Tory transport spokesman Nick Cook (MSP candidate and self-proclaimed "flag flyer of blue collar One-Nation Conservatism") tweeted he would be lodging a motion to throw out the proposals given that "64% of" chipwrapper readers were against it. Looks like he opened himself to a bit of heckling on that one, including from myself, pointing out that social media polls don't equate to "64% of readers" and also questioning whether such things were more valid than the councils own and far more comprehensive consultation.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
20 mph - consultation coming soon
(256 posts)-
Posted 8 years ago #
-
Does this make sense??
"
@CllrNickCook: @SpokesLothian and reduce effectiveness of existing,targeted zones need 20mph. Full speech on webcast for later viewing"
Posted 8 years ago # -
Think he means that drivers can only be expected to adhere to lower speed limits in confined areas, and that expecting them to keep to 20 across the city is too much.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"drivers can only be expected to adhere to lower speed limits in confined areas"
That may be true, but still can't understand "reduce effectiveness of existing".
Posted 8 years ago # -
The thrust was two fold:
Firstly, wide area 20 mph zones won't be respected because there's "no obvious reason" for them, compared to targeted 20mph.
Secondly, that wide area 20 mph zones will receive the same level of enforcement as 30 mph (implied=none), whereas specific 20 mph zones would be enforced.
Unfortunately the latter point ignores the fact that Lothian and Borders have said that they won't enforce 20 mph in targeted areas either...
Of course, that Freedom of Information Request is no longer available and the current Police Scotland document is hobbled.
L&B FoI request from August 2011
Police Scotland Speeding Standard Operating Procedure
Robert
Posted 8 years ago # -
At least we're not in Surrey:
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/county-council-tackle-dangerous-mayford-10718944
Posted 8 years ago # -
I can see where they're coming from with the "reducing effectiveness of existing limits" comments - it's reasonable to imagine that some drivers might get used to cruising at 25 or 30 in the citywide 20 limits - including the currently existing ones - whereas before they might have respected the existing brief 20 limits.
Of course, the answer isn't just to throw in the towel but to target the "important" areas with better traffic calming, filtered permeability to reduce traffic flows, lower speed limits, peak time traffic bans (like we have outside schools), better enforcement and pedestrianisation .
Posted 8 years ago # -
"
AN 11th-hour attempt by the Tories to have the city-wide 20mph speed limit plan thrown out has failed.
"http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/20mph-plan-still-on-track-after-tory-vote-fails-1-3999600
Posted 8 years ago # -
So 20th C -
"
Putting forward the failed amendment, Conservative transport spokesman Councillor Nick Cook argued that the proposals could increase both congestion and pollution.
He said: “As a capital city and a key engine of growth in Scotland’s economy, as a local authority we have a duty to keep this city moving – its people and its businesses. We mustn’t jeopardise this.
"
Posted 8 years ago # -
Perhaps some of the car owners on here who CHOOSE not to drive to work could engage with Mr. Cook.
Posted 8 years ago # -
The day I hit a child at 20mph - and realised the speed limit must be cut
In an impassioned appeal, Dr Nick Foreman remembers the near-fatal accident that convinced him of the need to stop motorists driving at 30mph in built-up areas
Posted 8 years ago # -
According to the BBC, 50% of Edinburgh's roads are already 20mph, I can't really say I have noticed any difference in the standard of driving or my perceived threat levels in those areas, sadly. This measure means that another 30% are 20mph. Is that correct?
Posted 8 years ago # -
Linlithgow high street is not only a 20mph zone but a reasonably narrow (sometimes cobbled) historic town road but it's still a total nightmare to cross at any point of the day because of the traffic volumes.
Posted 8 years ago # -
The day I hit a child at 20mph - and realised the speed limit must be cut
Something like this nearly happened to me once, many years ago. I was driving along my road at about 20mph (limit: 30mph) and a child on a bike freewheeled down a driveway, emerged between two parked cars, and ended up in the middle of the road a few yards in front of me. Low speed + reactions + big brakes = no harm done.
If I'd been going any faster it would no doubt have been a different story.
How long has West Savile Terrace been a 20mph zone? Two years, three years, five years? I think drivers might possibly finally be getting the hang of it.
Posted 8 years ago # -
crowriver - that article really hits it home, I have stuck it on my facebook page as I know loads of folk that are against the 20mph limit
Posted 8 years ago # -
Some parallels with the 20mph plans:
analysis showing that a counterintuitive suggestion to change an existing convention will increase capacity; resistance to implement it; outraged and extreme reactions from a vocal minority and finally evidence from the trial showing that it works in practice.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Courier story about the impact on casualties over a decade of 20mph limits in Fife, posted a couple of days ago.
Posted 8 years ago # -
@stickman I imagine that the EEN commenters would use that to argue we should do away with bus and cycle lanes - 'why should we leave a couple of lanes empty when they're rarely used?'
On the other hand, I suppose you could argue that we should do away with on-street parking. That'd free up another lane we could then use to increase road capacity, just like the escalator frees up the 'walking only' side to fit more standees.
