weepej wrote:
You're leaving off the third group of roads users, pedestrians, we have to cross roads.
Nope! I did say "unnecessarily ... (when considering the overall benefit to traffic)"
weepej wrote:
Well quite, I don't think people on cycles think any different from people in cars on average, go to any cycling forum and you'll find people who delight in scaring pedestrians with their "air zounds", just as you'll find people who delight in scaring cyclists with their car horns etc...
Idiots all of them. Speed cameras replacing traffic police will stop them....
weepej wrote:
Well, with regards to "fair" speed limits, we're supposed to be reducing the death and injury rate on our roads, not increasing it.
Indeed. Increasing traffic speed on the fastest/safest roads would go a long way to displacing traffic from less safe roads, as well as greatly reducing the effect of fatigue for a given journey.
weepej wrote:
Stricter liability for vehicles is a winner all round, more careful driving, less speed/haste, less incidents, european attitudes to cycling clearly demonstrate this.
More resentment between road user groups, more running when hitting, more people left to die ... winners all of them!
How could, and why would, stricter liability make a careful driver (already being as careful as they can) more careful, or a careless driver more careful (they're found guilty anyway).
I guess some people are actually comfortable with the concept of 'guilty until proven innocent'
weepej wrote:
Many peds use their ears and not their eyes when crossing the road. A ting on a bell goes a long way, as does slowing down if the ped looks like they might step out, or jsut going slower full stop.
Not all pedestrians look as if they are about to step out just before they do.
You must be pinging your bell all the time in London, as well as cycling at walking pace!
weepej wrote:
When we have electric vehicles people who've not been exposed to piloting an almost silent vehicle in and around pedestrains are going to have to learn to drive all over again.
Like today's "
utter loon" cyclists?
If not: or, we could educate the other road users to look instead of just listen, instead of failing to look
Don't forget, most pedestrian casualties (76%) have their own error (such as 'failing to look') as a contributory factor.
weepej wrote:
I am, some people who cycle are utter loons in areas where there are pedestrians, Hyde Park is a classic example of where we need some enforcement. and the cops in Richmond Park use speed guns on cyclists and give them FPNs.
Don't get me wrong. I am in favour of cycling limits in some cases, but not (yet - I'm open minded) in favour of applying the same vehicle limits to cyclists, such as the 20s in residential areas. What do you think of that?
I guess it's only a matter of time before Brake start campaigning for it.