. It hasn't worked anywhere else.
So everything written here is rubbish then:

http://www.britac.ac


.uk/templates/asset-


relay.cfm?frmAssetFi


leID=13280

And your qualifications in this field to make your sweeping assumption is what exactly?
yep, it's rubbish alright. And I'm an engineer with an unblemished and long track record for being right on a wide variety of things, however, you hardly need to be an expert to recognise nonsence like that for what it is.
Prove it is nonsense then. Which of the statistics quoted are lies or made up? How are his conclusions any less valid than the nonsense on your website?Perhaps you know more than a professor from Oxford University?

I very very much doubt it!
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: “A 20mph across our main routes is not conducive to a thriving economy, especially in accessing a busy port that brings millions of pounds each year to our local economy,” Most sensible thing I've seen from Dion but as others have said, you can't trust them as far as you can throw them and they have always ignored the residents in the past. "“I believe that 20mph speed limits in residential areas would be supported by many residents of Poole,” he said". Halving the council tax would be supported by many residents of Poole as well, so will you be doing that at the same time? What about the residents who would not support it? “I also think there is merit in investigating whether reducing the speed limit in the town centre would improve the flow of traffic, increase the safety of pedestrians and cyclists and make the town centre more attractive to visitors.” No need to investigate. It hasn't worked anywhere else.[/p][/quote]So everything written here is rubbish then: http://www.britac.ac .uk/templates/asset- relay.cfm?frmAssetFi leID=13280 And your qualifications in this field to make your sweeping assumption is what exactly?[/p][/quote]yep, it's rubbish alright. And I'm an engineer with an unblemished and long track record for being right on a wide variety of things, however, you hardly need to be an expert to recognise nonsence like that for what it is.[/p][/quote]Prove it is nonsense then. Which of the statistics quoted are lies or made up? How are his conclusions any less valid than the nonsense on your website?Perhaps you know more than a professor from Oxford University? I very very much doubt it! tbpoole

5:56pm Sun 2 Feb 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
“A 20mph across our main routes is not conducive to a thriving economy, especially in accessing a busy port that brings millions of pounds each year to our local economy,” Most sensible thing I've seen from Dion but as others have said, you can't trust them as far as you can throw them and they have always ignored the residents in the past.

"“I believe that 20mph speed limits in residential areas would be supported by many residents of Poole,” he said". Halving the council tax would be supported by many residents of Poole as well, so will you be doing that at the same time? What about the residents who would not support it?

“I also think there is merit in investigating whether reducing the speed limit in the town centre would improve the flow of traffic, increase the safety of pedestrians and cyclists and make the town centre more attractive to visitors.” No need to investigate. It hasn't worked anywhere else.
So everything written here is rubbish then:

http://www.britac.ac



.uk/templates/asset-



relay.cfm?frmAssetFi



leID=13280

And your qualifications in this field to make your sweeping assumption is what exactly?
yep, it's rubbish alright. And I'm an engineer with an unblemished and long track record for being right on a wide variety of things, however, you hardly need to be an expert to recognise nonsence like that for what it is.
Prove it is nonsense then. Which of the statistics quoted are lies or made up? How are his conclusions any less valid than the nonsense on your website?Perhaps you know more than a professor from Oxford University?

I very very much doubt it!
I see. So when I offer evidence which you don't agree with, I have to prove that my evidence is correct. And when you offer evidence I don't agree with, I have to prove it's incorrect. How about you just for once standing up for what you claim to believe? And it will need more than just an assumption that because he's a "professor from oxford" he's automatically right. Ok, I just can't resist offering evidence, and the best you can get is by looking at the area which first introduced widespread 20 limits: http://www.fightback
withfacts.com/portsm
ouths-20mph-area/
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: “A 20mph across our main routes is not conducive to a thriving economy, especially in accessing a busy port that brings millions of pounds each year to our local economy,” Most sensible thing I've seen from Dion but as others have said, you can't trust them as far as you can throw them and they have always ignored the residents in the past. "“I believe that 20mph speed limits in residential areas would be supported by many residents of Poole,” he said". Halving the council tax would be supported by many residents of Poole as well, so will you be doing that at the same time? What about the residents who would not support it? “I also think there is merit in investigating whether reducing the speed limit in the town centre would improve the flow of traffic, increase the safety of pedestrians and cyclists and make the town centre more attractive to visitors.” No need to investigate. It hasn't worked anywhere else.[/p][/quote]So everything written here is rubbish then: http://www.britac.ac .uk/templates/asset- relay.cfm?frmAssetFi leID=13280 And your qualifications in this field to make your sweeping assumption is what exactly?[/p][/quote]yep, it's rubbish alright. And I'm an engineer with an unblemished and long track record for being right on a wide variety of things, however, you hardly need to be an expert to recognise nonsence like that for what it is.[/p][/quote]Prove it is nonsense then. Which of the statistics quoted are lies or made up? How are his conclusions any less valid than the nonsense on your website?Perhaps you know more than a professor from Oxford University? I very very much doubt it![/p][/quote]I see. So when I offer evidence which you don't agree with, I have to prove that my evidence is correct. And when you offer evidence I don't agree with, I have to prove it's incorrect. How about you just for once standing up for what you claim to believe? And it will need more than just an assumption that because he's a "professor from oxford" he's automatically right. Ok, I just can't resist offering evidence, and the best you can get is by looking at the area which first introduced widespread 20 limits: http://www.fightback withfacts.com/portsm ouths-20mph-area/ dorsetspeed

8:11pm Sun 2 Feb 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
“A 20mph across our main routes is not conducive to a thriving economy, especially in accessing a busy port that brings millions of pounds each year to our local economy,” Most sensible thing I've seen from Dion but as others have said, you can't trust them as far as you can throw them and they have always ignored the residents in the past.

"“I believe that 20mph speed limits in residential areas would be supported by many residents of Poole,” he said". Halving the council tax would be supported by many residents of Poole as well, so will you be doing that at the same time? What about the residents who would not support it?

“I also think there is merit in investigating whether reducing the speed limit in the town centre would improve the flow of traffic, increase the safety of pedestrians and cyclists and make the town centre more attractive to visitors.” No need to investigate. It hasn't worked anywhere else.
So everything written here is rubbish then:

http://www.britac.ac




.uk/templates/asset-




relay.cfm?frmAssetFi




leID=13280

And your qualifications in this field to make your sweeping assumption is what exactly?
yep, it's rubbish alright. And I'm an engineer with an unblemished and long track record for being right on a wide variety of things, however, you hardly need to be an expert to recognise nonsence like that for what it is.
Prove it is nonsense then. Which of the statistics quoted are lies or made up? How are his conclusions any less valid than the nonsense on your website?Perhaps you know more than a professor from Oxford University?

