Safe Speed Forums

Thanks.

This site really does have a smiley for everything.

_________________
Occasionally slightly trollish.

Knowing this government probably not...

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

It was the assertion that 20mph roads would be less polluting I was objecting to. There seems to be an idea that there is a solution that will address safety, pollution and congestion in one tidy package whereas though they may be related I doubt the aims for all three can be met simultaneously. A blanket 20mph may be safer, though I find this unlikely, but it will increase journey time and lead to less efficient fuel use. It is possible that an increase in cycle use will reduce the number of fuel burning journeys sufficiently to offset the loss in efficiency but overall would be a seriously inelegant solution.



I find cycling on 60mph roads less worrying than 30mph roads, I would assert it is not the speed but the standard of driving which is the issue. The strange thing is that in a 20mph zone the cars would be being overtaken by the cyclists, who would ignore the limit of course, which would probably lead to far more SMIDSYs.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

I wrote that before seeing this: http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?stor ... d_to_cycle

_________________
Occasionally slightly trollish.

It's a very crap survey... And a lot of rubbish spoken...

But your point is true and fair - the perception of road dangers is miles above the reality. We need to tell the truth and build on the strengths of the system...

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

Right, I went to Portsmouth today.

The 20mph limit on the side streets with terraced houses and parked cars does require you to slow down slightly compared with before, but I wouldn't have driven at 30mph along them anyway. I would have put my car in fourth gear and done 40km/h, which is about 24mph, rather than having to use third and rev the engine more. I don't mind the limits on these roads so much.

However, I came across a few roads with 20mph limits that were of a higher standard, with semi-detached houses set quite a way back from the road, and only the occasional parked car. In these instances, 20mph was noticeably slow, and it was safe to drive at 30mph (I was doing this speed down one before I noticed a repeater; there weren't enough repeaters, and it looked like the sort of road that would normally have a 30mph limit). I even came across a road without any development on either side, and without any parked cars, and it had a 20mph limit.

I drove down some side streets at 20mph, even though they were 30mph, just to see what it was like, and so I got a good idea. In some places 20mph is acceptable, but in others it is stupid, and I think that's the point we're trying to make. A blanket speed limit reduction covers streets where it is perfectly safe to do 30mph.

I'll go back to the point I made earlier about me speeding without realising it. As mentioned above, I took the opportunity to drive at 20mph on many roads even when they had 30mph limits, and so it wasn't as if I drove at 30mph on many side streets. So there I was, trying to abide the future speed limits of the roads, but some of them were of such quality that I automatically drove at 30mph anyway, and broke the speed limit. To put it another way, I was focused on doing 20mph, but got confused by the setting of the limits and ended up doing 30mph in a 20 limit. And it was so easy to do, because it felt safe and normal.

We now have both urban 30mph and urban 20mph limits, and in places it isn't obvious why a 20mph should exist. The same applies to unnecessarily low speed limits elsewhere, such as 40mph on a wide and ruler straight rural road. It's inconsistent, and even with repeaters, causes confusion, as the repeaters can be spaced quite far apart, or hidden by vegetation.

Sotonsteve

They don't want you to keep to 20, because no fines income will come in and this is the object of the exercise. And don't think the end of hypothecation means they won't bother chasing the motorist for fines. The Treasury are going to keep a very close eye on the Partnerships to make sure they continue to grab large amounts of fines money, and don't slacken off, so the Treasury can fund their 'Road Safety' grant.

Where else is the money coming from, after all.

_________________
Good manners maketh a good motorist

Only some do not want to or cannot cycle for variety of reasons. Some have arthritis or a disability which make such an exercise "very difficult"

There are lots of such cases. Just because one fit/able does not mean all can do this.

I do ride a bicycle. I cannot do same distance as Mad Doc or any one else in family. My best so far? I manage 15 miles - but with many rests in-between. As a commute - I fear not viable as it take "forever" for me

My excuses? I just run out of stamina. I had major upset once. That simple really but I am not alone. Plenty like me who just need a car to get around long commutes after all. We do not want timetables. we want independence.

