Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Dec 18, 2017 17:50

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 94 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 00:27 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 21:19
Posts: 1059
I had a think about it tonight and ISA definitely seems to be the way forward for this sort of scheme. I'd make it advisory in all areas except dense residential and town centre. However, it would be interesting to see how the Government coped with a GIS of such scale, given their track record on IT projects.

It would be most excellent if we could create a highly consistent and ordered road environment instead of the madhouse that we have today.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 03:25 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
SafeSpeed wrote:
mpaton2004 wrote:
Trying to have a sensible debate on here is pointless. I suppose we should continue to let people do 30-40 in these places, as they must be right, they're drivers who can judge "appropriate speed for the conditions" perfectly.


With 11,000 child pedestrians injured last year and 47 deaths in built up areas, clearly the vast majority of us are not striking them at the '20% die at 30mph' level - If we were it would have been well over 2,000 deaths.

But the proportion 47/11,000 = 0.42% is a massive overestimate of reality, because:

- Injuries are under-reported by around a factor of 3. (=30,000)
- Many accident don't result in an injury at all (another 20,000?)
- The vast majority of incidents result in no impact (another 200,000 perhaps)

Show me ONE SHREAD of evidence that a significant part of our road safety problems are caused by 'people driving far too fast' in urban areas.

I've been looking for well over 5 years, and I haven't seen one yet.


What? No reply to this? Why's that then?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 09:33 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 13:55
Posts: 2247
Location: middlish
Mole wrote:
I think a cheaper way of doing it would be with GPS. Just programme the restricted area into each car's GPS receiver and as soon as it is inside that area, it could be made to slow down. Whether or not anyone would BUY a car like that is another matter entirely.


GPS.... in narrow residential streets surrounded by houses & perchance even trees.... eeek.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 11:14 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 21:19
Posts: 1059
SafeSpeed wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
mpaton2004 wrote:
Trying to have a sensible debate on here is pointless. I suppose we should continue to let people do 30-40 in these places, as they must be right, they're drivers who can judge "appropriate speed for the conditions" perfectly.


With 11,000 child pedestrians injured last year and 47 deaths in built up areas, clearly the vast majority of us are not striking them at the '20% die at 30mph' level - If we were it would have been well over 2,000 deaths.

But the proportion 47/11,000 = 0.42% is a massive overestimate of reality, because:

- Injuries are under-reported by around a factor of 3. (=30,000)
- Many accident don't result in an injury at all (another 20,000?)
- The vast majority of incidents result in no impact (another 200,000 perhaps)

Show me ONE SHREAD of evidence that a significant part of our road safety problems are caused by 'people driving far too fast' in urban areas.

I've been looking for well over 5 years, and I haven't seen one yet.


What? No reply to this? Why's that then?


If you think 11,000 injuries (possibly 30,000 if the x3 is to be believed) is acceptable then I don't know what to say. Regardless of whether they're broken arms or permanent disabilities, limiting speed in urban areas to BELOW the point where serious injuries are highly likely given an incident, then this figure would tumble.

If 30mph + braking + 13-15mph impact speed gives nasty injuries then 10-15mph + braking is first of all likely to avoid the impact in the first place, but if one does occur, it'll be less severe.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 11:55 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 14:00
Posts: 1270
Location: Near Telford, UK / Barcelona, Spain
mpaton2004 wrote:
If 30mph + braking + 13-15mph impact speed gives nasty injuries then 10-15mph + braking is first of all likely to avoid the impact in the first place, but if one does occur, it'll be less severe.

But, 10 - 15mph without braking at all because the driver is half asleep will cause just as much damage. You, as am I, are making a big assumption.

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 11:58 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 21:19
Posts: 1059
They're not going to be half asleep in an environment like the aforementioned picture!!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 12:05 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
mpaton2004 wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
mpaton2004 wrote:
Trying to have a sensible debate on here is pointless. I suppose we should continue to let people do 30-40 in these places, as they must be right, they're drivers who can judge "appropriate speed for the conditions" perfectly.


