More lunacy from the Council

[The Fifth Column]

Is this true? Are you saying the police cannot get you on a speed gun and prosecute if caught?

With the decreasing numbers of police in the city amongst other factors I can't see them having much interest in enforcing this citywide. Local police in my experience aren't interested in traffic matters anyway and now the traffic cops have moved away from hove up to haywards Heath you rarely see them about these days. It's completely unenforcable and will be a total waste of time and money, few motorists will pay any attention to it.

 

[The Large One]

I couldn't give a toss if the Tories and Labour support the idea - I don't. Introducing a 20mph limit doesn't stop people driving like idiots and spending £1.5m on it when that could be spent on much more worthwhile projects shows only a simpleton would think it a good idea.

Like I said, your foaming rants are hilarious, and they so often miss the central point.

You don't call spending money on saving lives in residential streets and getting people to behave more responsibly a worthwhile project; you don't think it's a good idea, and you actually KNOW for a fact that this won't work? And on the back of this you accuse me of being arrogant?

You still seem to object to people criticising your beloved Greens - any anti-Green post and you're there with your holier than thou attitude. Yet in one of your recent posts you claim to be balanced - hmmmm ...... I'll let other people judge that but at least one post in this thread suggests other people may not agree. Your anti-Tory ramblings suggest you're far from balanced.

I don't object to people criticising the Greens - when it's valid. In fact I do it on many occasions. However, you're criticising policy BECAUSE it's the Green Party.

I stated I don't like the Tories, but I haven't gone on a foam-mouthed rant about them though, nor do I comment on their policies generally (Labour v Tory binfests on here I usually observe rather than comment) - except in one instance, where I said I agree with their stance on this issue.

EDIT - you accuse HB&B of having anti-Green agenda, well you're the exact opposite of him - absolutely pro-Green. What are you going post when the Greens are wiped out at the next local election ? I know you think that won't happen but I haven't ever seen such a large amount of negative feedback both on here and on the Argus website / letters page for either Labour or the Tories.

Because I'm not so enraged and arrogant as to be able to think I'm Nostradamus and predict the next election - it's still two years away. If they do get 'wiped out', so be it; that's democracy in action. Personally, I think they may well lose the lead next time, but 'wiped out'? Nah, that's your blind rage talking...

I have no problem defending a green (with a small 'g' issue), and freely acknowledge it. But it's not as though I'm admitting to arson or sheep-rustling, is it? The fact that there's only one party acting on their policies rather than chasing votes, or being beholden to their national party, is quite refreshing. In this instance, I agree with much - though certainly not all - of their agenda. They're acting upon the mandate that they were voted in on. Conversely, like HB&B - you actually HATE anyone defending a Green policy, as if to do so is some sort of social crime. By all means debate the issue, but please don't tell me what to and what not to post.

I hate this city being clogged up with unnecessary traffic - and while this consultation is to do with residential (or 'local') traffic rather than city centre traffic flow - I'm struggling to see what the problem is. Many residential streets already have a 20mph speed restriction in place. They do near me, and I'm bloody glad they're there. Does this follow that you wish to see them revert to 30mph?

As for the Argus pages - anyone who thinks that that has ever been an accurate barometer for public opinion needs their bumps felt. It has been like that for years, and what happened at the Council elections last time? The Greens won more seats. I've never taken those pages seriously.

 

[Diego Napier]

So many posting along the lines of 'saving lives'. I've never had a problem crossing the road. I was taught. 'Pavement safe, for humans. Road unsafe, for cars' I was about 4. Funnily enough that message stuck and I learnt all about the nice green cross code man and how it was MY OWN responsibility to negotiate traffic safely. Once again the emphasis seems to be on blaming the car user for ALL accidents! I've seen plenty of dumb idiots who dodge traffic recklessly crossing the road. Trouble is, when they get whacked and are suffering (deservedly in my opninion) they want to blame anyone or anything but themselves! Yes car users need to exercise all possible care when driving but then so should pedestrians too.

That includes the 3 year old who loses their life?

Yeh, you're alright Jack, you miserable excuse for humanity

 

[The Large One]

So many posting along the lines of 'saving lives'. I've never had a problem crossing the road. I was taught. 'Pavement safe, for humans. Road unsafe, for cars' I was about 4. Funnily enough that message stuck and I learnt all about the nice green cross code man and how it was MY OWN responsibility to negotiate traffic safely. Once again the emphasis seems to be on blaming the car user for ALL accidents! I've seen plenty of dumb idiots who dodge traffic recklessly crossing the road. Trouble is, when they get whacked and are suffering (deservedly in my opninion) they want to blame anyone or anything but themselves! Yes car users need to exercise all possible care when driving but then so should pedestrians too.

Largely agree.

But one of the rules of the Green Cross Code, when it came out, was 'stand on the pavement, near the kerb, away from parked cars...' The last bit isn't actually that easy to undertake nowadays.

There are three schools near me, and walking to the railway station (500 yards), there's a lot of kids around with their parents. While I agree with you about personal responsibility, it only takes one errant child to 'escape' from Mummy and run into the road. I have seen that a lot, though thankfully without adverse consequences.

Yet.

 

[£1.99]

Just had a look on the councils website to see when the work on the Old Shoreham Road will be finished and was surprised and pleased to see
the cycle lane is being paid for by transport charity Sustrans
Old Shoreham Road improvements - Brighton Hove City Council

 

[£1.99]

Still our cycle lanes gotta be better then these
In pictures: Readers' worst cycle lanes | Environment | guardian.co.uk

 

[melias shoes]

And increase pollution.

