Implementation of 20mph zones in York

John Acey made this Freedom of Information request to City of York Council

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was partially successful.

Dear City of York Council,

Implementation of 20mph zones in York

Coverage

How many miles of road have been restricted to 20 mph under the current programme under the Labour administration?
At the end of the current programme, how many miles of 20mph will have been added to that already in place at the start of the programme?
How many 20mph signs have been installed, and how many remain to be installed?
How many 30mph signs have been installed as a result of the 20mph zones in this administration, how many remain to be installed?
How many 10mph zones are there, and where are there? How many miles does this cover?

Costs

Provide detailed costs of the implementation to date and separately costs for programmed but not implemented works within the current agreed programme

1. All signage and fixings
2. Internal labour costs
3. External labour costs
4. Project management, planning
5. Plant and equipment hire
6. Fees incurred
7. Full details of any further planned spend, with dates and reason
8. Please provide details of the outsourced contracts for the 20mph programme under the current labour administration
9. Once the entire costs have been identified, please explain how the programme was funded, from which sources and which specific budgets within and beyond the Council
10. How much budget will be needed moving forward, each financial year, to maintain, clean etc these signs

Rationale

1. What rules/guidance has been applied regarding the spacing and positioning of these signs. Ie Why is it necessary to put a sign circa every 50m and in cul de sacs which are only 200m long?
2. What evidence was used to decide that implementing 20mph zones was appropriate.

Please provide statistical evidence, the business case, cost benefit analysis and internal programme management and financial oversight information and emails to support the economic case to demonstrate sound decision making; if none, please state 'we have no statistical evidence of the benefit' or 'we did not use cost benefit analysis as it was a political decision' or similar.

Yours faithfully,

John Acey

foi@york.gov.uk, City of York Council

Thank you for your enquiry. We will ensure it is passed to the relevant service(s) and you will receive a response within 20 working days. We will contact you if we have any queries, need clarification or to let you know if we need more time to answer your enquiry in full.

However, if you are contacting us to ask for a review of a previous FOI response from us, we will pass your request to Veritau/Information Governance who will contact you about this.

Please note this is an automatically generated receipt to let you know we have received your email.

Regards
Customer Feedback Team

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Help protect the environment! - please don't print this email unless you really need to.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

This communication is from City of York Council.

The information contained within, and in any attachment(s), is confidential and legally privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s), please note that any form of distribution, copying or use of this communication, or the information within, is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Equally, you must not disclose all, or part, of its contents to any other person.

If you have received this communication in error, please return it immediately to the sender, then delete and destroy any copies of it.

City of York Council disclaims any liability for action taken in reliance on the content of this communication.

hide quoted sections

Dear [email address],

I have not received the information I requested. By law you should have responded by 21st February 2014.

Please advise me why you have failed to provide the information.

Yours sincerely,

John Acey

Dear City of York Council,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of City of York Council's handling of my FOI request 'Implementation of 20mph zones

You have failed to comply with my lawful request in the timescales required. You have not responded to my additional request to progress the matter shown above. Neither do you respond to my emails.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/i...

Yours faithfully,

John Acey

foi@york.gov.uk, City of York Council

Thank you for your enquiry. We will ensure it is passed to the relevant service(s) and you will receive a response within 20 working days. We will contact you if we have any queries, need clarification or to let you know if we need more time to answer your enquiry in full.

However, if you are contacting us to ask for a review of a previous FOI response from us, we will pass your request to Veritau/Information Governance who will contact you about this.

Please note this is an automatically generated receipt to let you know we have received your email.

Regards
Customer Feedback Team

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Help protect the environment! - please don't print this email unless you really need to.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

This communication is from City of York Council.

The information contained within, and in any attachment(s), is confidential and legally privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s), please note that any form of distribution, copying or use of this communication, or the information within, is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Equally, you must not disclose all, or part, of its contents to any other person.

If you have received this communication in error, please return it immediately to the sender, then delete and destroy any copies of it.

