Safe Speed Forums

Have you seen the radical new 'shared spaces' approach to traffic that has been developed in Europe? Basically it argues that we shouldn't be using speed cameras nor speed bumps nor other signs etc in 'shared space' areas like residential areas or towns etc - all those so-called traffic calming measures distract drivers from looking out for people. In Europe the approach has found reduced congestion, reduced casualties and improved neighbourhoods - the results are so compelling that it is starting to gain cross-party support in this country.

There are two easy-read reports, "Better Streets for Stroud District", available free to download at: www.glosgreenparty.org.uk

And more information from websites like Ben Hamilton-Baille:
http://www.hamilton-baillie.co.uk/index.htm

_________________
Philip Booth

Oh yes. After Monderman. I don't even think Monderman has dug down to the
fundamental truth of it. It's practical and positive, but the world is just in
the beginning stages of waking up to the fact that road safety is a problem in
psychology. 'Shared space' and 'self explaining roads' are modern examples of
'good road user psychology' and that's why they work.

Speed cameras, on the other hand, assume that road safety is a problem in
physics. They are bad psychology, however, and that's why they damage road
safety.

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

And Philip. I'm glad your posting problem is sorted.

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

intresting you mention psychology, because the more I think about it the more I become convinced the psychology is the reasoning behind it all. ie, give the masses something to fret, worry and argue about while we surreptitiously bring in the police state. All part of a bigger picture, sorry for going O/T.

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

Now - don't really like the "Police chases " on tv - but some years ago an american commentator suggested that a lot of the UK Police safety records were based on the "Safety Gap" that UK Police officers create in front of them .

This started me thinking -and starting to think/drive for safety.
there are two reasons for this gap -
1 --- if he/she stops , can I
2 - Will let IanH/IG fill this one in .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

I don't trust the Green Party in roads policy. The only thing they might agree with me on is improving cycling facilities.

Now the cycling facility I would really like would be a tunnel through Hampstead, but I can't see anyone ever likely to give me that.

I wonder what aspect of roads policy you object to? A 'shared spaces' approach is about reducing congestion and casualties - plus regenerating communities - see 'Better Streets' report at www.glosgreenparty.org.uk

How can that be wrong when the current approach is leading to evermore congestion - and climate change - and for that matter even the biggest oil companies now accept we are reaching 'peak oil' - we have to assume that five or 10 years from now we'll be producing less oil than we are today. And yet we have a society that is expecting, under the most conservative assumptions, that oil usage will grow by at least 30 to 50 percent over the next 25 years. In other words, we would end up with only 70 percent of the oil we have today when we would need to have 150 percent. It's a problem of staggering economic proportions - sadly it seems that only Greens seem to have grasped that - fortunately others starting to realise and wake up - the threat of oil prices doubling and tripling should make us all think more carefully about where we are going.

_________________
Philip Booth

Was led to this forum by a link in an excellent posting by Rewolf on another SS forum - Traffic Lights, Rip Them Out!

Some really good stuff here. I too sometimes dream of a Hampstead cycle tunnel, oh, and a lift to take me up to my son's place.

Agree of course with Philip Booth about shared space but sort of understand wariness of another user about Green agenda. Although I don't think really think he need worry, because basically they believe in live-and-let-live, which is my approach.

The ONLY reason I can see for speed limits is to cut down emissions. Maybe also for at-risk 17-24 male drivers, or until they had passed an advanced test. Meanwhile let's scrap limits and let people play in limit-free safety for a while, say until the Tesla became widely available? Then we could go from 0-60 in 4 secs and up to 130 without polluting at all!

have they discovered some new form of energy while I wasn't looking?

The Tesla is electric...

Though knowing a bit about electric cars I suspect a bit of a con!
Claimed performance/range and weight require technology which is not avaliable.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

yes, and? Oh I see, electricity comes out of a socket in your wall so it doesn't create any pollution. Silly me.

Green Party transport policy:

http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/mfss/transprt.html


Now don't try and pretend that it's anything but a long list of harsh anti-car measures.

On the subject of "shared spaces", it's interesting that Monderman's Drachten experiment doesn't seem to have been taken up anywhere else to the same degree...

_________________
"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

Nice to see this forum come alive again. Green policies can indeed be viewed as being harsh towards the car (see last persons comments). They can also be viewed as the only sane option we have to take to avoid the devastating effects of climate change.

If we are serious about climate change then tackling car use is the only way to go - and in any case there is Peak oil - the point at which oil production rises to its highest point before declining. Almost all expert opinion already agrees that it is fast approaching and will possibly arrive within five years, and almost certainly within fifteen. The significance of Peak Oil can hardly be overstated; oil is the fundamental underpinning of our economy. When the oil runs out the economic and social dislocation will be unprecedented. President of Exxon Mobil Exploration, John Thompson, said in 2003, "By 2015 we will need to find, develop and produce a volume of new oil and gas that is equal to eight out of every ten barrels being produced today." But oil on that scale is just not available.

All the more reason that we need to implement green policies now to ensure that those on low incomes are not hit by the coming fuel price rises.

It seems it is easy to criticise policies that try and tackle our car culture but sadly not one of the main parties has got policies that even begin to tackle the problems we face. We urgently need some new leadership. How come in some European cities people actually choose to travel by public transport - finding it easier, cheaper and more convienient than the car? Let us also not forget that over 25% of households do not have access to a car.

Lastly it is just not true to say Mondermans ideas have not been taken up - they are impacting in many places - indeed where I live in Gloucestershire Councils are exploring the approach and implementing the ideas - meanwhile other aspects of the Shared Spaces approach like clearing the clutter have campaigns organised by the WI, CPRE and others. It is certainly true to say things are slow but the approach is almost a complete reversal of our existing approach to traffic engineering - it takes time for a revolution - but seeing successes like Kensington High Street where casualty rates have been cut are very encouraging. It is also at last finding a way that pedestrians and cars can exist together safely.

