Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sat Dec 16, 2017 12:05

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 10:24 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
RobinXe wrote:
Pedestrians being subservient to motorists!? What tripe! This is not a conflict between different user groups, but crap like this and BRAKE's try to make it so! We're all on the same side! That of everyone getting where they are going safely!

Why don't pedestrians have unfettered use of the roads? Why can't drivers drive along the pavements? It's not about one group winning out, it's about making everyone safer through separation of groups with very disparate needs.

The fact remains that teaching kids who will not be driving for as much as a decade or longer that all the responsibility for their safety lies with the driver is to do them a disservice; they would be much better served learning ways to protect themselves on the roads.


Wot he said!

Basically, DCB - (and I'm sure this has come up before!), leaving aside the emotive terms that you have chosen to use, is this not just about simple practicalities of every day life in the 21st century? Would such a system not simply result in total gridlock in a big city where there are lots of pedestrians and motorists trying to share the same small space?

So what happens if we try to achieve this egalitarian (which it isn't, by the way - you're asking for reversal, not equality!) utopia? Let's suppose for a minute that all pedestrians always have right of way. Whenever a motorist (or indeed motorcyclist - or, for that matter, cyclist!) sees a pedestrian wanting to use the same bit of road, he has to stop and wait for the pedestrian to do so. This would, indeed, empower pedestrians. The small price they'd have to pay for this would be that no public (road) transport would be able to get through the jam, and that no emergency services or even essential day-to-day services would be able to do so either. In addition, the pedestrians would have to put up with increased local emissions from all the idling engines and continuously stopping and moving vehicles.

In fact, perhaps we should take this theme further and close airport runways to traffic if someone on a hang-glider (surely the airbone equivalent to a pedestrian?!) wished to use the surounding airspace? We could also prevent the movement of big ships in and out of harbours if someone wished to use a rowing or sailing boat in the approaches! In short, whilst I'm sure it would be wonderfully empowering and liberating for "the little guy", he would have to also put up with enormous consequential inconveniences that (in my view as someone who is now very rarely a pedestrian in a big city) would be a greater disbenefit!

Just on other thing. Once the pedestrian became the dominant road user, with everything else subservient to him, would his responsibilities and liabilities increase along with his elevated status?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 10:31 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
Steve wrote:
Johnnytheboy wrote:
...
Read their manifesto, some sensible goals but some is quite scary (selected scariness in bold).

Quote:
Maximum engine capacity is limited to within the maximum speed limit (do they know what that actually means? I don't).

If vehicles are to be engine power limited to 70mph:
Fancy driving cars of less than 30HP? (the 67HP 1.0L engined C1 is still good for 98mph, and its 0-100kph is still 14 secs).

Acceleration would be non-existent at higher speeds, making joining motorways et al far more dangerous due to the massively increased and prolonged differential speeds.
Drivers will be taking risks to ensure minimal momentum is lost.
Hill climbs will be challenging.
Motorbikes will become disproportionately popular – is that good for road safety?

Or is it a subtle anti-car initiative?


No I don't think its subtle - I Do think it's anti-car though! :lol:

Incidentally, my first car DID have 35bhp! (had about double that by the time I'd finished with it though! :twisted: ) Even at that low output, it was so small and light that it could manage a bit more than 70! Of course, limiting a maximum speed without limiting power is technically very easy (it's just that BRAKE probably don't realise that yet)!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 10:53 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6731
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Steve wrote:
If vehicles are to be engine power limited to 70mph:
Fancy driving cars of less than 30HP? (the 67HP 1.0L engined C1 is still good for 98mph, and its 0-100kph is still 14 secs).

Acceleration would be non-existent at higher speeds, making joining motorways et al far more dangerous due to the massively increased and prolonged differential speeds.
Drivers will be taking risks to ensure minimal momentum is lost.
Hill climbs will be challenging.
Motorbikes will become disproportionately popular – is that good for road safety?

Or is it a subtle anti-car initiative?

This really is a spectacular demonstration of their complete - indeed wilful - ignorance of the basic principles of engineering.

I discussed this on my website some years ago here:

Speeding by Design

Quote:
If you tried to “engineer” in a maximum speed little more than the highest speed limit, the vehicle would either have to have the aerodynamics of a house brick (with the consequence of greatly increased fuel consumption and emissions), or be extremely strained and limited in its capabilities at legal speeds. Even a 57 bhp, 1.0 litre Corsa will do 97 mph!