I very very much doubt it!
I see. So when I offer evidence which you don't agree with, I have to prove that my evidence is correct. And when you offer evidence I don't agree with, I have to prove it's incorrect. How about you just for once standing up for what you claim to believe? And it will need more than just an assumption that because he's a "professor from oxford" he's automatically right. Ok, I just can't resist offering evidence, and the best you can get is by looking at the area which first introduced widespread 20 limits: http://www.fightback

withfacts.com/portsm

ouths-20mph-area/
Well....how's this? I didn't agree with your sweeping statement that 20mphs haven't 'worked' anywhere when they quite clearly have. I am aware of the website you mention and it is run by another one of the anti-camera fraternity so their views should be treated with equal contempt. It is as far removed from a presentation of evidence as you can get.

Your very narrow definition of 'worked' doesn't extend to the whole range of benefits 20mphs can bring. Just claiming they have failed because they may not have reduced accidents misses the point entirely.

Personally I agree with much of what Professor Dorling has written and I stand by my belief that he represents facts and logic whereas you simply support anything that opposes that view because it suits your anti camera stance.

Oh and I would ALWAYS believe an Oxford academic over a local busybody.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: “A 20mph across our main routes is not conducive to a thriving economy, especially in accessing a busy port that brings millions of pounds each year to our local economy,” Most sensible thing I've seen from Dion but as others have said, you can't trust them as far as you can throw them and they have always ignored the residents in the past. "“I believe that 20mph speed limits in residential areas would be supported by many residents of Poole,” he said". Halving the council tax would be supported by many residents of Poole as well, so will you be doing that at the same time? What about the residents who would not support it? “I also think there is merit in investigating whether reducing the speed limit in the town centre would improve the flow of traffic, increase the safety of pedestrians and cyclists and make the town centre more attractive to visitors.” No need to investigate. It hasn't worked anywhere else.[/p][/quote]So everything written here is rubbish then: http://www.britac.ac .uk/templates/asset- relay.cfm?frmAssetFi leID=13280 And your qualifications in this field to make your sweeping assumption is what exactly?[/p][/quote]yep, it's rubbish alright. And I'm an engineer with an unblemished and long track record for being right on a wide variety of things, however, you hardly need to be an expert to recognise nonsence like that for what it is.[/p][/quote]Prove it is nonsense then. Which of the statistics quoted are lies or made up? How are his conclusions any less valid than the nonsense on your website?Perhaps you know more than a professor from Oxford University? I very very much doubt it![/p][/quote]I see. So when I offer evidence which you don't agree with, I have to prove that my evidence is correct. And when you offer evidence I don't agree with, I have to prove it's incorrect. How about you just for once standing up for what you claim to believe? And it will need more than just an assumption that because he's a "professor from oxford" he's automatically right. Ok, I just can't resist offering evidence, and the best you can get is by looking at the area which first introduced widespread 20 limits: http://www.fightback withfacts.com/portsm ouths-20mph-area/[/p][/quote]Well....how's this? I didn't agree with your sweeping statement that 20mphs haven't 'worked' anywhere when they quite clearly have. I am aware of the website you mention and it is run by another one of the anti-camera fraternity so their views should be treated with equal contempt. It is as far removed from a presentation of evidence as you can get. Your very narrow definition of 'worked' doesn't extend to the whole range of benefits 20mphs can bring. Just claiming they have failed because they may not have reduced accidents misses the point entirely. Personally I agree with much of what Professor Dorling has written and I stand by my belief that he represents facts and logic whereas you simply support anything that opposes that view because it suits your anti camera stance. Oh and I would ALWAYS believe an Oxford academic over a local busybody. tbpoole

9:19pm Sun 2 Feb 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
“A 20mph across our main routes is not conducive to a thriving economy, especially in accessing a busy port that brings millions of pounds each year to our local economy,” Most sensible thing I've seen from Dion but as others have said, you can't trust them as far as you can throw them and they have always ignored the residents in the past.

"“I believe that 20mph speed limits in residential areas would be supported by many residents of Poole,” he said". Halving the council tax would be supported by many residents of Poole as well, so will you be doing that at the same time? What about the residents who would not support it?

“I also think there is merit in investigating whether reducing the speed limit in the town centre would improve the flow of traffic, increase the safety of pedestrians and cyclists and make the town centre more attractive to visitors.” No need to investigate. It hasn't worked anywhere else.
So everything written here is rubbish then:

http://www.britac.ac





.uk/templates/asset-





relay.cfm?frmAssetFi





leID=13280

And your qualifications in this field to make your sweeping assumption is what exactly?
yep, it's rubbish alright. And I'm an engineer with an unblemished and long track record for being right on a wide variety of things, however, you hardly need to be an expert to recognise nonsence like that for what it is.
Prove it is nonsense then. Which of the statistics quoted are lies or made up? How are his conclusions any less valid than the nonsense on your website?Perhaps you know more than a professor from Oxford University?

I very very much doubt it!
I see. So when I offer evidence which you don't agree with, I have to prove that my evidence is correct. And when you offer evidence I don't agree with, I have to prove it's incorrect. How about you just for once standing up for what you claim to believe? And it will need more than just an assumption that because he's a "professor from oxford" he's automatically right. Ok, I just can't resist offering evidence, and the best you can get is by looking at the area which first introduced widespread 20 limits: http://www.fightback


withfacts.com/portsm


ouths-20mph-area/
Well....how's this? I didn't agree with your sweeping statement that 20mphs haven't 'worked' anywhere when they quite clearly have. I am aware of the website you mention and it is run by another one of the anti-camera fraternity so their views should be treated with equal contempt. It is as far removed from a presentation of evidence as you can get.

Your very narrow definition of 'worked' doesn't extend to the whole range of benefits 20mphs can bring. Just claiming they have failed because they may not have reduced accidents misses the point entirely.

Personally I agree with much of what Professor Dorling has written and I stand by my belief that he represents facts and logic whereas you simply support anything that opposes that view because it suits your anti camera stance.

Oh and I would ALWAYS believe an Oxford academic over a local busybody.
"Well....how's this? I didn't agree with your sweeping statement that 20mphs haven't 'worked' anywhere when they quite clearly have."

Evidence?