City of York Council disclaims any liability for action taken in reliance on the content of this communication.

hide quoted sections

information.governance@york.gov.uk, City of York Council

Dear Mr Acey,
 
Thank you for your email requesting a review of our response to your FOI
CF7400.
 
We will be in contact with you in due course.
 
Kind regards
 
Paul Atkinson for
 
 
Information Governance Officer
City of York Council
Telephone 01904 552933
[1][City of York Council request email]
 
 
 
 
Sender: John Acey
Recipients: [2][City of York Council request email]; 
Subject: Re: FOI Automated Response from City of York Council
Body:
Dear [3][City of York Council request email],
 
I have not received the information I requested.  By law you should have
responded by 21st February 2014.
 
Please advise me why you have failed to provide the information.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
John Acey
 
-----Original Message-----
 
Thank you for your enquiry. We will ensure it is passed to the relevant
service(s) and you will receive a response within 20 working days. We will
contact you if we have any queries, need clarification or to let you know
if we need more time to answer your enquiry in full.
 
However, if you are contacting us to ask for a review of a previous FOI
response from us, we will pass your request to Veritau/Information
Governance who will contact you about this.
 
Please note this is an automatically generated receipt to let you know we
have received your email.
 
Regards
Customer Feedback Team
 
Sender: John Acey
Recipients: [4][City of York Council request email]; 
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Implementation of 20mph zones in
York
Body:
Dear City of York Council,
 
Implementation of 20mph zones in York
 
Coverage
 
How many miles of road have been restricted to 20 mph under the current
programme under the Labour administration?
At the end of the current programme, how many miles of 20mph will have
been added to that already in place at the start of the programme?
How many 20mph signs have been installed, and how many remain to be
installed?
How many 30mph signs have been installed as a result of the 20mph zones in
this administration, how many remain to be installed?
How many 10mph zones are there, and where are there? How many miles does
this cover?
 
Costs
 
Provide detailed costs of the implementation to date and separately costs
for programmed but not implemented works within the current agreed
programme
 
1. All signage and fixings
2. Internal labour costs
3. External labour costs
4. Project management, planning
5. Plant and equipment hire
6. Fees incurred
7. Full details of any further planned spend, with dates and reason 8.
Please provide details of the outsourced contracts for the 20mph programme
under the current labour administration 9. Once the entire costs have been
identified, please explain how the programme was funded, from which
sources and which specific budgets within and beyond the Council 10. How
much budget will be needed moving forward, each financial year, to
maintain, clean etc these signs
 
Rationale
 
1. What rules/guidance has been applied regarding the spacing and
positioning of these signs. Ie Why is it necessary to put a sign circa
every 50m and in cul de sacs which are only 200m long?
2. What evidence was used to decide that implementing 20mph zones was
appropriate.
 
Please provide statistical evidence, the business case, cost benefit
analysis and internal programme management and financial oversight
information and emails to support the economic case to demonstrate sound
decision making; if none, please state 'we have no statistical evidence of
the benefit' or 'we did not use cost benefit analysis as it was a
political decision' or similar.
 
Yours faithfully,
 
John Acey
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[5][FOI #194662 email]
 
Is [6][City of York Council request email] the wrong address for Freedom of Information
requests to City of York Council? If so, please contact us using this
form:
[7]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/cont...
 
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[8]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...
 
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * *
Help protect the environment! - please don't print this email unless you
really need to.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *

This communication is from City of York Council.

The information contained within, and in any attachment(s), is
confidential and legally privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the
intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s), please
note that any form of distribution, copying or use of this communication,
or the information within, is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
Equally, you must not disclose all, or part, of its contents to any other
person.

If you have received this communication in error, please return it
immediately to the sender, then delete and destroy any copies of it.