With 11,000 child pedestrians injured last year and 47 deaths in built up areas, clearly the vast majority of us are not striking them at the '20% die at 30mph' level - If we were it would have been well over 2,000 deaths.

But the proportion 47/11,000 = 0.42% is a massive overestimate of reality, because:

- Injuries are under-reported by around a factor of 3. (=30,000)
- Many accident don't result in an injury at all (another 20,000?)
- The vast majority of incidents result in no impact (another 200,000 perhaps)

Show me ONE SHREAD of evidence that a significant part of our road safety problems are caused by 'people driving far too fast' in urban areas.

I've been looking for well over 5 years, and I haven't seen one yet.


What? No reply to this? Why's that then?


If you think 11,000 injuries (possibly 30,000 if the x3 is to be believed) is acceptable then I don't know what to say. Regardless of whether they're broken arms or permanent disabilities, limiting speed in urban areas to BELOW the point where serious injuries are highly likely given an incident, then this figure would tumble.

If 30mph + braking + 13-15mph impact speed gives nasty injuries then 10-15mph + braking is first of all likely to avoid the impact in the first place, but if one does occur, it'll be less severe.


If you think about it, you'll find that the critical outcome-determining factor isn't free travelling speed, but the moment at which the danger is spotted.

Failing to spot the danger is to do with skills and attention levels.

If we want a better system we need to understand how things are working and build on the strengths, not through it all away on the basis of gross misunderstanding.

Come on - we've had this 'speed kills' crap for well over a decade, and where's the improvement in crash stats? KSI? Don't make me laugh. Pedestrian fatalities? We've scared them off the roads.

Policy is a very bad joke. Your proposal is worse.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 13:08 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 21:19
Posts: 1059
My proposal have a lot more realism than your philosophy allowing drivers to do pretty much whatever they like.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 13:28 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
mpaton2004 wrote:
My proposal have a lot more realism than your philosophy allowing drivers to do pretty much whatever they like.


If the proportion of dead child pedestrians was even 5% you would be right. It isn't and you're not.

We're ALREADY operating our roads successfully on an entirely different set of parameters.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 13:52 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 08:22
Posts: 2618
The other factor is that at higher impact speeds, a pedestrian is likely to either bounce up onto the car or be thrown clear, whereas at lower impact speeds (especially where the driver is paying so little attention that they fail to notice and don't react and stop INSTANTLY) there is a much higher chance of the pedestrian being run over.

Its certainly the case with bike accidents that at speeds less than around 30mph the rider will suffer a much more severe impact when falling off than at higher speeds where (unless he hits something on the way) he will tend to simply slide to a halt.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 14:43 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 14:00
Posts: 1270
Location: Near Telford, UK / Barcelona, Spain
mpaton2004 wrote:
They're not going to be half asleep in an environment like the aforementioned picture!!!!

That's very true (I would hope!!)... However, making an allowance for "function creep" there's no way that our "masters" would confine their ideas of social control to just the roads you highlight... Remember "Safety Cameras" - which were to be placed only in "accident blackspots"?

OK, you can say that they only proliferated once the Partnerships saw the potentials for revenue and empire-building, but there's a mentality that appears to be posessed by more than an insignificant proportion of those in control of policy that seems unable to exercise any self-control when it comes to putting additional impositions upon the general public. I'd put money on "conurbation-wide" limits being in place within 5 years of the inception of a project such as you advocate. Then there'd be a lot of half-asleep drivers!

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 15:54 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
pogo wrote:
mpaton2004 wrote:
They're not going to be half asleep in an environment like the aforementioned picture!!!!

That's very true (I would hope!!)


I doubt it. We shouldn't be picturing the extreme situation here. The questions are:

-do we get lower attention with lower speed? (very likely)
-does the degree of reduced attention more than overcome the potential benefit of lower initial speed? (very likely - in an attention based system even minute changes can have large system-wide effects.)

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 18:05 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 21:19
Posts: 1059
SafeSpeed wrote:
mpaton2004 wrote:
My proposal have a lot more realism than your philosophy allowing drivers to do pretty much whatever they like.