" It is as far removed from a presentation of evidence as you can get."

Why?

"Personally I agree with much of what Professor Dorling has written and I stand by my belief that he represents facts and logic whereas you simply support anything that opposes that view because it suits your anti camera stance."

Actually, I am not anti camera, you can use all methods well and you can use them badly, Dorset use camera enforcement badly (to make money, not to save life)
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: “A 20mph across our main routes is not conducive to a thriving economy, especially in accessing a busy port that brings millions of pounds each year to our local economy,” Most sensible thing I've seen from Dion but as others have said, you can't trust them as far as you can throw them and they have always ignored the residents in the past. "“I believe that 20mph speed limits in residential areas would be supported by many residents of Poole,” he said". Halving the council tax would be supported by many residents of Poole as well, so will you be doing that at the same time? What about the residents who would not support it? “I also think there is merit in investigating whether reducing the speed limit in the town centre would improve the flow of traffic, increase the safety of pedestrians and cyclists and make the town centre more attractive to visitors.” No need to investigate. It hasn't worked anywhere else.[/p][/quote]So everything written here is rubbish then: http://www.britac.ac .uk/templates/asset- relay.cfm?frmAssetFi leID=13280 And your qualifications in this field to make your sweeping assumption is what exactly?[/p][/quote]yep, it's rubbish alright. And I'm an engineer with an unblemished and long track record for being right on a wide variety of things, however, you hardly need to be an expert to recognise nonsence like that for what it is.[/p][/quote]Prove it is nonsense then. Which of the statistics quoted are lies or made up? How are his conclusions any less valid than the nonsense on your website?Perhaps you know more than a professor from Oxford University? I very very much doubt it![/p][/quote]I see. So when I offer evidence which you don't agree with, I have to prove that my evidence is correct. And when you offer evidence I don't agree with, I have to prove it's incorrect. How about you just for once standing up for what you claim to believe? And it will need more than just an assumption that because he's a "professor from oxford" he's automatically right. Ok, I just can't resist offering evidence, and the best you can get is by looking at the area which first introduced widespread 20 limits: http://www.fightback withfacts.com/portsm ouths-20mph-area/[/p][/quote]Well....how's this? I didn't agree with your sweeping statement that 20mphs haven't 'worked' anywhere when they quite clearly have. I am aware of the website you mention and it is run by another one of the anti-camera fraternity so their views should be treated with equal contempt. It is as far removed from a presentation of evidence as you can get. Your very narrow definition of 'worked' doesn't extend to the whole range of benefits 20mphs can bring. Just claiming they have failed because they may not have reduced accidents misses the point entirely. Personally I agree with much of what Professor Dorling has written and I stand by my belief that he represents facts and logic whereas you simply support anything that opposes that view because it suits your anti camera stance. Oh and I would ALWAYS believe an Oxford academic over a local busybody.[/p][/quote]"Well....how's this? I didn't agree with your sweeping statement that 20mphs haven't 'worked' anywhere when they quite clearly have." Evidence? " It is as far removed from a presentation of evidence as you can get." Why? "Personally I agree with much of what Professor Dorling has written and I stand by my belief that he represents facts and logic whereas you simply support anything that opposes that view because it suits your anti camera stance." Actually, I am not anti camera, you can use all methods well and you can use them badly, Dorset use camera enforcement badly (to make money, not to save life) dorsetspeed

7:10am Mon 3 Feb 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
“A 20mph across our main routes is not conducive to a thriving economy, especially in accessing a busy port that brings millions of pounds each year to our local economy,” Most sensible thing I've seen from Dion but as others have said, you can't trust them as far as you can throw them and they have always ignored the residents in the past.

"“I believe that 20mph speed limits in residential areas would be supported by many residents of Poole,” he said". Halving the council tax would be supported by many residents of Poole as well, so will you be doing that at the same time? What about the residents who would not support it?

“I also think there is merit in investigating whether reducing the speed limit in the town centre would improve the flow of traffic, increase the safety of pedestrians and cyclists and make the town centre more attractive to visitors.” No need to investigate. It hasn't worked anywhere else.
So everything written here is rubbish then:

http://www.britac.ac






.uk/templates/asset-






relay.cfm?frmAssetFi






leID=13280

And your qualifications in this field to make your sweeping assumption is what exactly?
yep, it's rubbish alright. And I'm an engineer with an unblemished and long track record for being right on a wide variety of things, however, you hardly need to be an expert to recognise nonsence like that for what it is.
Prove it is nonsense then. Which of the statistics quoted are lies or made up? How are his conclusions any less valid than the nonsense on your website?Perhaps you know more than a professor from Oxford University?

I very very much doubt it!
I see. So when I offer evidence which you don't agree with, I have to prove that my evidence is correct. And when you offer evidence I don't agree with, I have to prove it's incorrect. How about you just for once standing up for what you claim to believe? And it will need more than just an assumption that because he's a "professor from oxford" he's automatically right. Ok, I just can't resist offering evidence, and the best you can get is by looking at the area which first introduced widespread 20 limits: http://www.fightback



withfacts.com/portsm



ouths-20mph-area/
Well....how's this? I didn't agree with your sweeping statement that 20mphs haven't 'worked' anywhere when they quite clearly have. I am aware of the website you mention and it is run by another one of the anti-camera fraternity so their views should be treated with equal contempt. It is as far removed from a presentation of evidence as you can get.

Your very narrow definition of 'worked' doesn't extend to the whole range of benefits 20mphs can bring. Just claiming they have failed because they may not have reduced accidents misses the point entirely.

Personally I agree with much of what Professor Dorling has written and I stand by my belief that he represents facts and logic whereas you simply support anything that opposes that view because it suits your anti camera stance.

Oh and I would ALWAYS believe an Oxford academic over a local busybody.
"Well....how's this? I didn't agree with your sweeping statement that 20mphs haven't 'worked' anywhere when they quite clearly have."

Evidence?

" It is as far removed from a presentation of evidence as you can get."

Why?

"Personally I agree with much of what Professor Dorling has written and I stand by my belief that he represents facts and logic whereas you simply support anything that opposes that view because it suits your anti camera stance."

