CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh

20's Plenty for Edinburgh

(194 posts)

No tags yet.


1…345…7

  1. rodking
    Member

    So rather than 500+ responding to the all to "stand up and be counted" then less that 40 were prepared to do so. I reckon many of them were from the taxi drivers association. And the 40 is generous as it includes the dog.

    Not sure how the dog was representative of the canine population of Edinburgh but for humans 40 is just 0.008% of the population.

    Frankly the response ratio between clicking a "poll" button or Facebook like and actually doing something is par for the course when looking at other 20mph cities.

    Of course another way of looking at the raggle-taggle demonstration is to consider that 40 is less than 1.5 classrooms of kids. Compare that to the many thousands of kids who will benefit from 20mph limits on their community streets.

    For a wider perspective maybe take a look at our call for a national 20mph default for Scotland. http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/PRel/20sPlentyforScotland.pdf

    Also see our new website at http://www.20splentyforus.scot .

    Regards

    Rod

    Posted 9 years ago #

  2. Morningsider
    Member

    That EEN article is simply bizarre. How would a 20 mph limit turn Edinburgh into a "poor man's train set" - that doesn't make any sense. Since when was a facebook "like" considered an online survey? Why mention how many people were expected to turn up after an event has actually happened - it's not as though it was difficult to count the number of protesters.

    Also, did Neil Greig, a representative of "advanced motorists", really endorse everyone breaking the speed limit where there is no enforcement? Does this apply to all roads, or just those with a 20mph limit?

    I see EEN commenters are still going on about the cost of 20 mph signage. If the new limit prevents just two fatalities then it will have more than covered its costs. The Department for Transport estimating that each fatality costs an average of £1.7m (1).

    Finally, what is this "playmobile" they are on about - some sort of Playmobil knock off?

    (1) Page 230 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/269601/rrcgb-2012-complete.pdf

    Posted 9 years ago #

  3. ARobComp
    Member

    Brilliant. One person on the EEN site is suggesting this is why POP does better than their tiny protest:

    "well organised greenanarchist organisations which receive funding from the Scottish parliament rather than fund it and which import insurgent protesters from all over the world to make up the numbers will always appear to have more support than a mass group of disorganised law abiding citizens! same way as IS operates. Impose the will of the few on the many!"

    Amazing.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  4. Min
    Member

    Tinfoilhat-tastic!

    Posted 9 years ago #

  5. Stickman
    Member

    ARobComp: I'm calling Poe's Law on that one for sure!

    Posted 9 years ago #

  6. neddie
    Member

    I can vouch that PlayMobil toys are excellent quality and virtually indestructible.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  7. Morningsider
    Member

    edd1e_h - I'll second the claim to indestructibility. I have carried out extensive (but not endless) research on the matter, i.e. I have stood on many bits of PlayMobil, where my foot has invariably came off second best to the Teutonic toy.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  8. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    "Also, did Neil Greig, a representative of "advanced motorists", really endorse everyone breaking the speed limit where there is no enforcement?"

    I've tweeted the IAM to ask....

    That article is truly mind-boggling. Pretty much all covered above - the reference to the number of people who were thought 'might' attend, and referring to the likes on FB as survey respondents (and all as city residents for that matter) is odd.

    Now if you'll excuse me, I was in the middle of sorting out flights for professional activists for hire for the next PoP.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  9. PS
    Member

    You know, until I saw that article I'd completely forgotten to collect my appearance fee for PoP.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  10. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Ignored my usual rule of not reading the comments, but they're quite entertaining for once. Lots of "the city doesn't want this!" which was clearly proven by 39 people...

    Or this, "I certainly won't be crawling up the road at 20mph late at night after a long day at work. No, I'll be ignoring this idiotic limit, as I do all limits, and will continue to drive to the prevailing conditions only" which sums up the mindset. I know better than anyone else what is a safe speed - there truly would be carnage if everyone drove in this frame of mind.

    The Bristol results trailed out again - someone pointing out that when they introduced more 20mph zones there were more accidents in 20mph zones. Well yes, there are more zones. I suspect incidents on 30mph and 40mph roads decreased because there were fewer of them, and that incidents overall also decreased. With no hint of irony, the person pointing that out demanded that the EEN gave us 'facts'.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  11. kaputnik
    Moderator

    someone pointing out that when they introduced more 20mph zones there were more accidents in 20mph zones.

    Is that not because people were still driving at 30 or 40mph in them?

    Posted 9 years ago #

  12. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    That shouldn't make for more incidents. But if you've got one 20mph road, then a hundred 20mph roads, you're naturally going to have more incidents - simple statistical certainty. At the same time you had a hundred 30mph roads, and now only have one, then the number of incidents on 30mph roads will drop.

    Neither statistic means that 20mph is more dangerous, or 30mph is safer.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  13. SRD
    Moderator

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01lv7yn

    Posted 9 years ago #

  14. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Ooh, that looks like one for iPlayer!