City of York Council disclaims any liability for action taken in reliance
on the content of this communication.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[City of York Council request email]
2. mailto:[City of York Council request email]
3. mailto:[City of York Council request email]
4. mailto:[City of York Council request email]
5. mailto:[FOI #194662 email]
6. mailto:[City of York Council request email]
7. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/cont...
8. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

hide quoted sections

Clarke, Tony(Transport Planning), City of York Council

Dear Mr Acey
Apologies for the delay in responding. I have added comments in red to
your Freedom of Information request.
 
Implementation of 20mph zones in York
 
Coverage
 
How many miles of road have been restricted to 20 mph under the current
programme under the Labour administration? Approximately 11 miles in South
Bank and approximately 44 miles in West York.
At the end of the current programme, how many miles of 20mph will have
been added to that already in place at the start of the programme? The
designs for the North and East side of the city 20mph phases have not been
finalised as yet therefore we cannot provide a definite mileage at this
stage.
How many 20mph signs have been installed, and how many remain to be
installed? 947 have been installed and approximately 1752 remain to be
installed based upon a rough estimate of which streets may be included. 
This included both terminal plates and repeater signs as the question
implies.
How many 30mph signs have been installed as a result of the 20mph zones in
this administration, how many remain to be installed? 280 have been
installed and 587 remain, subject to the same caveat as above.
How many 10mph zones are there, and where are there? How many miles does
this cover? There are no formal 10mph zones.  The city centre has some
advisory 10mph signs to encourage motorists to drive with care when in the
very central streets.
 
Costs
 
Provide detailed costs of the implementation to date and separately costs
for programmed but not implemented works within the current agreed
programme
 
1. All signage and fixings £52,090.22
 
2. Internal labour costs £32,189.63
 
3. External labour costs £7,642.45
 
4. Project management, planning £48,519.10
 
5. Plant and equipment hire £134.86
 
6. Fees incurred £72,615.00 (Engineering team fees to date)
 
There have been additional misc. costs not directly specified in the FOI
of £20,153.18 providing a total capital spend so far of £237,908.61 (10/11
to current)
 
Future costs haven’t been programmed directly as we’re just working on a
percentage of the West of York scheme which hasn’t formally been completed
or had all costs allocated as yet.
 
7. Full details of any further planned spend, with dates and reason
Further spend will depend upon scheme design but additional signage, Speed
Limit Order consultation and making, project design and management work
will be forthcoming and costed in line with the development of the next
two phases.  We are working to a budget and indications are that the whole
20mph speed limits in residential areas scheme will be completed under the
envisaged figure.
 
8. Please provide details of the outsourced contracts for the 20mph
programme under the current labour administration.  There are no
outsourced contracts for the capital works.  All of the delivery work has
been managed and implemented internally so far. 
9. Once the entire costs have been identified, please explain how the
programme was funded, from which sources and which specific budgets within
and beyond the Council Local Transport Plan grant funding has been used
for the majority of the scheme (+ £1k from Micklegate Ward Committee) with
additional contributions to the marketing side from the Local Sustainable
Transport Fund.
10. How much budget will be needed moving forward, each financial year, to
maintain, clean etc these signs Detail not known
 
Rationale
 

 1. What rules/guidance has been applied regarding the spacing and
positioning of these signs. Ie Why is it necessary to put a sign circa
every 50m and in cul de sacs which are only 200m long? Smaller
repeater signs are required to be placed at regular intervals within a
20mph speed limit.  The guidance for the spacing of these is laid out
in chapter three of the Traffic Signs Manual (approx. 150m).  Signs
have been placed sparingly in accordance with national guidance and
located on existing lamp columns wherever possible to minimise the
overall cost.  Longer cul-de-sacs have been included to ensure that
the scheme is fully enforceable and to encourage a culture change.  
Therefore a clear coherent speed limit was imperative to ensure
drivers have an obvious speed limit to drive to.  The philosophy
adopted was to keep main roads and prominent local distributor routes
at the existing speed limit with the residential roads just off these
more prominent routes all at 20mph with the exception of extremely
short cul-de-sacs.

 

 2. What evidence was used to decide that implementing 20mph zones was
appropriate.

 
 
There is clear evidence of the effect of reducing traffic speeds on the
reduction of collisions and casualties, as collision frequency is lower at
lower speeds; and where collisions do occur, there is a lower risk of
fatal injury at lower speeds. Research shows that on urban roads with low
average traffic speeds any 1 mph reduction in average speed can reduce the
collision frequency by around 6% (Taylor, Lynam and Baruya, 2000). There
is also clear evidence confirming the greater chance of survival of
pedestrians in collisions at lower speeds.
Officers are delivering Council policy to provide 20mph speed limits in
residential areas in line with national guidance.
 
Please provide statistical evidence, the business case, cost benefit
analysis and internal programme management and financial oversight
information and emails to support the economic case to demonstrate sound
decision making; if none, please state 'we have no statistical evidence of
the benefit' or 'we did not use cost benefit analysis as it was a
political decision' or similar.
The case for implementing 20mph speed limits is provided in the policy
report taken to the Cabinet Member for City Strategy Decision Session on
21 May 2012 available at the following link
[1]http://modgov.york.gov.uk/ieListDocument...
 
Regards
 
Tony Clarke | Head of Transport  
t: 01904 551641 | e: [2][email address]
 
City of York Council | City & Environmental Services
West Offices | Station Rise | York | YO1 6GA
[3]www.york.gov.uk | [4]facebook.com/cityofyork | [5]@CityofYork 
 
 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * *
Help protect the environment! - please don't print this email unless you
really need to.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *

This communication is from City of York Council.

The information contained within, and in any attachment(s), is
confidential and legally privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the
intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s), please
note that any form of distribution, copying or use of this communication,
or the information within, is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
Equally, you must not disclose all, or part, of its contents to any other
person.

If you have received this communication in error, please return it
immediately to the sender, then delete and destroy any copies of it.

City of York Council disclaims any liability for action taken in reliance
on the content of this communication.

References

Visible links
1. http://modgov.york.gov.uk/ieListDocument...
2. mailto:[email address]
3. http://www.york.gov.uk/
4. http://www.facebook.com/cityofyork
5. http://twitter.com/cityofyork

hide quoted sections

information.governance@veritau.co.uk,

Dear Mr Acey  
 
Thank you for your request dated 26 February 2014 asking for an internal
review of your enquiry under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. 
 
I have made enquiries with the service responsible for responding to your
enquiry and understand that a reply has now been sent to you.   On behalf
of the Council, I would like to apologise for the Council’s failure to
respond within the 20 working day timescale required by the Freedom of
Information Act.  
 
Please be assured that the Council continually monitors its performance in
responding to FOI enquiries in order to identify any areas of improvement.
 
Yours sincerely
 
Miriam Townsend
 
 
Miriam Townsend
Data Management Assistant
Veritau Ltd
Assurance Services for the Public Sector
Telephone 01609 536985
For further information about us visit our website - [1]www.veritau.co.uk
 
SAVE COSTS - PLEASE DON'T PRINT UNLESS YOU HAVE TO

VERITAU EMAIL DISCLAIMER

This communication is from a Veritau group company. Veritau provides
internal audit, counter fraud and information governance services and
other related assurance services to the public sector. Any opinions or
statements expressed in this e-mail are those of the individual and not
necessarily those of Veritau, or its clients.

The information contained within, and in any attachment(s), is
confidential and legally privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the
intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s), please
note that any form of distribution, copying or use of this communication,
or the information within, is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
Equally, you must not disclose all, or part, of its contents to any other
person.

If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender
at the above address, then delete and destroy all copies of it.

Veritau's computer systems and communications may be monitored to ensure
effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes.

Although we have endeavoured to ensure that this e-mail and any
attachments are free from any virus we would advise you to take any
necessary steps to ensure that they are actually virus free.

Veritau disclaims any liability for action taken in reliance on the
content of this communication.

Veritau Limited (6794890) and Veritau North Yorkshire Limited (7931990)
are companies registered in England and Wales. The registered office for
both companies is West Offices, Station Rise, York, YO1 6GA.