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:20 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4362
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
Why do we think that BRAKE's view of safety is given prominence over the SS (much more pragmatic) viewpoint?

Are they just better at PR? Is low speed seen to be "politically correct" and thus given more coverage?

Related to this, I despair at listening to the BBC sometimes because of their left wing (impractical and unworldly?) viewpoints rather akin to BRAKE's. All their comedy shows are populated by lefties. Their reporting of the Tory conference was through interviews with Labour politicos giving their comments.

Are the leaders of BRAKE all militant feminists with good media connections? Are there any male leaders of BRAKE?

We should find out more about them. Maybe we would learn something interesting.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:30 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 19:08
Posts: 3427
Quote:

* Report this post
* Reply with quote

Re: Speed the number one killer.brake says so so it must be true

Postby Steve on Thu Oct 14, 2010 9:22 am

Johnnytheboy wrote:...
Read their manifesto, some sensible goals but some is quite scary (selected scariness in bold).

•Maximum engine capacity is limited to within the maximum speed limit (do they know what that actually means? I don't).


If vehicles are to be engine power limited to 70mph:
Fancy driving cars of less than 30HP? (the 67HP 1.0L engined C1 is still good for 98mph, and its 0-100kph is still 14 secs).

Acceleration would be non-existent at higher speeds, making joining motorways et al far more dangerous due to the massively increased and prolonged differential speeds.
Drivers will be taking risks to ensure minimal momentum is lost.
Hill climbs will be challenging.
Motorbikes will become disproportionately popular – is that good for road safety?

Or is it a subtle anti-car initiative?


Which just goes to show what a joke the Brake manifesto is and just how out of touch, the women at BRAKE are, about anything to do with motoring.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:43 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4041
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
Firstly, Mole, thank you for taking the trouble to gave a considered and reasonable rebuttal of my argument without questioning my sanity or otherwise abusing me :)

Mole wrote:
is this not just about simple practicalities of every day life in the 21st century? Would such a system not simply result in total gridlock in a big city where there are lots of pedestrians and motorists trying to share the same small space?

I am not sure that it would. I have been in parts of Canada where a system of pedestrian/cyclist priority applies and where there is a presumption of guilt on the motorists part if an accident does occur. It neither brought gridlock to the town nor were there a large number of motorists complaining about the injustice of the system. The traffic flowed smoothly at the 20mph limit as most pedestrians choose to cross the road in gaps between the traffic rather than forcing cars to stop.

I am aware that one cannot blindly copy a system that works in provincial British Columbian town to a large English city and I have never suggested that I support the idea of absolute priority for pedestrians which you describe. I am only asking that all traffic has equal priority. Some have argued that this is already the case and it might be so legally. But, because might so quickly becomes right, it is not so in practice. I am as guilty as the next driver of assuming that when I drive away from a red light the road ahead is mine and that the only reason I should stop is to avoid an accident or to obey a traffic signal.

And this is reinforced by the real subservience of many pedestrians. It is not unusual when stopping to allow a pedestrian, especially an elderly one, to cross the road for them to refuse to take the opportunity. Years of teaching by the road safety lobby have persuade them that they must not cross in front of a car.

I don't think my utopia could ever be achieved within the present road structure and that the future must lie with the shared road space schemes which are being tried, with some success, in several countries

Quote:
In fact, perhaps we should take this theme further and close airport runways to traffic if someone on a hang-glider (surely the airbone equivalent to a pedestrian?!) wished to use the surounding airspace? We could also prevent the movement of big ships in and out of harbours if someone wished to use a rowing or sailing boat in the approaches!

That is disengenous. Those examples are more akin to pedestrians on major trunk routes, where I have never argued that there should not be segregation between pedestrians and vehicles.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:45 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
malcolmw wrote:
Why do we think that BRAKE's view of safety is given prominence over the SS (much more pragmatic) viewpoint?

Are they just better at PR? Is low speed seen to be "politically correct" and thus given more coverage?

Related to this, I despair at listening to the BBC sometimes because of their left wing (impractical and unworldly?) viewpoints rather akin to BRAKE's. All their comedy shows are populated by lefties. Their reporting of the Tory conference was through interviews with Labour politicos giving their comments.

Are the leaders of BRAKE all militant feminists with good media connections? Are there any male leaders of BRAKE?

We should find out more about them. Maybe we would learn something interesting.

Brake use hysterical mothers and groups of chanting children to make their point.

