metalman   21 #13 Posted February 1, 2016 It's more than likely a regulatory requirement - ie a government made rule that councils have no choice about. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/contents/made  But they certainly had a choice of whether to include that road in the 20 mph scheme. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Nagel   10 #14 Posted February 1, 2016 It's more than likely a regulatory requirement - ie a government made rule that councils have no choice about. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/contents/made   That doesn't make any difference at all as to whether or not it's a completely braindead thing to do. It still remains an act of utter stupidity, maybe even more so if the council were simply 'following orders'. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
pattricia   560 #15 Posted February 1, 2016 There's another little cul-de-sac at Stannington where they have done the same thing, painted 20 on the road and also put 20 mph sign posts up. By the time drivers have turned out of their driveway and straightened up they are practically on the main road you don't even get to 10 mph let alone 20 and it is the same driving onto the cul-de-sac. The council want to use their brains and stop wasting our money and get these pot holes sorted. I had a visitor from further up north last week and he asked me if we paid our taxes as he'd never seen roads in such a bad way.  I live in that area and 20 mile an hour signs have been painted on the roads in glaring red and white colours ! As though we could miss it when driving through !!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
BenMann   10 #16 Posted February 3, 2016 Jaffa, i think you would rather have smooth, easy roads than speeding restrictions.. That makes much more sense to you about creating safer roads. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Guest   #17 Posted February 3, 2016 I'm sure the cost does not really matter if your grandkids play around that area. The slower the better considering all the cars double parked or over junctions around that area.  In 30 zones many people do around 36/37 if circumstances allow; the police and council know this so the 20 zone should ensure that those that do creep over will only do so up to around 26/27, 30 top's. These 20 zones are a good way to keep people at around 30 which is a sensible speed as 20 is too slow. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
jaffa1 Â Â 10 #18 Posted February 3, 2016 Jaffa, i think you would rather have smooth, easy roads than speeding restrictions.. That makes much more sense to you about creating safer roads. You're missing the point, no one objects to speed restrictions where it is necessary but to waste money on putting up signs of 20mph in a small cul-de-sac that you couldn't do 15mph in if you tried is plain stupid. Think about it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Cyclone   10 #19 Posted February 3, 2016 I'm sure the cost does not really matter if your grandkids play around that area. The slower the better considering all the cars double parked or over junctions around that area.  Did you read the OP?  ---------- Post added 03-02-2016 at 11:19 ----------  It's more than likely a regulatory requirement - ie a government made rule that councils have no choice about. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/contents/made  There are no regulatory requirements to impose 20 limits anywhere AFAIK. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...