If the proportion of dead child pedestrians was even 5% you would be right. It isn't and you're not.

We're ALREADY operating our roads successfully on an entirely different set of parameters.


You only seem interested in deaths, what about injuries? Are they acceptable (in some of the more extreme cases I think death would have been a better alternative)

We may only be killing 47 child pedestrians per year, but we're injuring 11,000 of them officially, possibly twice that number or more unofficially.

The whole thing is a logical fallacy. If the very best drivers would travel at 15mph in a situation like this, which is what we should all be aspiring towards - then with my system you are removing the option for the worst drivers to travel at speeds above that, HENCE reducing the potential for the laws of Physics to inflict maximum punishment on the victim if there is an accident.

If people are so stupid to travel through such an area at 30mph, then they obviously aren't concentrating and driving appropriately in the first place. It is nothing more than selfish behaviour, I want, I can, so I will, with no consideration for others.

Which of the following would you rather have if you had three options, all three being mutually exclusive:

Speed humps
Speed cameras
Speed limitation system


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 19:22 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
mpaton2004 wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
mpaton2004 wrote:
My proposal have a lot more realism than your philosophy allowing drivers to do pretty much whatever they like.


If the proportion of dead child pedestrians was even 5% you would be right. It isn't and you're not.

We're ALREADY operating our roads successfully on an entirely different set of parameters.


You only seem interested in deaths, what about injuries? Are they acceptable (in some of the more extreme cases I think death would have been a better alternative)


Nope. The ratio is reasonably constant and represents 'degree of human error'. If we bring one down we bring both down. I want to address human error.

mpaton2004 wrote:
The whole thing is a logical fallacy. If the very best drivers would travel at 15mph in a situation like this, which is what we should all be aspiring towards...


WRONG. We have to take the opportunity to make drivers better. It isn't hard. They want to be better.

mpaton2004 wrote:
Which of the following would you rather have if you had three options, all three being mutually exclusive:

Speed humps
Speed cameras
Speed limitation system


Nope. None of the above. They DON'T WORK. They CAN'T WORK. They are making drivers worse. Hence no significant fall in deaths or hospitalisations.

You might think it's simple physics. It isn't. We (society) have proved it. Speed reduction policies have failed. We're now 1,200 lives a year behind expectation because of them. We're now the slowest improving in Europe because of them. We're just coming up to 10,000 accumulated deaths because of them.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 20:53 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 16:12
Posts: 1040
Location: West Midlands
Would now be a good time to remind everybody of how successful Mondermann "Shared Spaces" have been? According to the Wikepedia entry Kensington High Street in London has had the treatment, and is apparently achieving a 16% reduction in injuries year on year. No speed humps, no speed cameras, no speed limiting technology at all; and while we are at it - no white lines, minimal road signs (direction only), no barriers, no pedestrian crossings, no pavements, no traffic lights. Drivers have all of the artificial regulations and restrictions removed, and are instead forced to consider the potential actions of all other people sharing the space - no matter what they are doing - drivers then can (and indeed have to) spend all of their time concentrating on driving safely. And they do - far more successfully than is common elsewhere.

Surely this is the correct answer rather than yet more regulation, restriction, control, and obviously cost?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 23:04 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Rewolf wrote:
Would now be a good time to remind everybody of how successful Mondermann "Shared Spaces" have been?


I suspect (no more than suspect) that the shared space ideas are just the tip of a rather welcome iceberg of future innovation. More of a signpost, perhaps, than the ultimate solution. I know there's an essential 'rightness' about the ideas, but I think there's a lot more to come.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 23:13 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 21:19
Posts: 1059
The UK equivalent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_zone

and:

http://www.homezones.org.uk/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 23:27 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
mpaton2004 wrote:


Call that equivalent? It's just anti-car and very very sad.

From: http://www.homezones.org.uk/public/down ... ummary.pdf

Quote:
Designing for People and Vehicles
G13. The design of the Home Zone should make motorists feel that they are a “guest” in the street, and must
make it difficult for them to travel at speeds of more than 10 mph. Vehicles must be accommodated within
Home Zones as an integral part of daily life, but must share the space with people on foot.
G14. Home Zones must be designed to be accessible to, and usable by, disabled people of all types.
G15. Drivers usually expect to have priority over any part of the street between raised kerbs and therefore a
continuous raised kerb should not normally be provided throughout the Home Zone.
G16. Home Zones must be legible to blind and visually impaired people.
G17. The route for vehicles through a Home Zone should be as narrow as is practicable, with a minimum of
width of 3m.
G18. Home Zones must be designed to cater for occasional use by large vehicles.
Parking
G19. Some on–street parking should normally be provided in Home Zone streets.
G20. On–street car parking should be arranged so that it does not dominate views of the street or impinge
upon the other activities that will take place in a Home Zone.
G21. In new developments, the total amount (both on and off–street) of car parking to be provided in the
Home Zone should be determined from the number and type of dwellings and the application of the
appropriate parking standards.
G22. Opportunities for indiscriminate parking should be removed through the design and location of street
furniture, planting or other features, so that it is only possible to park within the designated on–street spaces.
Designing for Safety
G23. In locations where it is considered necessary to maintain visibility, a stopping sight distance of 12m
should be applied. Significantly longer views will encourage drivers to increase their speeds and should be
avoided where possible.
G24. Until further experience is gained, it is advised that speed control measures within Home Zones should
be provided at a spacing of up to around 30m.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 00:08 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
The idea of Naked Streets have worked relatively well in quiet urban environments were little traffic and pedestrian activity is expected (I’ve seen many examples of this for myself in Germany). I really worry when an idea like this is tried on a bustling street like Kensington High Street – not really what one would call a ‘home zone’!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 00:55 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 21:19
Posts: 1059
SafeSpeed wrote:
mpaton2004 wrote:


Call that equivalent? It's just anti-car and very very sad.

From: http://www.homezones.org.uk/public/down ... ummary.pdf

Quote:
Designing for People and Vehicles
G13. The design of the Home Zone should make motorists feel that they are a “guest” in the street, and must
make it difficult for them to travel at speeds of more than 10 mph. Vehicles must be accommodated within
Home Zones as an integral part of daily life, but must share the space with people on foot.
G14. Home Zones must be designed to be accessible to, and usable by, disabled people of all types.
G15. Drivers usually expect to have priority over any part of the street between raised kerbs and therefore a
continuous raised kerb should not normally be provided throughout the Home Zone.
G16. Home Zones must be legible to blind and visually impaired people.
G17. The route for vehicles through a Home Zone should be as narrow as is practicable, with a minimum of
width of 3m.
G18. Home Zones must be designed to cater for occasional use by large vehicles.
Parking
G19. Some on–street parking should normally be provided in Home Zone streets.
G20. On–street car parking should be arranged so that it does not dominate views of the street or impinge
upon the other activities that will take place in a Home Zone.
G21. In new developments, the total amount (both on and off–street) of car parking to be provided in the
Home Zone should be determined from the number and type of dwellings and the application of the
appropriate parking standards.
G22. Opportunities for indiscriminate parking should be removed through the design and location of street
furniture, planting or other features, so that it is only possible to park within the designated on–street spaces.
Designing for Safety
G23. In locations where it is considered necessary to maintain visibility, a stopping sight distance of 12m
should be applied. Significantly longer views will encourage drivers to increase their speeds and should be
avoided where possible.
G24. Until further experience is gained, it is advised that speed control measures within Home Zones should
be provided at a spacing of up to around 30m.


Oh stop moaning about "anti-car measures" - they're housing areas for Christ's sake, not rat runs or boy-racer paradises!

Do you have some sort of fundamental problem with slow moving vehicles? There's nothing whatsoever stopping people using a car in the above.

Residents cars should be taken off the streets alltogether by providing a block of garages or by building them into the house (like is common in the new build 3 storey townhouses), so the kids could play ball, and generally have a good time without fear of being mown down by idiots.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 94 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 2 guests


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 : 0.352s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]