The the Safe Speed campaign is rather more impassioned, worldly, measured and logical.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:48 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4041
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
PeterE wrote:
[I discussed this on my website some years ago

Quote:
If you tried to “engineer” in a maximum speed little more than the highest speed limit, the vehicle would either have to have the aerodynamics of a house brick (with the consequence of greatly increased fuel consumption and emissions), or be extremely strained and limited in its capabilities at legal speeds. Even a 57 bhp, 1.0 litre Corsa will do 97 mph!


You do admit that it would be quite simple to restrict the speed of a vehicle through the ECU which could be programmed according to where the car is been driven and which would not affect the ability to tow heavy trailers. But, I hasten - at more than the NSL - to say, I do not approve of the suggestion

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 13:10 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4362
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
dcb wrote:
Years of teaching by the road safety lobby have persuade them that they must not cross in front of a car.

Yes, and this is exactly what we need to keep on with today. If it saves one life...

Pedestrians who defer to cars are not subservient, just sensible.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 14:07 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 21:17
Posts: 3734
Location: Dorset/Somerset border
On Brake: they have huge amounts of corporate funding. That's why they are able to be so effective at getting their message out. Helped by the fact that their message is on the "think of the children/it's common sense guv/speed kills" side of the argument, which makes a better headline.

On restricting a car's power to that which enabled the maximum speed (bear in mind Brake would like this to be 60 :roll: ). I agree with dcb that it would be far easier to restrict this electronically, but that's why I pointed it out, because that's exactly what they didn't say, instead sayingly limit "power" to the maxium speed. So we're back to saying the car could only have the power to reach 60mph.

I presume they mean power to weight ratio anyway, but... I'd want to be able to maintain 60mph on a steep hill in a headwind. Which would require a lot more power than being able to cruise at 60 on a level road with no wind. Twice as much maybe? 120bhp in a middling hatch rather than 60 as a guess?

It's all balls anyway, and proves their making it up on the fly. I have a car that'll do over 160, but I have never done anywhere near that and have no intention to. But a side effect of this top speed is an ability to get from 50 to 70 very quickly. That's why magazines quote top speeds as it's a good yardstick of accelerative ability, not that they imagine buyers intend to utilise this top speed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 14:09 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 21:17
Posts: 3734
Location: Dorset/Somerset border
malcolmw wrote:
Pedestrians who defer to cars are not subservient, just sensible.


And vice versa, of course.

I'd be inclined to say "road users who try to avoid hitting other road users are not subservient, just sensible.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 14:40 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
PeterE wrote:

Quote:
If you tried to “engineer” in a maximum speed little more than the highest speed limit, the vehicle would either have to have the aerodynamics of a house brick (with the consequence of greatly increased fuel consumption and emissions), or be extremely strained and limited in its capabilities at legal speeds. Even a 57 bhp, 1.0 litre Corsa will do 97 mph!


That's (as has been said) not at all true. It's very easy to restrict a car's top speed (regardless of power output or accelerative ability) and has been for years. I can't think of any modern car where this couldn't be achieved with absolutely no extra hardware, just a software change. Most big German "barges" that are capable of much more, already come electronically limited to 155MPH. A fair number of French vehicles offer "customer-adjustable" speed limiters as an option. The only reason I can think why a manufacturer hasn't already offered a (UK-spec) car that is limited to 70, is simply because nobody would buy one! We tend to get brainwashed by SCPs, BRAKE et al, who claim that "the majority" of people are anti-speeding and support the use of cameras etc etc... Some of them even publish so-called "surveys" that "prove" the fact!

The bottom line, however, is that nobody (from high ranking police officers downwards) actually BELIEVES this, and they buy cars that reflect that! ("Actions speak louder than words" & all that)!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 14:47 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6731
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Mole wrote:
That's (as has been said) not at all true. It's very easy to restrict a car's top speed (regardless of power output or accelerative ability) and has been for years. I can't think of any modern car where this couldn't be achieved with absolutely no extra hardware, just a software change. Most big German "barges" that are capable of much more, already come electronically limited to 155MPH. A fair number of French vehicles offer "customer-adjustable" speed limiters as an option. The only reason I can think why a manufacturer hasn't already offered a (UK-spec) car that is limited to 70, is simply because nobody would buy one! We tend to get brainwashed by SCPs, BRAKE et al, who claim that "the majority" of people are anti-speeding and support the use of cameras etc etc... Some of them even publish so-called "surveys" that "prove" the fact!