Posted 8 years ago # -
The council have proposed some amendments to the citywide 20mph as per TRO/16/09.
The following streets are to be removed from the citywide order (20mph):
- Bankhead Drive Section parallel to tram line (Cultins Road to Broomhouse Road)
- Dreghorn Link All except cul-de-sac section at Nos. 28-50
- Harvest Wynd
- Johnsburn Green
- Lochend Road, Newbridge North of No. 24
- Lonehead Drive
- Main Street, Dalmeny East of existing village gateway near No. 1
- Maryfield
- Meadow Place Road Forrester Park Avenue to Ladywell Road
- Niddrie Mains Road Niddrie Marischal Road to Duddingston Park South / The Wisp
- Pentland Terrace All except Nos. 1 – 13A
- Pilmuir Grove
- Provost Haugh
- Silverknowes Road North of Silverknowes Parkway
- South Gyle Crescent All except Nos. 11 – 15/1
- Station Loan
- Stenhouse Drive From No. 75 north-west to Saughton Road
- Stirling Road, Kirkliston West of Kirklands Park Street
- Westfield Road Westfield Avenue to Roseburn Street
- Queen’s Drive
Posted 8 years ago # -
Queen's Drive?.. Is that removing the existing tiny 20mph zone, or just not turning the current racetrack with a nominal 30mph limit into a limit suitable for a park..
Posted 8 years ago # -
Posted 8 years ago #
-
"There are a small number of streets, or sections of streets, which are to be removed from the citywide Order. This generally required as the full street has been included within the Order as 20mph, when this should only apply to a section of the road.
A number of cul-de-sacs adjoining 30mph roads were also included within the city wide Order. To reduce the speed limit in these cul-de-sacs would require a significant amount of new signage when, due to the nature of theses streets, it is not expected that vehicles would ever exceed 20mph. As such it is proposed that these streets are not included within the 20mph network.
It is proposed that these streets, listed in Appendix 2, are removed from the Order."The list above is Appendix 2. The note about cul-de-sacs explains Provost Haugh.
Posted 8 years ago # -
I had a look at a few of the other roads and that seems to make sense. Fair enough.
I believe some of the disingenuous opposition to 20mph limits somewhere (Bath maybe?) centred on it being a "waste of money" on streets like that where you wouldn't be able to get up to 20 - although given that this was *after* the signs had been installed, I'm not sure what they were hoping to achieve.
Posted 8 years ago # -
And...
"This [removal from the citywide order is] generally required as the full street has been included within the Order as 20mph, when this should only apply to a section of the road."
Posted 8 years ago # -
I wasn't sure what that meant. They accidentally added all of Queen's Drive (and other roads) to it when they only meant to add part of it?
It isn't clear which part of Queen's Drive is being removed. The part up the hill perhaps?
Posted 8 years ago # -
I'm appalled that they have removed Maryfield from the 20mph zone. It is not a cul-de-sac. It can be argued this street is so narrow it would be impossible to exceed 20mph (cars parked on both sides, narrowed to one lane effectively, and one way only). However the residential street is used as a rat run by motorists avoiding the traffic lights at the top of Easter Road, and drivers frequently turn too fast into Rossie Place, making the end of that street needlessly hazardous.
Presumably they'll have to install signage at the junction with Rossie Place anyway, so why not just install it at Maryfield's junction with London Road?
I'm also appalled they are removing Queen's Drive from the 20mph zone.
The real solution for both these stretches of road would be to block through traffic, making them access only. This is particularly true of Maryfield, but if Holyrood Park is to fulfil its potential as a park rather than an urban ring road route, it needs to happen there too.
I feel a letter of objection coming on...
Posted 8 years ago # -
Okay, scratch that rant above about Maryfield. I had failed to recall the distinction between Maryfield, which is indeed a cup-de-sac, and Maryfield Place adjacent, which is the aforementioned rat run route.
My point regarding Queen's Drive still stands though.
Posted 8 years ago # -
I asked one of my councillors to find out what was going on with queen's drive. reply arrived today:
"Holyrood Park, within which Queen’s Drive lies, has Royal Park status and is managed by Historic Environment Scotland which has its own regulatory powers. In this context, the section of Queen’s Drive between Meadowbank and Horse Wynd roundabout is already 20mph and that status will remain.
Following agreement with Historic Environment Scotland, the section between Horse Wynd and Holyrood Gait roundabouts will become 20mph as part of the implementation of Phase 1 of the city wide rollout.
It is understood that Historic Environment Scotland is reviewing the remainder of Queen’s Drive in conjunction with future implementation phases.
Although the Council has the authority to set speed limits on private roads, in this particular case, where separate regulatory powers can apply, the road has been removed from the TRO to avoid any confusion between the two."
Posted 8 years ago # -
"
Although the Council has the authority to set speed limits on private roads, in this particular case, where separate regulatory powers can apply, the road has been removed from the TRO to avoid any confusion between the two."
"
How
quaintconvenient.Only possibility for "confusion" is if HES refuses to accept that CEC has the power.
Why would it want to do that??
Posted 8 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
