Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Dec 18, 2017 15:38

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: Thu Nov 09, 2006 00:57 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 21:19
Posts: 1059
smeggy wrote:
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’!


Yes, this sort of scheme should be limited to village centres and residential areas only, if chaos isn't to ensue!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 01:01 
Offline
Member
Member

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


Shouldn't be a problem. The system only needs to know if you're "inside" the restricted zone or "outside" it. There's no need to know whereabouts you are with any more precision than that. IF it knows you've entered the zone and then looses the signal, it won't de-restrict your car, it will just wait until it sees your car outside the zone again and then de-restrict it. The same technology is being developed for low emissions zones and hybrid buses. As soon as the bus enters the low emissions zone, the GPS kills the engine and switches to electric power. When it leaves, it starts up the main engine again.

(Still think Mpaton's idea sucks though)!

And where does the "less congestion" idea come from?!?!? Traffic is like a fluid and should obey Bernoulli's rules - when it gets to a restriction, it should go FASTER to get the same "volume flow rate". Now clearly, there is a safety trade-off here and I can understand that safety is important, but it should be pretty obvious to anyone that slowing everything down is NOT (in itself) going to speed anything up!

PLEASE Mr. Paton try lobbying for pedestrian friendly cars, for better driver AND PEDESTRIAN education, for internationally recognised standards of grip for tyres, for better testing of suspension components (dampers principally), for better road design....

Why does the answer to everything always have to be "let's force everyone to drive slower and really piss them off"?

We've had TEN YEARS of increasingly draconian speed enforcement and the problem has got WORSE! Going back further than that, road casualties DROPPED the year after the Red Flag Act was repealed! WE'VE 100 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE HERE!!!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 01:03 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
mpaton2004 wrote:
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.

Well that doesn't make any sense at all; ‘idiots’ will still be idiots regardless of the number of cars parked at the side of the road.

Try applying that idea to an inner city street, like the one in the photo you posted on page 2 of this thread.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 01:07 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 21:19
Posts: 1059
No, you couldn't apply it to that, I agree - the Home Zones are completely different designs. My 10-15mph limiter might be more appropriate though for traditional zones. ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 01:13 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 21:19
Posts: 1059
Mole wrote:
And where does the "less congestion" idea come from?!?!? Traffic is like a fluid and should obey Bernoulli's rules - when it gets to a restriction, it should go FASTER to get the same "volume flow rate". Now clearly, there is a safety trade-off here and I can understand that safety is important, but it should be pretty obvious to anyone that slowing everything down is NOT (in itself) going to speed anything up!


I think the point re: congestion would be that it would reduce the stop/start concertina effect which is the cause of major congestion at high vehicle flow rates. Smoothing it out would bring benefits.

Regarding your other points, I said a long time ago that if people followed the highway code TO the letter, and drove as they did on the driving test there would be vastly fewer incidents. Yes it is the most basic level of driving education, but WHY do so many people choose to ignore it the second they throw away the L-plates?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 03:04 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
mpaton2004 wrote:
Yes it is the most basic level of driving education, but WHY do so many people choose to ignore it the second they throw away the L-plates?


Because driving and road safety both depend on judgement, not rules-compliance.

_________________
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 11:07 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 21:19
Posts: 1059
Wrong, they depend on both, and we aren't getting nearly enough of both.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 11:33 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 08:22
Posts: 2618
The trouble with driving to the letter of the HC is that it reads like it was writen by an infant.

There are scenerios out here in the real world that aren't covered by the HC (it doesn't even tell you how to negociate a roundabout properly FFS). It is NOT a consise driving instruction manual. There are road signs and layouts that aren't covered and even then, local councils seem to be making it up as they go along half the time with regards to signage and road markings.