No, BRAKE are not arguing for speed limiters, they are arguing that the power of cars should be limited so that they cannot exceed the maximum speed limit full stop, even without fitting a limiter. As they say, "Maximum engine capacity is limited to within the maximum speed limit."

Any kind of brisk acceleration even within the speed limit is, of course, highly irresponsible and really downright evil :evil:

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 14:53 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4041
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
malcolmw wrote:
dcb wrote:
Years of teaching by the road safety lobby have persuade them that they must not cross in front of a car.

Yes, and this is exactly what we need to keep on with today. If it saves one life...

Pedestrians who defer to cars are not subservient, just sensible.


A pedestrian who will not cross the road in front of a car that has just stopped to allow him to do so is not being sensible.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 14:58 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
dcbwhaley wrote:
Firstly, Mole, thank you for taking the trouble to gave a considered and reasonable rebuttal of my argument without questioning my sanity or otherwise abusing me :)

Awwwww, I'm touched! - you've got to admit, DCB-baiting is a National sport on here though! :lol:

Mole wrote:
is this not just about simple practicalities of every day life in the 21st century? Would such a system not simply result in total gridlock in a big city where there are lots of pedestrians and motorists trying to share the same small space?

dcbwhaley wrote:
I am not sure that it would. I have been in parts of Canada where a system of pedestrian/cyclist priority applies and where there is a presumption of guilt on the motorists part if an accident does occur. It neither brought gridlock to the town nor were there a large number of motorists complaining about the injustice of the system. The traffic flowed smoothly at the 20mph limit as most pedestrians choose to cross the road in gaps between the traffic rather than forcing cars to stop.

I am aware that one cannot blindly copy a system that works in provincial British Columbian town to a large English city and I have never suggested that I support the idea of absolute priority for pedestrians which you describe. I am only asking that all traffic has equal priority. Some have argued that this is already the case and it might be so legally. But, because might so quickly becomes right, it is not so in practice. I am as guilty as the next driver of assuming that when I drive away from a red light the road ahead is mine and that the only reason I should stop is to avoid an accident or to obey a traffic signal.

OK, well, I have to admit that I hav only my "asumption" that total gridlock would ensue! That said, the very fact that you say pedestrians crossed "in the gaps" makes me dubious that it represented traffic densities anything like as bad as a big UK city. (Many of which, it has to be remembered, have entire sections closed-off to cars)!
dcbwhaley wrote:
And this is reinforced by the real subservience of many pedestrians. It is not unusual when stopping to allow a pedestrian, especially an elderly one, to cross the road for them to refuse to take the opportunity. Years of teaching by the road safety lobby have persuade them that they must not cross in front of a car.
I'm not sure that's a valid conclusion. I could be that the doddering old bat didn't want to cross the road anyway or hadn't noticed that you'd stopped! :) My experience is, if anything, the opposite - they amble out into the road in front of you with gay abandon and completely (apparently) oblivious, their plastc rain scarves pulled down tight and their tartan shopping trolleys trailing in their wake! (Moi! Ageist? - nah!)

Incidentally,
dcbwhaley wrote:
...equal priority....
...Can such a thing, even as a concept, ever really exist?

dcbwhaley wrote:
I don't think my utopia could ever be achieved within the present road structure and that the future must lie with the shared road space schemes which are being tried, with some success, in several countries

Hmmmm. Still dubious, to be honest! But, if it's all about equality, then I'd be interested in a trial. Maybe we could open up a pedestrianised area of a town to all traffic on the understanding that pedestriants always had priority in it, just to see what happens?

Mole wrote:
In fact, perhaps we should take this theme further and close airport runways to traffic if someone on a hang-glider (surely the airbone equivalent to a pedestrian?!) wished to use the surounding airspace? We could also prevent the movement of big ships in and out of harbours if someone wished to use a rowing or sailing boat in the approaches!

dcbwhaley wrote:
That is disengenous. Those examples are more akin to pedestrians on major trunk routes, where I have never argued that there should not be segregation between pedestrians and vehicles.

OK, it's a fair cop! Just seeing how far I could push it! :)


Last edited by Mole on Thu Oct 14, 2010 15:02, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 15:00 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
PeterE wrote:
Mole wrote:
That's (as has been said) not at all true. It's very easy to restrict a car's top speed (regardless of power output or accelerative ability) and has been for years. I can't think of any modern car where this couldn't be achieved with absolutely no extra hardware, just a software change. Most big German "barges" that are capable of much more, already come electronically limited to 155MPH. A fair number of French vehicles offer "customer-adjustable" speed limiters as an option. The only reason I can think why a manufacturer hasn't already offered a (UK-spec) car that is limited to 70, is simply because nobody would buy one! We tend to get brainwashed by SCPs, BRAKE et al, who claim that "the majority" of people are anti-speeding and support the use of cameras etc etc... Some of them even publish so-called "surveys" that "prove" the fact!

No, BRAKE are not arguing for speed limiters, they are arguing that the power of cars should be limited so that they cannot exceed the maximum speed limit full stop, even without fitting a limiter. As they say, "Maximum engine capacity is limited to within the maximum speed limit."

Any kind of brisk acceleration even within the speed limit is, of course, highly irresponsible and really downright evil :evil:


OK, I accept that's not what they're ASKING FOR, I think it's what they WANT though! They just understand so little about cars (always a good qualification if you're going to set yourselves up as experts in road safety, I find! :wink: ), that they phrased it rather poorly!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 15:08 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
Mole wrote:
OK, I accept that's not what they're ASKING FOR, I think it's what they WANT though! They just understand so little about cars (always a good qualification if you're going to set yourselves up as experts in road safety, I find! :wink: ), that they phrased it rather poorly!

Oh I don't know. This is Brake we're talking about.
I don't think I speak for myself when I say they are anti-car and will happy encourage policies to discourage their use.
</tinfoilhat>

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 15:39 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4041
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
Mole.

The shared space scheme has been trialled with some success in various parts of the world including the UK. And, contrary to what you suggest, pedestrians do not have priority in these schemes. The legal concept of priority does not exist in them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space#United_Kingdom

Quote:
The shared space philosophy distinguishes between the fine-meshed slow network, and the larger-meshed fast network. The slow network, which is the subject of the shared space treatment, is characterised as the street network which make public space vital and accessible. On the slow network motor traffic is welcomed as a guest, but has to adapt to certain social norms of behaviour. The layout of the road must make this clear. The fast or supra traffic network, which allows traffic to reach destinations quickly, and which is designed using traditional traffic engineering methodologies, is essential if the slow network is to function properly.[6]
A reason for the apparent paradox that reduced regulation leads to safer roads may be found by studying the risk compensation effect. Shared Space describe the effect:[6]
Shared Space is successful because the perception of risk may be a means or even a prerequisite for increasing objective safety. Because when a situation feels unsafe, people are more alert and there are fewer accidents.
In answer to a direct question about the role of local legislation, a member of the Shared Space Expert Team replied: "To understand how shared space works, it is important to move away from reliance on 'rights' and laws, and to recognize the potential for conventions and protocols ... Such conventions and protocols evolve rapidly and are very effective if the state does not intervene through regulation."[7]


That last paragraph neatly encapsulates something that I have thought about for years. That most traffic law is not law in traditional sense of separating right deeds from wrong. It is a series of conventions to enable traffic safely to coexist with other traffic. It doesn't, for example, matter a diddle squat which side of the road we drive on so long as we all do the same. (Personally I favour the shady side :)

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 20:45 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6731
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Mole wrote:
PeterE wrote:
No, BRAKE are not arguing for speed limiters, they are arguing that the power of cars should be limited so that they cannot exceed the maximum speed limit full stop, even without fitting a limiter. As they say, "Maximum engine capacity is limited to within the maximum speed limit."

Any kind of brisk acceleration even within the speed limit is, of course, highly irresponsible and really downright evil :evil:

OK, I accept that's not what they're ASKING FOR, I think it's what they WANT though! They just understand so little about cars (always a good qualification if you're going to set yourselves up as experts in road safety, I find! :wink: ), that they phrased it rather poorly!

I think they know exactly what want. Their manifesto demands variable speed limiters as well. "De-powering" cars is perceived as a way of removing their attractiveness and glamour. The fact that it's technologically bonkers doesn't matter to them.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 05:21 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 19:08
Posts: 3427
Quote:
I think they know exactly what want. Their manifesto demands variable speed limiters as well. "De-powering" cars is perceived as a way of removing their attractiveness and glamour. The fact that it's technologically bonkers doesn't matter to them.


I would say that it's simpler than even that.

I believe that they are so much "in belief" of the "speedkills" propaganda, that they can't see anything else apart from that.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.580s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]