Go for 20mph limit
SURELY it is time we put an end to the killing and injuring of people on the roads of Worthing.
Whatever the statistics, and I have read various comments on the accuracy of the figures, a single life saved or a person saved from permanent damage is worth the effort.
The greatest single factor in any road “incident” is the speed of the vehicle that hits you.
I am fully in support of moves to make 20mph the maximum speed limit for all residential roads in Worthing. Being over 60, I am acutely aware that statistically my chances of surviving an impact with a car travelling at 30mph are small. My chances of surviving being hit by a car travelling at 20mph are quite good.
I am deeply saddened by fellow citizens who spend a lot of time and effort criticising people who would like to make our roads safer for everyone.
As a driver, I know that I am fairly safe no matter what speed I hit someone, but that does not make me immune to the concerns of far more vulnerable road users and pedestrians.
I read people’s comments on your website that suggested cyclists who ride with no lights “deserve what they get”. As a driver, I cannot condone such a sentiment. From the comfort of my car, I am always aware of the damage a momentary lapse of concentration could cause.
I am also saddened by the arguments about the cost of implementation, which is a fraction of the cost of a single fatality. Are we so lawless that the 20mph limit would not be honoured?
My greatest hope is that the people who have the power also have the will and strength of character to implement the 20mph speed limit for the good, on so many levels, of all the people of Worthing.
E. Stevens
St Lawrence Avenue
Worthing
Email to a friend
Print this page
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Worthing
Saturday 26 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 14 C to 26 C
Wind Speed: 24 mph
Wind direction: East
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 11 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 13 mph
Wind direction: South east
Comments
There are 10 comments to this article
Page 1 of 1
Jemima0604
Monday, February 13, 2012 at 02:35 PMComment removed by moderator
geoffo
Friday, February 3, 2012 at 09:39 PM20MPH in worthing residential areas, no NO NO. i have lost count of the number of times i have had people walking out in front of my either a] oblivious to the fact that they are doing so as they are talkingtexting on the phone b] do not care and just look you staight in the eye defying you to run them over c] 'chav's on their too small bikes completely ignoring all rules of the road etc d] our elderly residents in their motorised scooters deeming it is their 'human right' to cross as and when they want to..this whole nonsense of jobsworths wanting to interfere and ruin our lives has got to stop. have driven along ham road this evening, quite quiet [cold probably something to do with it] and from the brighton rd junction to lyndhurst rd stuck to the proposed 2omph - there was nobody in front of me and even i developed road rage because it was just pointlessly slow. with the already bad driving in this town [you know, all those non-gb plate cars] and other euqally home grown drivers - 20mph is going to cause more accidents than there currently are. you will get people dangerously and recklessly overtaking in sheer frustration, gridlocked streets will become even more gridlocked and god forbid there is an accident on either the top of sea front roads.. CARNAGE. people, do not let this happen - the results i believe would be catastrophic
soniiic
Friday, February 3, 2012 at 03:44 PMThe report from the dft shows that speeds on average BEFORE the 20mph limit was put in place was 19.8mph. It also states that the average reduction in speed was only 1.3mph. How can you justify spending almost half a million pounds when the facts and figures cannot support your arguments of a "safer environment". The figures were presented favourably when it says, "for the group of sites monitored with average speeds of 24 mph or more before the scheme was introduced, the average speed reduction was 6.3 mph". In reality, 62.5% of the sites that had an average speed of over 24mph still had an average speed of over 20mph. This proves that the limit doesn't work in the majority of cases. The fast and open roads will still be used by cars travelling over 20mph. The average person is safe enough to understand that in tight areas, 30mph is too fast and adjusts their speed accordingly. We don't need £500,000 worth of signs to tell us this. Source: http:assets.dft.gov.ukpublicationsspeed-limits-portsmouthspeed-limits-portsmouth.pdf
20splenty
Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 08:46 PM@4 @5 Chamile, this is not a case of trying to blame anyone. The aim of 20's Plenty is to reduce deaths and injuries and the associated misery for those families involved - and that includes deaths and injuries to motorists. The fact is that people make mistakes. An older person might start crossing when itâs clear, but be moving too slowly to reach the other side before a car appears. A child might run out chasing a ball. A driver may pull out of a side road into the path of a car obscured by their windscreen pillar. In every case, the results will be much less severe at a lower speed. Bringing speeds down stops accidents - by reducing stopping distances. If a child runs out 40ft in front of your car, at 20mph youâd just stop in time. At 30mph youâd hit them still doing 27mph (the same impact as falling from a 3rd storey window) and at 40mph you wouldnât even have time to brake. If you hit someone at 30mph you are seven times more likely to kill them than at 20mph and recent research has shown that children cannot accurately judge vehicle speeds above 20mph. Of course we should expect high standards from all road users, pedestrians, cyclists and drivers, but no amount of education will stop people making mistakes. Most 20âs Plenty Campaigners are car drivers and in the Portsmouth results it was car drivers and their passengers that saw the biggest reductions in injuries. Once people understand the benefits, theyâre much more likely to obey the limits. If you want people to slow down on your road, then itâs only fair that you slow down when driving on theirs. Thatâs where 20âs Plenty works so much better than small, targeted 20mph zones - because all residential roads are included, everyone benefits and will be more likely to comply. So is it really too much to ask for us all just to slow down a bit for the benefit of our children, older people, in fact everyone?
