Safe Speed Forums

I think this is brilliant, and certainly begs the question why low hazard-density environments are receiving lower limits.

I say again: how many of these collisions are unavoidable? Are people chained to the roads and drivers forced to drive at them?
Why cherry pick situations which don't exist?


How did that answer my question?
Should we reduce all roads where there can be pedestrians in them to 20mph? If not then where do we draw the line and why?


In which case I would like to see the opinion of others on this.

Who else has seen some (comparable to the number that slow down) drivers accelerate into a dangerous situation?

I rest my case, m'lud

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

I'm the first person to remind somebody that steps out in the road to go around another pedestrian without looking is the way most pedestrians get hit.

I still don't want to see railings everywhere, I'd rather some car drivers change their attitude myself (and some cyclists too).

You can wish for peds to disappear or be locked behind barriers all you want, in the same way that you seem to wish for every corner to be engineered out of the road network. Not going to happen though.

BTW, I can't STAND the "Roads are for cars only" attitude in case you didn't guess.

Don't try to divert.

The subsequent posts were about the effectiveness of cameras against trafpol (which was relevant to the post in question). Did you not read the subsequent posts?

Strawman!

I’m sure I speak for Robin (and many others) when I say that you should not have left out pedestrian attitude/education.

I think that WAS the "reasonable" bit he posted. It was his subsequent rant that blew his credibility. I have to say that from a personal point of view, I deeply regret having spent a few minutes trying to post a non-confrontational response to his first post. Mr. Charlton is beneath contempt as far as I'm concerned.

Even if you drove alongside a never ending pavement with peds on that had all spent weeks in Green Cross Code training, one of them is going to step out in front of you every now and again. They're the same as car drivers, and cyclists, we all make mistakes and we should all be looking out for each other.

No, wide open roads without cars parked on them and visibility is always good, no.

Most residential areas and high streets where people regulary cross roads at places other than crossings, or even play in them, yes.

I'd also add I'd like to see places that have been engineered for cars reengineered for pedestrians and dropped to 20mph. Esher High Street if anybody knows it is a classic case for this IMO.

I don't quite understand what you're getting at, but I suspect we're at cross-purposes here.

But what I will say, in answer to what i think your last point was,is that your speed does affect the statistical probability - but in a negative sense. The slower you travel, the more time you spend on the road and therefore the more likely you are to encounter what is really a rare and random situation. To avoid this being turned into a reducto in absurdum type of argument, I'll qualify this by stating that it only applies when the journey time is long compared to the amount of time the hazard is present on the road.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

I can't stand the "I'd rather car drivers make all the adjustments" attitude! Lets try to be equitable here. You kind of misrepresent my position, suggesting I'd like corners engineered out, which is not the case at all (corners are some of the best bits!) nor do I want to see peds "disappear or be locked behind barriers"! Thats very much a strawman.

How about in this circumstance, given that we an agree the peds shouldn't be stepping off the kerb inattentively, we suggest that a change in attitude for the peds would be the most effective means of stopping the collisions altogether, regardless of impact speed? We don't need barriers, we just need pedestrians to be taught proper road crossing technique, and to stay suitably vigilant at all times, as we quite reasonably expect of motor vehicle drivers. We need to eradicate any attitudes along the lines that drivers will evade if they step off the kerb, and that god, the law, and the insurance company will be on their side, not through Darwinism, but through education! If we're to share the roads safely and effectively then we all need to be singing from the same hymn sheet as regards procedures.

I agree sort of, but I'm a sail before steam kinda guy myself, I'd rather see the bias the other way.

Going to sound a bit radical here for which I apologise, but the car is the invader in the environment in my book, certainly in towns and cities, not the pedestrian.

Not really true in urban areas, where average speed is much lower than any instantaneous speed you can reach.

What do you mean by 're-engineering'? Narrowing the roads perhaps, thereby giving drivers -and cyclists - no room to swerve out where they previously could have to avoid a collision? By having even more irresponsible kids running helter-skelter all over the roads?

No, you cannot make roads safer by making them more dangerous.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Yes, and without meaning to get at you, that bias does show. Lets try to be equitable. Carts came before cars, and Pierre Curie was crushed by one of those whilst crossing the road!

I'm quite willing to agree that in tight residential streets, with children at play, a limit of 20mph might well be appropriate. It should be no surprise to you that I feel all limits should be appropriate, and the term 'blanket' should never apply. I would also suggest that in circumstances where 20mph is appropriate, most people will be doing that or below, and that the ones who are not are the real dangers, yet also unlikely to be troubled by a speed camera.

Incorrect! It won’t unless you modify the route length (if considered in isolation - which it is).
What you are about to refer to is the time of exposure (which is not what you were describing previously):


I think consideration of the statistical global average is good enough.
What you have to consider is the time of exposure compared to the risk if injury caused given the collision. This is of course muddied by driver/pedestrian attention, but you are taking these things in isolation, so for this it doesn’t matter.


Now this I agree with!

no doubt, but within the last few months i can state we have come across 5 drivers who have re offended, with a rate fluctuating between 50 - 100 vehicle seizures a week, (including 3 on Christmas day, i know we are sad),

_________________
now retired

So what's the problem, then, if most cars are doing less than 20 anyway?



Er, being pedantic, roads in this country were originally built for horse-drawn vehicles (even chariots in Roman times)
As an aside, during the nineteenth century more pedestrians were killed by horse-drawn traffic in London alone than in the entire country nowadays.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

I think I should have stated average speed over a journey.

I'm probably not making my arguments as clear as I'd like right now - I'm tired and so I'm off to bed.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Perhaps in the central areas of towns and cities which can trace their current road networks all the way back to an age before the use of any non-human-powered transport (let's not forget that before the car we had the horse-drawn carriage, and before that we had individuals on horseback - you need to go back a long way before you get to a point where the pedestrian was the sole user of the road), but what about the massive areas of urban expansion that have taken place since the introduction of cars, buses etc.? Should the car still be considered the invader in an environment which, were it not for the existence of the internal combustion engine, would most likely still be open fields or forest?

_________________
Chris