This.
The Green party is supposed to represent the environment. If you drive around at twenty miles an hour you will be in 3rd gear or lower therefore running at a higher rpm thus producing more emissions ie more pollution. You couldn't make it up.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I can see they're trying to encourage public transport.... but the public transport (mainly buses) in this city are beyond crap. A bus journey will probably take at least twice as long as driving anywhere I go, and if i was to go to Patcham on a bus (live in Portslade) i would have to go through town and it would take an hour. I can get there driving in 10/15mins.... and they expect everyone to pay more than the price it takes in petrol for this service. Bus tickets are also far too expensive for the shoddy service provided.

You obviously want to carry on using your car. Why not drive from Portslade to Patcham using the by-pass? It's quicker and it stops you cluttering up the city centre streets unnecessarily.

 

[BadFish]

This.
The Green party is supposed to represent the environment. If you drive around at twenty miles an hour you will be in 3rd gear or lower therefore running at a higher rpm thus producing more emissions ie more pollution. You couldn't make it up.

Not if you are in 4th or 5th you won't be.

 

[pastafarian]

I can see they're trying to encourage public transport.... but the public transport (mainly buses) in this city are beyond crap. A bus journey will probably take at least twice as long as driving anywhere I go, and if i was to go to Patcham on a bus (live in Portslade) i would have to go through town and it would take an hour. I can get there driving in 10/15mins.... and they expect everyone to pay more than the price it takes in petrol for this service. Bus tickets are also far too expensive for the shoddy service provided.

You obviously want to carry on using your car. Why not drive from Portslade to Patcham using the by-pass? It's quicker and it stops you cluttering up the city centre streets unnecessarily.

lay off the diamond white LB,if it takes him 10 mins we are all intelligent enough to realize he is prob using the bypass already......as a gender aware humanist i fully acknowledge he could also be a she

 

[pastafarian]

Not if you are in 4th or 5th you won't be.

i drive an automatic......so sod all of you!

 

[The Rivet]

That includes the 3 year old who loses their life?

Yeh, you're alright Jack, you miserable excuse for humanity

Me a miserable excuse for humanity? Who's the one getting personal and obnoxious here? You are

 

[anthony michaels team]

Is this true? Are you saying the police cannot get you on a speed gun and prosecute if caught?

thats what the police are saying!

 

[Lord Bracknell]

lay off the diamond white LB,if it takes him 10 mins we are all intelligent enough to realize he is prob using the bypass already......as a gender aware humanist i fully acknowledge he could also be a she

Oh. I understand now.

He doesn't have a problem. He won't be affected by whatever it is that the council is planning. But he still moans about it, as if it would affect him.

Carry on.

 

[Easy 10]

in some places, people are driving like idiots.

Do you think introducing a 20mph limit everywhere will stop idiots driving like idiots ?

 

[The Large One]

Do you think introducing a 20mph limit everywhere will stop idiots driving like idiots ?

At least they'll be slower idiots.

Idiots don't just come in the form of speed merchants - I'm talking ditsys who use the phone while driving; who don't understand the concept of right of way; who don't indicate at junctions... Sure you won't knock that sort of idiocy out of them, but they'll do far less damage at 20mph.

 

[Easy 10]

At least they'll be slower idiots.

Idiots don't just come in the form of speed merchants - I'm talking ditsys who use the phone while driving; who don't understand the concept of right of way; who don't indicate at junctions... Sure you won't knock that sort of idiocy out of them, but they'll do far less damage at 20mph.

An unenforced 20mph limit won't make a blind bit of difference to this type of driver. They either won't bother adhering to it, or will remain in their non-attentive daydream state, probably both. Meantime the drivers who are capable of adhering and driving perfectly safely at 30mph now have this stupid unnecessary new limit foisted on them.

Its a nonsense, and a quite staggering waste of £1.5m.

 

[The Large One]

An unenforced 20mph limit won't make a blind bit of difference to this type of driver. They either won't bother adhering to it, or will remain in their non-attentive daydream state, probably both. Meantime the drivers who are capable of adhering and driving perfectly safely at 30mph now have this stupid unnecessary new limit foisted on them.

Its a nonsense, and a quite staggering waste of £1.5m.

Disagree.

Some people have the attitude that because they can drive at 30mph, they will, irrespective of enforceability, and irrespective of whether it's safe or not. I think in some places where there is no 30mph limit, a 20mph limit is necessary - some streets adjacent to me for instance. If £1.5m over four years saves one life on the back of this rule (some rules can be self-enforced), I think it's money well spent. I suspect it will save many more than one - and prevent more accidents. Unless you think this isn't a price worth paying?

I agree it's true that some people will drive at whatever speed they like, an enforced or unenforced limit won't make any difference. But they're beyond the pale. Face it, taking away the human costs (even though that the central issue here), even from a legal perspective - knocking down someone at 30mph is bad enough, knocking down someone at 30mph in a 20mph zone - double bad news. Therefore, I believe there will be a hefty dose of self-enforcement - aside from the afore-mentioned idiots.

 

[melias shoes]

Not if you are in 4th or 5th you won't be.

you try driving at 20 mph in 4th or 5th gear, Good luck!

 

[Woodchip]

you try driving at 20 mph in 4th or 5th gear, Good luck!

Anyone capable of controlling a career should be able to maintain 20 in 4th. Just because the limit is lower it doesn't mean you have to use more RPM, unless you are riding the clutch.