Actually, I am not anti camera, you can use all methods well and you can use them badly, Dorset use camera enforcement badly (to make money, not to save life)
I see. So when I offer evidence which you don't agree with, I have to prove that my evidence is correct. And when you offer evidence I don't agree with, I have to prove it's incorrect......now where have I heard that before?
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: “A 20mph across our main routes is not conducive to a thriving economy, especially in accessing a busy port that brings millions of pounds each year to our local economy,” Most sensible thing I've seen from Dion but as others have said, you can't trust them as far as you can throw them and they have always ignored the residents in the past. "“I believe that 20mph speed limits in residential areas would be supported by many residents of Poole,” he said". Halving the council tax would be supported by many residents of Poole as well, so will you be doing that at the same time? What about the residents who would not support it? “I also think there is merit in investigating whether reducing the speed limit in the town centre would improve the flow of traffic, increase the safety of pedestrians and cyclists and make the town centre more attractive to visitors.” No need to investigate. It hasn't worked anywhere else.[/p][/quote]So everything written here is rubbish then: http://www.britac.ac .uk/templates/asset- relay.cfm?frmAssetFi leID=13280 And your qualifications in this field to make your sweeping assumption is what exactly?[/p][/quote]yep, it's rubbish alright. And I'm an engineer with an unblemished and long track record for being right on a wide variety of things, however, you hardly need to be an expert to recognise nonsence like that for what it is.[/p][/quote]Prove it is nonsense then. Which of the statistics quoted are lies or made up? How are his conclusions any less valid than the nonsense on your website?Perhaps you know more than a professor from Oxford University? I very very much doubt it![/p][/quote]I see. So when I offer evidence which you don't agree with, I have to prove that my evidence is correct. And when you offer evidence I don't agree with, I have to prove it's incorrect. How about you just for once standing up for what you claim to believe? And it will need more than just an assumption that because he's a "professor from oxford" he's automatically right. Ok, I just can't resist offering evidence, and the best you can get is by looking at the area which first introduced widespread 20 limits: http://www.fightback withfacts.com/portsm ouths-20mph-area/[/p][/quote]Well....how's this? I didn't agree with your sweeping statement that 20mphs haven't 'worked' anywhere when they quite clearly have. I am aware of the website you mention and it is run by another one of the anti-camera fraternity so their views should be treated with equal contempt. It is as far removed from a presentation of evidence as you can get. Your very narrow definition of 'worked' doesn't extend to the whole range of benefits 20mphs can bring. Just claiming they have failed because they may not have reduced accidents misses the point entirely. Personally I agree with much of what Professor Dorling has written and I stand by my belief that he represents facts and logic whereas you simply support anything that opposes that view because it suits your anti camera stance. Oh and I would ALWAYS believe an Oxford academic over a local busybody.[/p][/quote]"Well....how's this? I didn't agree with your sweeping statement that 20mphs haven't 'worked' anywhere when they quite clearly have." Evidence? " It is as far removed from a presentation of evidence as you can get." Why? "Personally I agree with much of what Professor Dorling has written and I stand by my belief that he represents facts and logic whereas you simply support anything that opposes that view because it suits your anti camera stance." Actually, I am not anti camera, you can use all methods well and you can use them badly, Dorset use camera enforcement badly (to make money, not to save life)[/p][/quote]I see. So when I offer evidence which you don't agree with, I have to prove that my evidence is correct. And when you offer evidence I don't agree with, I have to prove it's incorrect......now where have I heard that before? tbpoole

8:25am Mon 3 Feb 14

dorsetspeed says...

I simply can't waste much time with you tbpoole, time and time again you have persisted flogging dead horses trying to argue against me and I have beaten you every time. My response just above was not about proof of evidence, simply about whether or not there was any. You said 20 limits quite clearly have worked. I'm not asking you to explain evidence, I'm asking you simply to provide it. The page I pointed you to has an introduction and 32 references documents and you seem to think that "It is as far removed from a presentation of evidence as you can get"

You really are quite ridiculous! I can't waste my time on this
I simply can't waste much time with you tbpoole, time and time again you have persisted flogging dead horses trying to argue against me and I have beaten you every time. My response just above was not about proof of evidence, simply about whether or not there was any. You said 20 limits quite clearly have worked. I'm not asking you to explain evidence, I'm asking you simply to provide it. The page I pointed you to has an introduction and 32 references documents and you seem to think that "It is as far removed from a presentation of evidence as you can get" You really are quite ridiculous! I can't waste my time on this dorsetspeed

12:46pm Mon 3 Feb 14

Poole Pirate says...

Excellent Idea - well done councillor Howell.
Excellent Idea - well done councillor Howell. Poole Pirate

2:19pm Mon 3 Feb 14

ashleycross says...

Poole needs to stop driving young people who have a choice out of the area and even out of the country for better more pleasant surroundings by clinging to outdated traffic policies which make it impossible to cycle through the town or cross the roads safely on foot.
Well done Councillor Howell for trying to drag Poole into the twenty first century.This is part of making Poole somewhere that is moving with the times where fit healthy living people of all ages are catered for instead of rotting in the past, dragged down by the obese and bone idle who won't get out of their cars and put one foot in front of the other even to walk to a bus stop.
Poole needs to stop driving young people who have a choice out of the area and even out of the country for better more pleasant surroundings by clinging to outdated traffic policies which make it impossible to cycle through the town or cross the roads safely on foot. Well done Councillor Howell for trying to drag Poole into the twenty first century.This is part of making Poole somewhere that is moving with the times where fit healthy living people of all ages are catered for instead of rotting in the past, dragged down by the obese and bone idle who won't get out of their cars and put one foot in front of the other even to walk to a bus stop. ashleycross

2:27pm Mon 3 Feb 14

ashleycross says...

goingsolo wrote:
Good Grief, another Howeller. Does Cllr Howell not understand that main roads are for traffic and for traffic to get across town properly. Yes, perhaps right along some of the back ads, where you can't go faster than about 15mph anyway, but think it through and don't hold up people getting from Hamworthy across the bridges into Town or beyond. I voted for PPP last election but certainly won't be again. what a bunch of amateurs.
traffic includes traffic on foot and on bike, Poole hospital is overrun with asthma admissions in the summer because you can't walk safely from one end of Poole to the other let alone cycle. Most of the cars stuck in traffic jams are people going less than two miles, that's a forty minutes walk for goodness sake. Poole needs to change in favour of getting people out of cars and onto bikes and buses, which means a safe walk to the bus stops..
[quote][p][bold]goingsolo[/bold] wrote: Good Grief, another Howeller. Does Cllr Howell not understand that main roads are for traffic and for traffic to get across town properly. Yes, perhaps right along some of the back ads, where you can't go faster than about 15mph anyway, but think it through and don't hold up people getting from Hamworthy across the bridges into Town or beyond. I voted for PPP last election but certainly won't be again. what a bunch of amateurs.[/p][/quote]traffic includes traffic on foot and on bike, Poole hospital is overrun with asthma admissions in the summer because you can't walk safely from one end of Poole to the other let alone cycle. Most of the cars stuck in traffic jams are people going less than two miles, that's a forty minutes walk for goodness sake. Poole needs to change in favour of getting people out of cars and onto bikes and buses, which means a safe walk to the bus stops.. ashleycross

2:29pm Mon 3 Feb 14

ashleycross says...