But so easy to exceed a silly limit when imposed for nonsense reason.

Silly to expect all to ride bike or horse when some cannot for whatever reason too. They may be able to do short distance every now und then. But not all the time. We have to show compassionate understanding of real needs.

By the way I like walking. I like cycling too. But I have to also meet "stomach" needs of largest family too.

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

There are plenty of people who cannot walk or cycle, and no-one should be forced to. I'd like to point out again that I do not agree with the way BRAKE have interpreted their results, the conclusions they have drawn, their aims or their methods. But I do think that at least three quarters of the car journeys made today could be made by an ordinary person on an ordinary bike in a sensible time, and that most motorists would be capable of it.
Even more to the point, those who have to drive or who choose to drive should appreciate that pedestrians and cyclists have as much right to be able to make their journey safely as they do. It might help if they realized that everyone who wasn't driving was reducing the time that they get stuck in traffic jams and is therefore doing them a favour.
Give cyclists and pedestrians the space and time they need.

_________________
Occasionally slightly trollish.

Counting 'journeys' is a mainly a dodgy trick put about by the bus companies. To get a real feel for the effects of 'modal shifts' we have to consider total mileages.

And the truth is that only a tiny fraction of car mileages could be replaced by cycling.

The news is better for certain urban 'peak load' conditions.

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

Have you noticed the extraordinary reduction in traffic during the school holidays? How many school runs really need a car? Most are less than a mile.
Even the daily commute to work does not normally involve a motorway, I don't know what the average commute is but I'd bet that half are under five miles. Have you done research into this?

_________________
Occasionally slightly trollish.

Dondare, despite arguing with you I do agree that more people cycling would be good, I do not agree with penalising motorists to achieve it though.

In a recent survey my employer had to perform as part of their travel plan the main reasons I cited for not cycling to work were lack of secure bike storage and showering/changing facilities.

There are other reasons why I could not cycle every day of the week but could certainly manage at least two if the facilities to do so were in place. During term time the journey would to work would probably be significantly faster by bike than car though it would probably work out about even when getting changed etc. was allowed for.

The majority of my cycling is now for leisure rather than transport and mainly off road as I got tired of being knocked off or nearly knocked off. None of the incidents involved speed and were all down to drivers not noticing or ignoring my presence.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

Not really any research, no. But I have been reading and 'soaking up' the claims and counterclaims in this area.

The situations you're mentioning are the ones I called 'urban peak load' conditions.

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

And where do you get this info from? My mum drives to work, which is three miles away and in a very rough area in a city with a crap bus service, after the NHS relocated her from the hospital a 15 minute walk away. I walk or catch the bus to uni. My dad drives to work; try cycling to Farnborough or Heathrow on a daily basis!

There are some lazy sods out there though. There are some old people's homes near my house, and they drive to the corner shop, which is a two-minute leisurely walk. Even I walk to the corner shop, and rightly so, it's only a 5-10 minute walk. However, I'll drive if I'm going elsewhere.

That might be what makes the statistics dodgy. If you stop off at the corner shop on a journey somewhere, does that count as two trips?

Try telling George Monbiot that!

_________________
Occasionally slightly trollish.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/da ... efactsheet

But this is my main point:
"... those who have to drive or who choose to drive should appreciate that pedestrians and cyclists have as much right to be able to make their journey safely as they do."

_________________
Occasionally slightly trollish.

Can't the opposite be true then? Those who have or choose to walk or cycle should appreciate that a lot of people need cars to make their journeys, and that they also have the right to a stress-free journey?

Stress comes mostly from the sheer volume of motor-traffic on the roads.

_________________
Occasionally slightly trollish.

But it's drivel.

You might as well say that those who choose motorbikes have as much 'right to safety' as those who choose cars.

Or

Those who choose hill walking holidays have as much right to safety as those who choose lying-in-the sun holidays.

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