20splenty
Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 08:27 PM@3 WSCC do not explicitly say whether staff costs are included, but I should imagine there is at least some labour cost in those figures. However my expectation would be that those involved would be those whose job it is to work on roads and infrastructure projects and reducing road deaths and injuries. So if they were not working on 20's Plenty they'd likely be working on other schemes aimed at achieving similar outcomes (and I would argue likely to be less cost effective). So we would need to estimate and add this cost to all alternative proposals to improve Worthing's road safety for a fair comparison. Surely it is easier just to request cost estimates for alternatives prepared on the same basis? P.S. So far none of the opponents to 20's Plenty have come up with any credible alternative to improve Worthing's poor road safety record.
chamile
Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 12:29 PMI would add to my earlier comment that a blanket 20mph speed limit would be practically unenforceable.
chamile
Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 12:18 PMIt seems to me that motorists are continually and solely being blamed for 'accidents' to pedestrians. We are never told what the pedestrians were doing at the time of the 'accident'. I strongly suspect that many so-called accidents are caused by pedestrians walking "without due care and attention". Stop blaming the motorists for everything!
Joby
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 03:01 PM"The estimated cost of implementing the (20's Plenty) scheme is ã419,563" Is that including or excluding staff costs. Failure to include staff costs is unprofessional accountancy and renders all figures irrelevant to final output costs. Outcome costs would have to be assessed at a pre-determined review date as ongoing maintenance, repair and staff costs would need to be included.. What factors have you included or excluded in compiling the costs of Worthing's road deaths and injuries. If your figures are taken from central government sources, fine as I know for near certainty they include absolutely everything one can think of. Your figures for the implementation of a 20sPlenty scheme do not.
20splenty
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 02:25 PMPlease let's not distort costs. The figures, as set out by WSCC are as follows: "The estimated cost of implementing the (20's Plenty) scheme is £419,563 which includes the following: Consultation, Traffic Surveys and an element of Preparation £50,000; Preparation and Supervision £64,000; Should the outcome of the public consultation be positive the next stage would be preparation, the TRO, and implementation of the scheme at an estimated cost of £305,563." To put that in perspective, the cost of Worthing's road deaths and injuries is £12.2 million every year using the updated DfT figures. Or to give another perspective, one pedestrian crossing costs Worthing somewhere between £40,000-150,000, so we could a maximum of 10 new pedestrian crossings or we could have a default 20mph speed limit on all residential roads in Worthing which would improve safety for every single resident.
Joby
Monday, January 30, 2012 at 06:38 PMI'm not really sure what this letter is trying to achieve ? Only about one quarter of Worthing residents are car owners. That means about three quarters are pedestrians, cyclists etc.. That's probably why the recent CLC meeting voted to introduce a 20 mph speed limit in Worthing as soon as the necessary £750,000 becomes available. As far as I'm aware, this is entirely Liberal-Democrat led but not opposed by any Conservatives. In my view it's now just a case of 'when' and not 'if'
Page 1 of 1
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.