The ghastly state of Poole town centre is very damaging for businesses at present as it makes recruitment of staff so difficult because it is such a dump to be stuck in at lunch time.
The ghastly state of Poole town centre is very damaging for businesses at present as it makes recruitment of staff so difficult because it is such a dump to be stuck in at lunch time. ashleycross

2:43pm Mon 3 Feb 14

dorsetspeed says...

Some interesting comments from "ashleycross"
So it looks like a 20 limit instead of a 30 will:
1. attract young people instead of driving them out
2. make it possible instead of impossible to walk or cycle,
3. drag poole into the 21st century
4. make people of all ages fit and healthy instead of rotting in the past
5. stop obesity and idleness
6. allow people to put one foot in front of another
7. cure asthma
8. prevent traffic jams
9. get people onto bikes and buses which are safe instead of unsafe
10. solve the state of Poole
11. solve recruitment problems

Incredible.
Some interesting comments from "ashleycross" So it looks like a 20 limit instead of a 30 will: 1. attract young people instead of driving them out 2. make it possible instead of impossible to walk or cycle, 3. drag poole into the 21st century 4. make people of all ages fit and healthy instead of rotting in the past 5. stop obesity and idleness 6. allow people to put one foot in front of another 7. cure asthma 8. prevent traffic jams 9. get people onto bikes and buses which are safe instead of unsafe 10. solve the state of Poole 11. solve recruitment problems Incredible. dorsetspeed

5:51pm Mon 3 Feb 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Some interesting comments from "ashleycross"
So it looks like a 20 limit instead of a 30 will:
1. attract young people instead of driving them out
2. make it possible instead of impossible to walk or cycle,
3. drag poole into the 21st century
4. make people of all ages fit and healthy instead of rotting in the past
5. stop obesity and idleness
6. allow people to put one foot in front of another
7. cure asthma
8. prevent traffic jams
9. get people onto bikes and buses which are safe instead of unsafe
10. solve the state of Poole
11. solve recruitment problems

Incredible.
Dorsetspleen, You are just showing:

1. Your ignorance in these matters;
2. Your entirely chauvinistic, car-centric viewpoint on anything relating to roads;
3. Your narrow-minded selfish attitude to very real issues and concerns that affect residents who actually live in these streets;
4. Your lack of understanding of what actually makes a street safer;
5. Your deliberate attempts to bully everyone who opposes your view into submission by being dismissive, arrogant dictatorial and obnoxious in equal measures.

Thank goodness you aren't the one setting transport policies in this area, despite your attempts to do just that!
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Some interesting comments from "ashleycross" So it looks like a 20 limit instead of a 30 will: 1. attract young people instead of driving them out 2. make it possible instead of impossible to walk or cycle, 3. drag poole into the 21st century 4. make people of all ages fit and healthy instead of rotting in the past 5. stop obesity and idleness 6. allow people to put one foot in front of another 7. cure asthma 8. prevent traffic jams 9. get people onto bikes and buses which are safe instead of unsafe 10. solve the state of Poole 11. solve recruitment problems Incredible.[/p][/quote]Dorsetspleen, You are just showing: 1. Your ignorance in these matters; 2. Your entirely chauvinistic, car-centric viewpoint on anything relating to roads; 3. Your narrow-minded selfish attitude to very real issues and concerns that affect residents who actually live in these streets; 4. Your lack of understanding of what actually makes a street safer; 5. Your deliberate attempts to bully everyone who opposes your view into submission by being dismissive, arrogant dictatorial and obnoxious in equal measures. Thank goodness you aren't the one setting transport policies in this area, despite your attempts to do just that! tbpoole

6:19pm Mon 3 Feb 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
Some interesting comments from "ashleycross"
So it looks like a 20 limit instead of a 30 will:
1. attract young people instead of driving them out
2. make it possible instead of impossible to walk or cycle,
3. drag poole into the 21st century
4. make people of all ages fit and healthy instead of rotting in the past
5. stop obesity and idleness
6. allow people to put one foot in front of another
7. cure asthma
8. prevent traffic jams
9. get people onto bikes and buses which are safe instead of unsafe
10. solve the state of Poole
11. solve recruitment problems

Incredible.
Dorsetspleen, You are just showing:

1. Your ignorance in these matters;
2. Your entirely chauvinistic, car-centric viewpoint on anything relating to roads;
3. Your narrow-minded selfish attitude to very real issues and concerns that affect residents who actually live in these streets;
4. Your lack of understanding of what actually makes a street safer;
5. Your deliberate attempts to bully everyone who opposes your view into submission by being dismissive, arrogant dictatorial and obnoxious in equal measures.

Thank goodness you aren't the one setting transport policies in this area, despite your attempts to do just that!
Actually it was simply a summary of the benefits suggested by ashleycross. It was showing none of the things you suggested. It does demonstrate quite well though the absurdity of those who appear to want to simply disrupt traffic with no benefit to anyone.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Some interesting comments from "ashleycross" So it looks like a 20 limit instead of a 30 will: 1. attract young people instead of driving them out 2. make it possible instead of impossible to walk or cycle, 3. drag poole into the 21st century 4. make people of all ages fit and healthy instead of rotting in the past 5. stop obesity and idleness 6. allow people to put one foot in front of another 7. cure asthma 8. prevent traffic jams 9. get people onto bikes and buses which are safe instead of unsafe 10. solve the state of Poole 11. solve recruitment problems Incredible.[/p][/quote]Dorsetspleen, You are just showing: 1. Your ignorance in these matters; 2. Your entirely chauvinistic, car-centric viewpoint on anything relating to roads; 3. Your narrow-minded selfish attitude to very real issues and concerns that affect residents who actually live in these streets; 4. Your lack of understanding of what actually makes a street safer; 5. Your deliberate attempts to bully everyone who opposes your view into submission by being dismissive, arrogant dictatorial and obnoxious in equal measures. Thank goodness you aren't the one setting transport policies in this area, despite your attempts to do just that![/p][/quote]Actually it was simply a summary of the benefits suggested by ashleycross. It was showing none of the things you suggested. It does demonstrate quite well though the absurdity of those who appear to want to simply disrupt traffic with no benefit to anyone. dorsetspeed