    Posted 9 years ago #

  15. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    "@iamgroup" @urbancyclist The IAM has never endorsed and will never endorse breaking the speed limits with or without enforcement. Sorry it wasn't clear

    Posted 9 years ago #

  16. neddie
    Member

    So I expect the chipwrapper headline for the next PoP to be something along the lines of, "Upwards of tens of thousands are expected to turn up..."

    Followed later in the article by, "a few thousand cyclists..."

    Posted 9 years ago #

  17. chdot
    Admin

    "

    Spokes CycleCampaign (@SpokesLothian)
    23/02/2015 19:45
    Alex 'playmobile' JohnstoneMSP shd read http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/services/transport-and-streets/traffic-management/Pages/20-mph-speed-limit-proposal.aspx

    @johnpaul796 @SRDorman @fountainbridge @LAHinds @CyclingEdin @AlisonJohnstone

    "

    Posted 9 years ago #

  18. Morningsider
    Member

    WC - How sorry do you reckon the IAM are for their (ahem) lack of clarity?

    I am finding this all quite dispiriting now. Even with the weight of research evidence in favour of 20 mph limits and the anti-20mph damp squib - anti-20mph voices still seem to be making headway. Lets face it, these people will never be convinced. They keep asking for facts, yet never provide any of their own - simply passing off opinion as fact.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  19. SRD
    Moderator

    http://deceasedcanine.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/do-we-need-anti-pedestrian-lobby.html

    Posted 9 years ago #

  20. chdot
    Admin

    "

    They'd have to answer tough questions from reporters when asthma rates went up, childhood obesity increased further or respond to the grief of parents and loved ones widowed too soon. They'd have to face the reality of their policies.

    "

    "have to answer tough questions from reporters"

    Perhaps...

    SRD's piece does highlight that antis won't believe what doesn't suit them and also (more or less) just want things 'the way they are/were' and 'to suit us'.

    But there is also a problem (well several) with those who want 'active travel' - that's walking and cycling (of course).

    So that's walking AND cycling.

    Or is it walking (and cycling if it's somewhere else).

    Or is it that cycling (which will automatically make things better for pedestrians, won't it?)?

    Posted 9 years ago #

  21. Stickman
    Member

    I'm being a bit slow (and I could look it up myself) but I'll get a quicker answer on here.

    The plans have been recommended by the Transport Committee. Is the next stage approval by the full council in March? I think that's what was mentioned here previously.

    I'm going to write to my councillor making sure he supports the plan, but want to be sure of the process.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  22. Stickman
    Member

    SRD: good article. Thanks.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  23. SRD
    Moderator

    @stickman - thanks

    re your question above -- good question! I have been trying to worth that out myself and will let you know when I do.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  24. chdot
    Admin

    "Is the next stage approval by the full council in March?"

    *Think* next stage is for Transport Committee to look at (and presumably approve) details - particularly timescale.

    Might not even need discussing at Full Council.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  25. HankChief
    Member

    Motion
    1) To approve the proposed network of 20mph roads set out in the report as a basis for the necessary legal orders.
    2) To note that a detailed implementation plan would be presented to Committee in March 2015.

    http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/46064/minutes

    I guess the Committee could use the discussion of the detailed implementation plan to revisit whether it was going to do it or the reduce the number of streets etc.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  26. chdot
    Admin

    "reduce the number of streets"

    Or add the ones the Conservative councillors wanted in their wards.

    Plus Cluny Gardens.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  27. kaputnik
    Moderator

    here's how they enforce 20mph zones in Egham, Buckinghamshire.

    Maybe in Edinburgh we could have "Lesley says slow down. But drive more"?

    Posted 9 years ago #

  28. chdot
    Admin

    "

    Spokes CycleCampaign (@SpokesLothian)
    26/02/2015 18:12
    .@Edinburgh_CC #20mph praised in #car-loving #USA ..

    http://nextcity.org/daily/entry/slow-speed-limits-cities-edinburgh-20mph

    @AndrewDBurns @LAHinds @CyclingEdin @Cyclelaw1 HT @20sPlentyScot

    "

    Posted 9 years ago #

  29. The Boy
    Member

    That article says 31M cars on Scottish roads. I'm guessing that's actually the figure for the UK?

    Posted 9 years ago #

  30. Morningsider
    Member

    DfT statistics show 29.7m cars on UK roads in Q3 2014, from a total of 35.9m vehicles. The new Scottish Transport Statistics 2014 shows 2.44m cars on Scotland's roads, from a total vehicle stock of 2.76m.

    The article is also wrong that there were no restrictions on vehicle speeds before 1934, although there was a period between 1930 and 1934 where speed limits were abolished for cars.

    There's no way that 22% of road traffic casualties occur within the Edinburgh area. Transport Scotland figures show Edinburgh casualties in 2013 were 1,368 from a Scottish total of 11,498 - 11.9%. This sounds more likely, given Edinburgh accounts for around 10% of Scotland's population.

    A few other niggles - it's not a bad article, just a little hazy on some of the detail.

    Posted 9 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

1…345…7

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin