HEALTH chiefs at Warrington have joined forces with the borough council to call for a local debate on improving road safety.
The call from NHS Warrington and the council follows a report from the North West Public Health Observatory – reported by Warrington-Worldwide on Tuesday, January 25 – which showed the borough had a worse accident rate than the average for the region as a whole.
Research has shown that more than 29,000 people are injured on the region’s roads each year. Of these casualties, more than 3,000 are seriously or fatally injured, including more than 400 children up to the age of 15.
The study also reveals that in Warrington each year between 2006 and 2008 an average of more than 1,000 people were injured in a road traffic collision – around 280 people in the town are admitted to hospital each year as a result of a road traffic collision.
Child casualty information highlights how children living in the North West region are more likely to be injured on the roads than children anywhere else in the country. In Warrington 101 children aged between 0-15 were injured in road traffic collisions each year between 2006 and 2008.
More than 80 per cent of these injuries to children occur on roads that have a speed limit of 30 mph and research shows that up to 140 killed or seriously injured children could be saved each year if 20 mph speed limits had been applied in these areas.
Dr Rita Robertson, director of Public Health and Strategy for NHS Warrington said: “The report presents compelling evidence for continuing action to reduce road traffic collisions and casualties in Warrington and the North West.”
David Boyer, assistant director for transport at the borough council said: “Improving safety on Warrington’s roads remains a key priority for the council. Significant progress has been made in achieving casualty reduction targets of a 40 per cent reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured and a 50 per cent reduction in the number of children killed or seriously injured by 2010.
” Traffic related casualties in Warrington during 2009 were 442 (or 30 per cent) lower than the average of the 5 years between 1994 and 1998.
“We have recently completed an 18 month pilot study of the impact of introducing 20mph speed limits without the usually associated traffic calming measures. Based on the positive impact these measures had in the communities we trialed them in, we are committed to the wider rolling-out of permanent 20mph limits in the borough whilst working with NHS Warrington to reduce the level of avoidable death and injury on our roads.”
10 Comments
When will they address the real problem?
If a bucket has a hole in it, the answer is NOT to keeo adding water. You repair the hole.
As more and more people move to Warrington, so the number of cars increase. As more businesses come to Warrington, so more goods vehicles increase.
20mph won’t solve the problems. They might help on housing estates, but they will not help the traffic flow problems.
Sort the roads out and then educate the people. Other towns can find the money, why not Warrington.
I agree. The amount of traffic on the already congested roads needs sorting. On the other hand congested roads result in much lower speeds 🙂 It would seem from the news article that we are going to get a blanket 20 mph across Warrington regardless of peoples opinions..as WBC say they are ‘committed’. Not to worry eh I’m sure it will all be for the best and we will see the benefits 🙂
Warrington Borough Council and Councillors thought long and hard about 20 mph speed limits for residential roads over the 2 years from 2006 to 2008. In 2008 they decided that the most appropriate action was to conduct a pilot over a wide area so they could learn first hand the issues for implementing and the results which they would get in resident satisfaction and casualty reduction. So the pilots were conducted in several areas of Warrington. The results showed a clear reduction in speeds and a reduction in casualties well above the national trend.
They then evaluated the results and concluded that for every £1 spent on implementing 20 mph speed limits in residential roads there would be an £8 reduction in the costs to the Warrington community of casualties.
As a result in 2010 the Councillors and Officers have decided to immediately progress making most of the roads in the pilot areas into 20 mph limits and plan to roll-out 20 mph limits across the rest of the town. A scrutiny committee of councillors will also be looking at the criteria for excepting certain roads. Current guidance says that 20 mph should be set for all residential roads and those with high pedestrian and cycle users unless they are a “major through route”.
The council has very much listened to peoples opinions. It has also looked at the outcome and results of its pilots, national trends, experience from elsewhere and government guidance. For some of us (myself included) this has all taken too long, whilst for others would prefer no decision at all.
The fact is that you cannot please everyone. I believe that what you are seeing is real democracy and responsible local government in action. Its taking an issue which effects us all and creating change to make our Warrington a better place to live. And that means that if you live in Warrington the street outside your house will probably have a 20 mph speed limit that respects you, your children and the other residents.
It will also respect the fact that most Warrington people will respond to getting used to driving just a little slower in such roads. And this will not only help pedestrians and cyclists but also reduce casualties and the cost of collisions for motorists.
Best regards
Rod King – 20’s Plenty for Us
These reports and so called statistics are a load of garbage without any factual data to back them up. They are nothing but scaremongering by a biased person. It is about time the so called managers queried the facts.
EH ? Dizzys getting Dizzy again 🙂 RodK you say that “pilots were conducted in several areas of Warrington. The results showed a clear reduction in speeds and a reduction in casualties well above the national trend.” MY QUESTION is how do they know how many accidents or injuries may have occurred on the same stretches of road in the exact same time period if the pilot study had not been in place ???
RodK.. you then say “They then evaluated the results and concluded that for every £1 spent on implementing 20 mph speed limits in residential roads there would be an £8 reduction in the costs to the Warrington community of casualties.” followed later by ” As a result in 2010 the Councillors and Officers have decided to immediately progress making most of the roads in the pilot areas into 20 mph limits and plan to roll-out 20 mph limits across the rest of the town.” MY QUESTION So have the officers and councillors only voted to agree to this as they ‘think’ it may save money as that’s how it reads but without knowing the answer to my first question how can they be sure? This has got me thinking and questioning it all again just as I was coming around to the idea (not that we seem to have any choice) BUT cost wise members of my family and most people I know have only actually only ever cost the Warrington NHS (and other authorities) money by falling of bikes or through other light outdoor activities including walking … none (thankfully) have ever cost the NHS anything because of a road or traffic accident . Time to ban bikes and other outdoor activities is what I say… it would save a FORTUNE on costs 🙂
This has to be one of the worst statistical reports I’ve ever seen and it makes me wonder if this is just poorly written or a deliberate attempt to confuse or cause alarm . The statistics (if we can call them that) are completly blurred by the constant jumping between local and regional data sets, often within the same sentance! I’m with Fred on this one.
IF after say two years, the stats savings are not as shown, will they reverse the decision?
Rod King is a control freak and wants everyone to do things his way because he will not listen to reason and logic, he only listens to the flawed nonsense that him and his group of lycra clad warriors want to spout. He ignores the other problems such as educating cyclists not to jump onto footpaths to get round red lights, or to just go through red lights anyway. He ignores the fact that most cyclists do not use half of these very expensive cycle lanes; preferring instead to mix it with lorries and buses on main roads and he also ignores the fact that most cyclists do not even use lights when it is dark anymore.
It isn’t motorists that need sorting out, it is cyclists like him and his bunch. They need to be paying road tax and they need plates so that they can be identified at red light cameras. Baz – 20’s just plain stupid
So we can lookn forward to a reduction in council tax as a result then Rod? or will the councillors spend it on more pointless cycle lanes?
Baz
I probably wear no more lycra than you do. I drive many more miles in a week than I cycle. Why do you always seem to take any suggestion of sharing the roads in a better way and turn it into an attack on cyclists?
Even if cyclists did have to pay road tax, based on the current formula of being proportional to CO2 emissions that tax would be zero.
Expensive cycle lanes are mostly not needed if you have 20 mph speed limits on roads.
Now these red light cameras, would they only notice cyclists going through amber and red or would they trap motor vehciles as well?
Be happy.
Rod
I