7:58pm Mon 3 Feb 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
Some interesting comments from "ashleycross"
So it looks like a 20 limit instead of a 30 will:
1. attract young people instead of driving them out
2. make it possible instead of impossible to walk or cycle,
3. drag poole into the 21st century
4. make people of all ages fit and healthy instead of rotting in the past
5. stop obesity and idleness
6. allow people to put one foot in front of another
7. cure asthma
8. prevent traffic jams
9. get people onto bikes and buses which are safe instead of unsafe
10. solve the state of Poole
11. solve recruitment problems

Incredible.
Dorsetspleen, You are just showing:

1. Your ignorance in these matters;
2. Your entirely chauvinistic, car-centric viewpoint on anything relating to roads;
3. Your narrow-minded selfish attitude to very real issues and concerns that affect residents who actually live in these streets;
4. Your lack of understanding of what actually makes a street safer;
5. Your deliberate attempts to bully everyone who opposes your view into submission by being dismissive, arrogant dictatorial and obnoxious in equal measures.

Thank goodness you aren't the one setting transport policies in this area, despite your attempts to do just that!
Actually it was simply a summary of the benefits suggested by ashleycross. It was showing none of the things you suggested. It does demonstrate quite well though the absurdity of those who appear to want to simply disrupt traffic with no benefit to anyone.
You mean of no benefit to car obsessed road hogs taking a shortcut rather than people who live in these roads?
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Some interesting comments from "ashleycross" So it looks like a 20 limit instead of a 30 will: 1. attract young people instead of driving them out 2. make it possible instead of impossible to walk or cycle, 3. drag poole into the 21st century 4. make people of all ages fit and healthy instead of rotting in the past 5. stop obesity and idleness 6. allow people to put one foot in front of another 7. cure asthma 8. prevent traffic jams 9. get people onto bikes and buses which are safe instead of unsafe 10. solve the state of Poole 11. solve recruitment problems Incredible.[/p][/quote]Dorsetspleen, You are just showing: 1. Your ignorance in these matters; 2. Your entirely chauvinistic, car-centric viewpoint on anything relating to roads; 3. Your narrow-minded selfish attitude to very real issues and concerns that affect residents who actually live in these streets; 4. Your lack of understanding of what actually makes a street safer; 5. Your deliberate attempts to bully everyone who opposes your view into submission by being dismissive, arrogant dictatorial and obnoxious in equal measures. Thank goodness you aren't the one setting transport policies in this area, despite your attempts to do just that![/p][/quote]Actually it was simply a summary of the benefits suggested by ashleycross. It was showing none of the things you suggested. It does demonstrate quite well though the absurdity of those who appear to want to simply disrupt traffic with no benefit to anyone.[/p][/quote]You mean of no benefit to car obsessed road hogs taking a shortcut rather than people who live in these roads? tbpoole

7:26am Tue 4 Feb 14

dorsetspeed says...

The only true evidence on the effectiveness of 20 limits (i.e what actually happened in Portsmouth) suggests that it does not help those who live in roads either, consistent with reality and common sense.
The only true evidence on the effectiveness of 20 limits (i.e what actually happened in Portsmouth) suggests that it does not help those who live in roads either, consistent with reality and common sense. dorsetspeed

7:27am Tue 4 Feb 14

tbpoole says...

Wrong.
Wrong. tbpoole

8:13am Tue 4 Feb 14

dorsetspeed says...

No, it's correct. Can you find anything positive here?
http://webarchive.na
tionalarchives.gov.u
k/+/http:/www.dft.go
v.uk/pgr/roadsafety/
research/rsrr/theme4
/interimeval20mphspe
edlimits.pdf

or here?

http://www.portsmout
h.co.uk/news/busines
s/local-business/mor
e-evidence-needed-on
-20mph-limits-says-m
otor-boss-1-5056087

Some think they are good, but where a 20 limit would be suitable (narrow streets etc) the traffic doesn't go much faster anyway, in fact as you will see, a reduction in the limit from 30 to 20 typically results in an actual speed reduction of 1mph where it matters!

And the kind of nutters who go down such streets at 30 or more won't take the slightest notice of 20 limits.

As I said, it's all simple common sense really.

But what 20 limits can do is to increase the PERCEPTION of safety, making people think they are safer when they are not, and also consume resources that could have been spent on something effective - and these things are DANGEROUS
No, it's correct. Can you find anything positive here? http://webarchive.na tionalarchives.gov.u k/+/http:/www.dft.go v.uk/pgr/roadsafety/ research/rsrr/theme4 /interimeval20mphspe edlimits.pdf or here? http://www.portsmout h.co.uk/news/busines s/local-business/mor e-evidence-needed-on -20mph-limits-says-m otor-boss-1-5056087 Some think they are good, but where a 20 limit would be suitable (narrow streets etc) the traffic doesn't go much faster anyway, in fact as you will see, a reduction in the limit from 30 to 20 typically results in an actual speed reduction of 1mph where it matters! And the kind of nutters who go down such streets at 30 or more won't take the slightest notice of 20 limits. As I said, it's all simple common sense really. But what 20 limits can do is to increase the PERCEPTION of safety, making people think they are safer when they are not, and also consume resources that could have been spent on something effective - and these things are DANGEROUS dorsetspeed

6:12pm Tue 4 Feb 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
No, it's correct. Can you find anything positive here?
http://webarchive.na

tionalarchives.gov.u

k/+/http:/www.dft.go

v.uk/pgr/roadsafety/

research/rsrr/theme4

/interimeval20mphspe

edlimits.pdf

or here?

http://www.portsmout

h.co.uk/news/busines

s/local-business/mor

e-evidence-needed-on

-20mph-limits-says-m

otor-boss-1-5056087

Some think they are good, but where a 20 limit would be suitable (narrow streets etc) the traffic doesn't go much faster anyway, in fact as you will see, a reduction in the limit from 30 to 20 typically results in an actual speed reduction of 1mph where it matters!

And the kind of nutters who go down such streets at 30 or more won't take the slightest notice of 20 limits.

As I said, it's all simple common sense really.