Please visit the Veritau website [2]www.veritau.co.uk for details of each
company’s ownership.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.veritau.co.uk/
2. http://www.veritau.co.uk/

KevinWard59 left an annotation ()

They have answered the questions regarding costs of almost £280,000 excluding the costs for the "West side" which is still not complete.

However they did not answer correctly Question 2.

2. What evidence was used to decide that implementing 20 mph zones was appropriate.

They should have used the DfT speed limit appraisal tool.

Herewith, for ease and to be concise I copy/paste the bulk of my very recent email to Stephen Lewis of York Press as a follow up to the large feature and debate with 2 expert. One being a highly qualified ex police senior accident and collision investigator of 22 years standing and a registered expert witness against and a youthful by comparison geologist. Perhaps road substructure should have been featured for equality.

In return may I offer you (should there be any follow up to another excellent feature on July 9th 2014, “20 mph Zones – The Big Debate: Pages 16-18) a link to my dropbox where in the All about signs folder you will find the Department for Transport Guidance “Setting Local Speed Limits” Guidance Circular of January 2013 and also the Official https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio... to be used in considering all speed limits including the more stringent a 20 mph limit or zone – a tick box exercise of which the criteria must be met for a 20mph, like:-

Have there been accidents/injuries/fatalities?
Is it a main arterial route e.g. A or B road or does it lead or join to a trunk road?
Which are the main or principal types of users:- cars/lorries/buses/taxis/pedestrians/cyclists/;horses?
Have chief police officer and chief ambulance officer been consulted? - and do they approve/agree? - and will it be enforced?
Are drivers likely to ignore it or will they observe the new limit? – if not consider raising the limit;
Will it be over 600 metres in length?
Have other measures like chicanes and speed humps failed;?
Is the average speed already under 24 mph?

These are only 9 of the criteria which should be met using the official https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio... and as you will no doubt notice some of the imposed 20 mph limits in York fail to meet all of them and they have been put on some roads which the main users are vehicles on A and B routes, leading in and out of the City to Trunk Roads, where there are proportionally far fewer pedestrians, not a single injury or fatality and without having tried chicanes first, less than 600 metres, often being ignored and being refused to enforce because the Police disagree due to these criteria not having been met.

The documents actually apply to all speed limits within the traffic area up to National Speed Limit and Limits under 30 which used to require special approval now have to strictly adhere to the analysis tool (digital questionnaire) provided. In all likelihood an offender could demand that report from them to be submitted as evidence and if NOT provided the prosecution could easily fail - and "case dismissed". https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...

The dropbox link is:-
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/abs2qyoekuzph...

All about signs link:-
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/abs2qyoekuzph...

The Setting Speed Limits Circular:-
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/abs2qyoekuzph...

Quote from guidance:-

10. This guidance introduces, in section 5, the Speed Limit Appraisal Tool, a web-based tool available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...

It has been designed to help local authorities assess the full costs and benefits of any proposed schemes and make robust, evidence-based decisions about which limits they put in place.
Priorities for action
1. The guidance in this Circular should be used as the basis for: • assessments of local speed limits; • developing route management strategies; and • developing speed management strategies.
2. Traffic authorities are asked to: • keep their speed limits under review with changing circumstances; • consider the introduction of more 20 mph limits and zones, over time, in urban areas and built-up village streets that are primarily residential, to ensure greater safety for pedestrians and cyclists, using the criteria in Section 6.

I feel sure you may enjoy imparting the truth of the issue, particularly the parts highlighted.

KevinWard59 left an annotation ()

This request is very relevant since the publishing of another 20 mph proposal on Friday 12th September 2014, without including any reference to consultation with the Chief Ambulance Officer, thus indicating the NON use of the Speed Limit Appraisal Tool, therefore making the proposal illegal and unenforcible due to the Section 5 Amendment to Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD 2002)

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s...