Read a collection of articles re Peak Oil under 'Green Issues' at:
http://www.glosgreenparty.org.uk

Read new Shared Spaces article:
http://www.glosgreenparty.org.uk/index. ... 5&Itemid=2

_________________
Philip Booth

would that be the impending end of the world due to global warming or the upcoming ice age?

I'd suggest a look herefor starters. Then maybe you'll want to have a look at Junk Science and Number Watch before you start worrying about the world ending because of the evil car.

It seems to me that the greenies' two doomsday scenarios of enivronmental catastrophe from global warming and the collapse of society through the exhaustion of oil reserves are mutually exclusive

Most of what I've read suggests that reports of the imminent death of oil are greatly exaggerated.

_________________
"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

Absolutely.

The only global ecological issue worth considering is: too many people.

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

On an emotional level I sort of agree with you - lots of places seem far more crowded than they need to be, or is remotely pleasant.

But on the other hand, ever since Malthus two hundred years ago, people have been touting the "peak people" argument and the world has coped with it. The fact that the world population now contains more overweight than malnourished people suggests we're not doing too badly.

And demographic predictions suggest that global population will top out in about 50 years' time anyway.

_________________
"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

First post

I'm all for these shared spaces. It encourages awareness in dozy motorists and headless pedestrians. If people have to use their heads, they're fine--there aren't that many proper idiots around, mostly just folk who aren't concentrating.

German pedestrians are absolutely fixated with traffic lights. You can see people in sleepy hamlets at 3 a.m. waiting for the green man with a clear view for 1km in both directions and nothing in sight. They also shout at you if you cross on a red light, but on the other hand, they never look at the traffic, just the lights. As soon as the light goes green, they stomp off across the road without the slightest regard for whether or not something's coming (note, at most German junctions, a green light for pedestrians means that there's also traffic turning into the street.)

If you could get them to concentrate on what's actually happening, instead of slavishly obeying the blinkenlights, I reckon the accident rate would plummet.

Lots to respond to and clearly not all directly related to this topic heading but crucial to any debate about the future of the car - first then to the most recent comment re German pedestrians. Yes one of the beauties of the approach is that it reduces casualty rates by introducing an element of uncertainty - now if you get "dozy motorists" or "headless pedestrians" there is greater risk because cars expect to have the roads to themselves while similarly pedestrians think crossings are safe.

Infact today I witnessed an older woman crossing the road, the wrong side of some metal sidewalk barriers - basically taking a short-cut rather than walk down to the staggered crossing. A car hurtling around the corner too fast (and not expecting anyone in the road) only narrowly missed her.

By introducing the concept of sharing the space both have to look out - clearly accidents will still occur but both parties should be more alert.

Second I would like to come back re climate change. While some people may consider that climate change is not man-made, the scientific evidence is now overwhelmingly against them - evidence that some clearly challenge - indeed for many years I was a skeptic - I now consider we cannot take that risk - indeed I think it would be wholly wrong and unjust on future generations.

Certainly some 'green groups' have been guilty of expressing unjustified certainty about the science of climate change, but as the Royal Society has pointed out, the overwhelming misinformation has come from lobbyists questioning the need to cut CO2 emissions. 2,000 scientists from 100 countries who make up the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change all agree - and their latest report due out next year makes very grim reading. It confirms unquestionably that climate change is a man-made phenomenon and is happening faster and more seriously than previously expected. It is worth noting that not one of the 928 climate change-related articles published in peer-reviewed journals during the past ten years has doubted the cause of global warming, yet more than half of the published articles in the popular press have done just that.

Zac Goldsmith, deputy chair of the Conservative party's quality of life policy group says: "Climate change presents us with an uncomplicated choice. If we are wrong about the dangers, these initiatives come with no downside. But if we are right and we fail to act, the consequences don't bear thinking about."

See Monbiot articles like:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/geo ... t_411.html

See New Scientist article: "Climate change: Menace or myth?" 12 February 2005 at:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/ear ... 524861.400

Thirdly to the point: "It seems to me that the greenies' two doomsday scenarios of enivronmental catastrophe from global warming and the collapse of society through the exhaustion of oil reserves are mutually exclusive." It maybe true that oil reserves running out will reduce impact on climate change but that is unlikely - first we are using such vast quantities and second as oil runs out there will be a rush to more polluting coal etc. We need to act now.

Lastly re population - it is a huge issue that was fashionable in the 70s then seemed to disappear - thankfully it is starting to become an issue again - as the writer above notes it is a big issue - and I guess the line (also above): "The fact that the world population now contains more overweight than malnourished people suggests we're not doing too badly" is humour - dark indeed. It is a shocking and outrageous that the number of those starving is still rising. We have more than enough wealth to share - sadly greed and more gets in the way.

See article:
http://www.greenworld.org.uk/news/127
[/url]

_________________
Philip Booth

yes, the doom mongers always claim this but unfortunately fail to provide any proof of their claims - in fact when they can't find proof to back themselves up they just manufacture it (hockey stick anyone?) - and anything which doesn't agree with their beliefs (say, satellite heat data or the latest cosmic ray theory) is conveniently ignored.

The other thing we always hear is how "skeptics" (or, to keep the propaganda machine rolling they're now called "deniers" with all the sinister overtones that entails.) are all in the employ of the evil oil cartels (because that somehow makes their science dodgy). What we don't hear is how all the true believers are raking in far larger sums of money from the governments of the world to tell them what they want to hear (because that's obviously not an incentive to keep the grant money rolling in). Nothing like a big scare to keep the population in line and raise taxes.