But what 20 limits can do is to increase the PERCEPTION of safety, making people think they are safer when they are not, and also consume resources that could have been spent on something effective - and these things are DANGEROUS
This report seems to suggest it has worked....sorry!

http://assets.dft.go
v.uk/publications/sp
eed-limits-portsmout
h/speed-limits-ports
mouth.pdf
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: No, it's correct. Can you find anything positive here? http://webarchive.na tionalarchives.gov.u k/+/http:/www.dft.go v.uk/pgr/roadsafety/ research/rsrr/theme4 /interimeval20mphspe edlimits.pdf or here? http://www.portsmout h.co.uk/news/busines s/local-business/mor e-evidence-needed-on -20mph-limits-says-m otor-boss-1-5056087 Some think they are good, but where a 20 limit would be suitable (narrow streets etc) the traffic doesn't go much faster anyway, in fact as you will see, a reduction in the limit from 30 to 20 typically results in an actual speed reduction of 1mph where it matters! And the kind of nutters who go down such streets at 30 or more won't take the slightest notice of 20 limits. As I said, it's all simple common sense really. But what 20 limits can do is to increase the PERCEPTION of safety, making people think they are safer when they are not, and also consume resources that could have been spent on something effective - and these things are DANGEROUS[/p][/quote]This report seems to suggest it has worked....sorry! http://assets.dft.go v.uk/publications/sp eed-limits-portsmout h/speed-limits-ports mouth.pdf tbpoole

9:49pm Tue 4 Feb 14

dorsetspeed says...

Could you point me to what you have seen that says it worked?
Could you point me to what you have seen that says it worked? dorsetspeed

9:49pm Tue 4 Feb 14

dorsetspeed says...

Could you point me to what you have seen that says it worked?
Could you point me to what you have seen that says it worked? dorsetspeed

10:30pm Tue 4 Feb 14

tbpoole says...

Do you actually know how to read technical reports or are you just pretending to be thick?
Do you actually know how to read technical reports or are you just pretending to be thick? tbpoole

10:32pm Tue 4 Feb 14

tbpoole says...

To quote "In conclusion, early figures suggest that the implementation of the 20 mph Speed Limit scheme has been associated with reductions in road casualty numbers. The scheme has reduced average speeds and been well-supported during its first two years of operation."
To quote "In conclusion, early figures suggest that the implementation of the 20 mph Speed Limit scheme has been associated with reductions in road casualty numbers. The scheme has reduced average speeds and been well-supported during its first two years of operation." tbpoole

6:38am Wed 5 Feb 14

dorsetspeed says...

Yes, I know how to read technical reports. I know that you can cherry pick statements out of them. The quote you chose was just a "suggestion". Anyone can suggest anything they like, I prefer to quote more scientific statements:

"The number of deaths and serious injuries rose from 19 to 20 per year. Because the total numbers of deaths and serious injuries and of casualties by road user type and cause are relatively low, few inferences about the scheme’s impacts should be drawn from these figures"

"The average reduction in mean speeds on all roads was 1.3 mph."

There is nothing to support the absurd optimistic assumptions of ashleycross or the "professor from oxford"
Yes, I know how to read technical reports. I know that you can cherry pick statements out of them. The quote you chose was just a "suggestion". Anyone can suggest anything they like, I prefer to quote more scientific statements: "The number of deaths and serious injuries rose from 19 to 20 per year. Because the total numbers of deaths and serious injuries and of casualties by road user type and cause are relatively low, few inferences about the scheme’s impacts should be drawn from these figures" "The average reduction in mean speeds on all roads was 1.3 mph." There is nothing to support the absurd optimistic assumptions of ashleycross or the "professor from oxford" dorsetspeed

7:16am Wed 5 Feb 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Yes, I know how to read technical reports. I know that you can cherry pick statements out of them. The quote you chose was just a "suggestion". Anyone can suggest anything they like, I prefer to quote more scientific statements:

"The number of deaths and serious injuries rose from 19 to 20 per year. Because the total numbers of deaths and serious injuries and of casualties by road user type and cause are relatively low, few inferences about the scheme’s impacts should be drawn from these figures"

"The average reduction in mean speeds on all roads was 1.3 mph."

There is nothing to support the absurd optimistic assumptions of ashleycross or the "professor from oxford"
I would hardly class quoting the main conclusion statement as "cherry picking". That's the point of a summary conclusion. Plus it was an interim evaluation because it wasn't comparing like for like periods. There was a reduction in speeds. Hardly the picture of the catastrophic failure you constantly try and paint in an attempt to dis these schemes.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Yes, I know how to read technical reports. I know that you can cherry pick statements out of them. The quote you chose was just a "suggestion". Anyone can suggest anything they like, I prefer to quote more scientific statements: "The number of deaths and serious injuries rose from 19 to 20 per year. Because the total numbers of deaths and serious injuries and of casualties by road user type and cause are relatively low, few inferences about the scheme’s impacts should be drawn from these figures" "The average reduction in mean speeds on all roads was 1.3 mph." There is nothing to support the absurd optimistic assumptions of ashleycross or the "professor from oxford"[/p][/quote]I would hardly class quoting the main conclusion statement as "cherry picking". That's the point of a summary conclusion. Plus it was an interim evaluation because it wasn't comparing like for like periods. There was a reduction in speeds. Hardly the picture of the catastrophic failure you constantly try and paint in an attempt to dis these schemes. tbpoole

7:18am Wed 5 Feb 14

tbpoole says...

Oh and if you dispute everything the "professor from Oxford" has written, have you contacted him yet to point out the error of his ways?
Oh and if you dispute everything the "professor from Oxford" has written, have you contacted him yet to point out the error of his ways? tbpoole

7:57am Wed 5 Feb 14

Poole Pirate says...

suzigirl wrote:
They dropped the speed limit on the Dorset Way from 70 mph to 50 mph. At the weekends at night (usually after 10 o'clock) it sounds like a race track.
But it's OK for loud bikes eh ! - a totally contradiction of your post relating to the Poole bikefest. Sort your story out for heavens sake 'mate' LOL !.
[quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: They dropped the speed limit on the Dorset Way from 70 mph to 50 mph. At the weekends at night (usually after 10 o'clock) it sounds like a race track.[/p][/quote]But it's OK for loud bikes eh ! - a totally contradiction of your post relating to the Poole bikefest. Sort your story out for heavens sake 'mate' LOL !. Poole Pirate

8:05am Wed 5 Feb 14

dorsetspeed says...