The Highways Agency is responsible for determining speed limits on the trunk road network, and local traffic authorities are responsible for
determining speed limits on the local road network. In this Circular, the term 'traffic authority' is used to denote both the Highways Agency and local traffic authorities.

Rod King left an annotation ()

The annotation made on 29th august by KevinWard29 is in my opinion misleading in its reference to the Speed Limit Appraisal Tool.

The Quote from the guidance shown concatenates 3 separate paragraphs and renumbers them. The Para 10 on the availability of the Speed Limit Appraisal Tool is separate from para 11 and 12 which have been renumbered in the annotation to 1 and 2.

In fact the Speed Limit Appraisal Tool (SALT) is not a mandatory requirement for setting any speed limit. It may be helpful in a rural environment but is overly cumbersome for an urban environment.

In fact whilst many Traffic Authorities are implementing wide-area 20mph, I know of none who are using the SALT in an urban environment for 20mph limits. In addition I have heard comment that the SALT program does not function properly.

The annotation calls for 9 criteria to be met, but this is entirely false. There is no such checklist "that must be met" associated with setting a 20mph speed limit.

The annotation left on 13th September references a separate FOI request made by Mr Kevin Ward, and the use of the SALT. As the SALT is not required for a a TRO when setting a speed limit then this FOI is not relevant.

KevinWard59 left an annotation ()

Mr King - Did you mean SLAT?

Not compulsory to use SLAT, but strongly ill-advised not to otherwise incorrect/inadequate consultation makes an imposed limit unlawful.

KevinWard59 left an annotation ()

Readers should note that Mr Ron King is a leading activist and leader of the 20's plenty campaign.

This lobby fail to understand cause and effect.

If a child becomes too accustomed to 20 mph they become in increased danger in a 30 mph. Only time will tell by a possible increase in child fatalities on roads with a limit above 20 mph.

No-one is explaining why a pedestrian crossing has Zig-Zag lines or what they mean.
A question as a clue:- Eight angled Zig-Zag lines of five feet with approximately a one foot gap between them in a 30 mph zone. So how many lines must there be in a 20 mph limit?

Mr King's obsession is such that he argues that people who disagree with partial, selected, biased, well chosen and imbalanced research published on the 20's plenty web-site means that that person is against 20 mph limits.

Not I, especially for residential areas, when correctly and legally applied of course and I fully support and much prefer the Play-Zone examples being used in some EEC countries where there is a residents car park which is not less than 200 metres from the nearest dwelling (to alleviate the greater exhaust gas emissions and nasties which numerous research over 60 years concludes is 5 times greater with petrol engines from a cold start).

For a 20 to be legal they must comply with the requirement to have fully documented consultation records. Because SLAT is more actively encouraged by DfT than the campaigners (falsely) claim that the Department for Transport is actively promoting 20 mph limits,"Juris Prudence" applies:-

Therefore BLA (Best Legal Advise) would probably be use SLAT or risk failed prosecutions on claims of illegal limits imposed due to incorrect assessment and consultation process or failure/inability to prove a correct duly dilligent process.

KevinWard59 left an annotation ()

BTW

On 29th August 1 and 2 were my bullet points for first and second point/comment and no reference to any of the afore said questions in the FOI.

(Some one just told me that it was pretty obvious).

KevinWard59 left an annotation ()

Whoops, forgot,

Google in Browser reports:-

This webpage is not available

Unable to look up modgov.york.gov.uk.

Rod King left an annotation ()

I respect Mr Ward's interest in this matter and thank him for the correction to SLAT rather than SALT. Perhaps I can remind him that my correct name is actually Rod King.

KevinWard59 left an annotation ()

Apologies Rodney or Rod.

Allow me to simplify things to basics.

If you remove a baking from an oven without oven gloves, then expect to get burned.

If a pair of traffic officers attempt a speeding offence with a motorcycle using calibrated speedometer at night (single tail light) on a motorway instead of deploying the correctly working Vascar Radar Device which was even correctly tested at the start of their duty there is a strong chance that a prosecution will fail with good defending argument. (Location/circumstances/Terrain/weather reports/ velocity and acceleration calculations/probability).

It would also raise question as to why they didn't use the officially supplied and recommended device.

A child is more likely to be killed being hit by a lorry at 10 mph than a car at 30 mph due to gross mass. Conversely due to sharp pointed objects and pressure (concentrated point force) on a smaller surface area death can also result to a child being hit at 10-15 mph by a Cyclist.

I would rather see a correctly regulated Country wide 20 mph in correctly assessed residential areas than Ad-hoc Tax-Payer expense which is un-policed without additional Tax-Payer Funding and also dubious regarding attaining a successful conviction by not using officially recommended practice or tools available.

Thus the FOI is completely reasonable to ascertain if the tools encouraged and supplied free of charge have or are being deployed.

Now, would you kindly refrain from attempting to curtail a correct, legitimate and important FOIR to promote your doctrine. Perhaps you could do some revision starting at the Points of Reference below.

Points of Reference:-
Newtons Three Laws of Physics:-
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi...
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/
http://wwww.technologystudent.com

KevinWard59 left an annotation ()

For further clarification of Rod Kings confusion here is reminder of points 1 and 2 in the original FOIR headed Rationale.

My FOIR request is to further clarify these points.

Rationale.

1. What rules/guidance has been applied regarding the spacing and
positioning of these signs. Ie Why is it necessary to put a sign circa
every 50m and in cul de sacs which are only 200m long? Smaller
repeater signs are required to be placed at regular intervals within a
20mph speed limit. The guidance for the spacing of these is laid out
in chapter three of the Traffic Signs Manual (approx. 150m). Signs
have been placed sparingly in accordance with national guidance and
located on existing lamp columns wherever possible to minimise the
overall cost. Longer cul-de-sacs have been included to ensure that
the scheme is fully enforceable and to encourage a culture change.
Therefore a clear coherent speed limit was imperative to ensure
drivers have an obvious speed limit to drive to. The philosophy
adopted was to keep main roads and prominent local distributor routes
at the existing speed limit with the residential roads just off these
more prominent routes all at 20mph with the exception of extremely
short cul-de-sacs.

2. What evidence was used to decide that implementing 20mph zones was
appropriate.

There is clear evidence of the effect of reducing traffic speeds on the
reduction of collisions and casualties, as collision frequency is lower at
lower speeds; and where collisions do occur, there is a lower risk of
fatal injury at lower speeds. Research shows that on urban roads with low
average traffic speeds any 1 mph reduction in average speed can reduce the
collision frequency by around 6% (Taylor, Lynam and Baruya, 2000). There
is also clear evidence confirming the greater chance of survival of
pedestrians in collisions at lower speeds.
Officers are delivering Council policy to provide 20mph speed limits in
residential areas in line with national guidance.

Please provide statistical evidence, the business case, cost benefit
analysis and internal programme management and financial oversight
information and emails to support the economic case to demonstrate sound
decision making; if none, please state 'we have no statistical evidence of
the benefit' or 'we did not use cost benefit analysis as it was a
political decision' or similar.
The case for implementing 20mph speed limits is provided in the policy
report taken to the Cabinet Member for City Strategy Decision Session on
21 May 2012 available at the following link
[1]http://modgov.york.gov.uk/ieListDocument...

Regards

Tony Clarke | Head of Transport
t: 01904 551641 | e: [2][email address]

City of York Council | City & Environmental Services
West Offices | Station Rise | York | YO1 6GA
[3]www.york.gov.uk | [4]facebook.com/cityofyork | [5]@CityofYork

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * *
Help protect the environment! - please don't print this email unless you

Rod King left an annotation ()

Dear Mr Ward

My annotations were for the benefit of Mr John Acey and City of York Council so that they would not be misled by your annotations.

As neither have replied (and I am assuming you are not Mr John lacey) then I see no reason to bother to correct your further annotations.

Best regards