For eutopia to even be a speck on the horizon, the HC would have to be we writen properly and consisely giving proper, clear instructions on how to deal with EVERY situation. Since the DSA don't posses ESP this will never happen.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 11:38 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
There are no rules governing the actions of pedestrians, that’s left entirely up to their own judgement. Regardless of the amount of rules, enforcement and compliance of drivers, pedestrians can still place themselves into harms way, hence drivers following the latter of the law won’t accomplish very much. This is how driver judgement becomes important, anticipating and assessing risk of others in specific environments. Foot down on a speed limiter will remove this social responsibility (as well as eroding that skill).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 11:53 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 14:00
Posts: 1270
Location: Near Telford, UK / Barcelona, Spain
mpaton2004 wrote:
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.

Very good idea...

Shame that virtually all planning authorities now restrict the number of garage spaces and off-road parking spaces allocated to new builds to something like 50% of those actually needed. :-(

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 12:25 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
mpaton2004 wrote:
Wrong, they depend on both, and we aren't getting nearly enough of both.


Nah. The rules inform the judgement - NEVER the other way around.

If following the rules means a crash, then the rules MUST get thrown out immediately. For example, we'd all cross a double white line if we could do so safely to avoid a crash.

I think we have ample rules compliance, and a shortfall of good judgement. However, sometimes the shortfall in good judgement (which includes attitudes) leads to rules violations.

The point is that you can't make bad drivers into good drivers by insisting on rules-compliance. But good drivers are always adequately (but not obsessively) in compliance with the rules.

Have you read MIND DRIVING? It shows very clearly where the real 'competencies' lie.

_________________
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 13:02 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 21:19
Posts: 1059
I've not read it. I'll check it out though.

Following the rules is a major aspect to crash prevention. For example, crossing double white lines on a blind bend is illegal. It may not _neccesarily_ be any more dangerous than a regular overtake at a point t in time, but you are un-neccesarily INCREASING that risk every time you perform that type of overtake. So if people didn't overtake on double whites, full stop, OVERALL risk is reduced.

Same with red lights, speeding, stop signs, u-turns, no right turns, etc, etc. System designers design systems with a built in "acceptable risk level". If that is exceeded consistently, the system is at risk of failure. Of course, it's a utopian vision, but educating people on the vitality of following the HC TO THE LETTER is (in my belief) a key fundamental to re-aligning road safety results.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 13:20 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
mpaton2004 wrote:
Same with red lights, speeding, stop signs, u-turns, no right turns, etc, etc. System designers design systems with a built in "acceptable risk level". If that is exceeded consistently, the system is at risk of failure. Of course, it's a utopian vision, but educating people on the vitality of following the HC TO THE LETTER is (in my belief) a key fundamental to re-aligning road safety results.


No chance. Willing rules compliance is a good thing to foster, but it's dangerous to focus people on legal targets rather than safety targets.

The idea that 'those in charge' 'know better' is nonsensical because only the driver is there managing the risk in real time. Those in charge must help drivers to manage risk - not prevent them from making good choices.

_________________
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 14:37 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 21:19
Posts: 1059
... and by the same token, prevent them from making bad choices.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:55 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 08:22
Posts: 2618
So if I drive down said urban residential street at 15mph on the PAVEMENT is that OK? How would government prevent me from making THAT bad choice? The only thing that stops me driving on the pavement is the fact that its dangerous and I, as a competent and sensible individual, know that I shouldn't do it.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 15:52 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 21:19
Posts: 1059
Correct, now apply the logic to travelling at 30 in such environments.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 15:56 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 08:22
Posts: 2618
mpaton2004 wrote:
Correct, now apply the logic to travelling at 30 in such environments.


So it IS OK to drive on the pavement so long as I'm only doing 15, but if I'm doing 30 then its dangerous?! :?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 16:02 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 21:19
Posts: 1059
Don't be ridiculous.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 16:05 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 13:55
Posts: 2247
Location: middlish
ick.... well thats in keeping then.. not :roll:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 16:25 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 08:22
Posts: 2618
mpaton2004 wrote:
Don't be ridiculous.


You said it.

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


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 : 0.847s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]