Academics tend to ignore anyone who disagrees with them. There is no "catastrophic failure", there just isn't any benefit. This will probably go over your head but a "reduction in speeds" in itself (if you think 1.3mph is significant) is not necessarily a good thing!
Academics tend to ignore anyone who disagrees with them. There is no "catastrophic failure", there just isn't any benefit. This will probably go over your head but a "reduction in speeds" in itself (if you think 1.3mph is significant) is not necessarily a good thing! dorsetspeed

1:49pm Wed 5 Feb 14

FNS-man says...

Dorsetspeed making an excellent case for the councillor's argument for not consulting the public.
Dorsetspeed making an excellent case for the councillor's argument for not consulting the public. FNS-man

1:55pm Wed 5 Feb 14

dorsetspeed says...

FNS-man wrote:
Dorsetspeed making an excellent case for the councillor's argument for not consulting the public.
Can you add any substance to that?
[quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: Dorsetspeed making an excellent case for the councillor's argument for not consulting the public.[/p][/quote]Can you add any substance to that? dorsetspeed

2:08pm Wed 5 Feb 14

Dorset Logic says...

Whatever the for and against arguments, I'm just getting really fed up with the amount of control these people have and are trying to put into our life's.

They are bloody stifling the hell out of freedom and living in peace. Go away council people, please go away...
Whatever the for and against arguments, I'm just getting really fed up with the amount of control these people have and are trying to put into our life's. They are bloody stifling the hell out of freedom and living in peace. Go away council people, please go away... Dorset Logic

5:45pm Wed 5 Feb 14

FNS-man says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
FNS-man wrote: Dorsetspeed making an excellent case for the councillor's argument for not consulting the public.
Can you add any substance to that?
I refer you to your comments up the page.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: Dorsetspeed making an excellent case for the councillor's argument for not consulting the public.[/p][/quote]Can you add any substance to that?[/p][/quote]I refer you to your comments up the page. FNS-man

6:04pm Wed 5 Feb 14

Phixer says...

Quote: "He said sometimes the council had to show leadership" unquote

Yes - and we're not holding our breath for when that day may come.
Quote: "He said sometimes the council had to show leadership" unquote Yes - and we're not holding our breath for when that day may come. Phixer

6:18pm Wed 5 Feb 14

dorsetspeed says...

FNS-man wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
FNS-man wrote: Dorsetspeed making an excellent case for the councillor's argument for not consulting the public.
Can you add any substance to that?
I refer you to your comments up the page.
They seem to make quite good sense to me. Could you detail what the problem is?
[quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: Dorsetspeed making an excellent case for the councillor's argument for not consulting the public.[/p][/quote]Can you add any substance to that?[/p][/quote]I refer you to your comments up the page.[/p][/quote]They seem to make quite good sense to me. Could you detail what the problem is? dorsetspeed

10:49pm Wed 5 Feb 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
FNS-man wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
FNS-man wrote: Dorsetspeed making an excellent case for the councillor's argument for not consulting the public.
Can you add any substance to that?
I refer you to your comments up the page.
They seem to make quite good sense to me. Could you detail what the problem is?
FNS-man you will never get anywhere in your arguments with dorsetspleen. He will never accept anyone else can be right, always has to have the last word, and you are wasting your time if you think you can get him to bend one inch from his entrenched views on motoring.

Just ignore him and he may eventually go away......however I doubt it.

Watch this space.......
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: Dorsetspeed making an excellent case for the councillor's argument for not consulting the public.[/p][/quote]Can you add any substance to that?[/p][/quote]I refer you to your comments up the page.[/p][/quote]They seem to make quite good sense to me. Could you detail what the problem is?[/p][/quote]FNS-man you will never get anywhere in your arguments with dorsetspleen. He will never accept anyone else can be right, always has to have the last word, and you are wasting your time if you think you can get him to bend one inch from his entrenched views on motoring. Just ignore him and he may eventually go away......however I doubt it. Watch this space....... tbpoole

9:00am Thu 6 Feb 14

tbpoole says...

...and here is more evidence that 20mphs do work:

http://www.brighton-
hove.gov.uk/content/
press-release/20mph-
proposals-reflect-co
nsultation-responses
...and here is more evidence that 20mphs do work: http://www.brighton- hove.gov.uk/content/ press-release/20mph- proposals-reflect-co nsultation-responses tbpoole

10:12am Thu 6 Feb 14

dorsetspeed says...

This is a council doing something and then telling us it was a success, would they do otherwise? Any proper evaluation needs to be independent. And it seems to be carefully telling us only part of the story:

"The majority of residents will get the speed limit they want on the street where they live.” What percentage "majority"? Many might like a very low limit directly outside their house, but these are not road safety professionals! They do not understand simple concepts such as cost effectiveness - that for example if a 20 limit does reduce accidents, by how much per £, and if that same money could save more lives by another method, then it is costing lives by not spending it on the right methods.

"A decrease in traffic speed on 74% on the roads." How much? 1MPH as in Portsmouth? What happens on other roads? Do speeds increase as people make up for time?

They draw conclusions on casualty counts on 5 months of data!!! And without accounting for trend and traffic volumes!!

It's absolute nonsense!
This is a council doing something and then telling us it was a success, would they do otherwise? Any proper evaluation needs to be independent. And it seems to be carefully telling us only part of the story: "The majority of residents will get the speed limit they want on the street where they live.” What percentage "majority"? Many might like a very low limit directly outside their house, but these are not road safety professionals! They do not understand simple concepts such as cost effectiveness - that for example if a 20 limit does reduce accidents, by how much per £, and if that same money could save more lives by another method, then it is costing lives by not spending it on the right methods. "A decrease in traffic speed on 74% on the roads." How much? 1MPH as in Portsmouth? What happens on other roads? Do speeds increase as people make up for time? They draw conclusions on casualty counts on 5 months of data!!! And without accounting for trend and traffic volumes!! It's absolute nonsense! dorsetspeed

12:13pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Dorset Logic says...

oh oh, I'm getting old and the world is moving too fast for me, please won't someone slow it down from its 1950's speed limits.

I would like to remind all to think of the children.
oh oh, I'm getting old and the world is moving too fast for me, please won't someone slow it down from its 1950's speed limits. I would like to remind all to think of the children. Dorset Logic

7:15pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Bandit3 says...

Howell, it's time you resigned as a councillor, you haven't got a clue what people want or need. As a resident of old town poole a 20 speed limit would cause to much pollution ! Get a grip stupid man
Howell, it's time you resigned as a councillor, you haven't got a clue what people want or need. As a resident of old town poole a 20 speed limit would cause to much pollution ! Get a grip stupid man Bandit3

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree