Safe Speed Forums

Lots of confused things in here. For example, there is a (deliberate?) mix up of 20mph zones and 20mph limits.

The comments are almost completely anti the proposals.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Given that less than a third of accidents are caused by speed, how will they reduce the accident rate by a third by a speed limit reduction?

After the hammering that Labour took at the local elections, they said that they were going to start listening and do things that people actually wanted. I don't think anyone really believed them, wisely it appears.

They're so rabid about their car-hating that they're still doing it (and dressing it up as "road safety") in the full knowledge of the likely consequences. They would rather persecute motorists for another couple of years (along with all the other unpopular, extremist, self-serving stuff that they do) and get kicked out than stop persecuting motorists and stand a chance of staying in. Incredible. No government that obviously hates its subjects so much should ever be in power anywhere in the civilised world.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

They should instead put a great big board up on the exit to the school gates with the words..

Hey stupid! You are about to walk in a zone, so be careful.
Hey stupid parent! You are about to take your kid in a zone, so be careful.

Here’s another thought – We have enough road furniture for drivers so how about slapping some paint on the pavements, as ubiquitously as they do for drivers on roads, to remind pedestrians they should also be careful?

Pah!

Addendum:

And while they’re at it paint other messages on the pavement too, like: -

Don’t get p1ssed and walk
Don’t do drugs and walk
Think before you meander in the road with your I-Pod or mob stuck in your stupid ear.

Bigger PAH!

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Well, I can tell them before they start that it won't work as it fails to address the real causes of accidents. It is just turning the screw on an already failed and discredited policy.

Around here a high proportion of residential areas already have 20 mph limits or zones, with no discernible effect on improving casualty rates. What I fear is that it won't mean more 20 limits on minor residential streets, but a growing number SPECS-enforced 20 limits on urban main roads – something (the limits anyway) we are already starting to see in places. There's one on the A6017 Corporation Street in Ashton-under-Lyne which is utterly bonkers

Great incentive to buy a motorbike, though

_________________
"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

Nope - they've stuffed us there as well with the new harder and more expensive test coming in this autumn.

In an over-crowded country with polution and congestion everywhere you would think, (you would think), they would be encouraging it - but ohhh nooooo.

Wane Kerrs!

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Realistically, while the Tories would overall almost certainly be better than the present lot, I wouldn't hold out much hope of anything more than a slight change of emphasis on road safety policy. I would love to see Stop the War on Drivers being adopted as a central plank of Tory policy but it won't happen.

This is why it is vital for groups such as Safe Speed and the ABD to continue to press their campaigns vigorously whatever party is in power and to avoid any overtly party political stance.

_________________
"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

Well said Big Tone!

Isn't it about time that the pedestrians started to take some responsibility for their actions instead of the onus always being on the driver?

Our Town are wanting to bring in a 20mph limit, but as residents have pointed out, during the day, when the town is reasonably busy, it is rare that motorists can travel at much more than 20mph anyway, but whilst they are going with the flow of the traffic instead of constantly watching their speedos, they are, at least, far more aware of what is going on around them, which is much more important that having to worry about being a couple of miles over the limit! Drivers cannot afford this continuous persecution and will watch their speedo instead of the area around and this, in my humble opinion, is likely to result in an increase in pedestrian injuries rather than a decrease.

Apart from the speedo watching, haven't these morons figured out yet that vehicles produce higher emissions at such low speeds as the engine is not working efficiently? This in turn leads to greater health problems, such as asthma, and particularly for children who are closer to the exhausts than adults!

If this government hate the car, smoking and our general freedom to make our own choices so much, then perhaps they should just ban everything. The craziest thing of all is currently what they are banning or restricting are the things that bring them in a great deal of revenue! Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!

Ultimately, you have to wonder which planet these morons in both local and national government come from, 'cos it sure as hell ain't the real world!

Totally agree with Peter. Cameron has already made it clear he intends to clamp down on transport and CO2 emissions. It’ll be interesting to see what policies he has up his sleeve where motoring is concerned.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

Thanks Lynladd. Yours is spot-on too.

There are homes I know of with no more than a pavement separating the front gate from a 40 mph road, and yet the people, (including youngsters), manage perfectly well to cross it each and every single day.

What’s the difference between that and exactly the same situation where instead the road is 30 mph or 20 mph? Is there a regional lemming mentality?

If I want to cross the road, and the car is going 5 or 10 mph over, that doesn’t give me the right to step in front of it. I use my eyes and cross when safe to do so and this has never failed me ever in my life.

Exactly what are these suicide pedestrians taking?

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

And who's prescribing it
Seriously , wonder how much the KSI figures might go down if we had Pedicam - and serious fines levied for e.g "crossing without due care "/Jaywalking /!"Not being in a position of safety whilst using a mobile ,using an ipod /similar using earphones"

_________________
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

speed reduction just seems to be the default reaction to reducing causalties. Are there any other areas in general health and safety where 1 aspect of safe practise (in this case exceeding an arbitary limit) always take presidence of all others. Will there ever be a point where we say "we have made roads and vehicles as safe as they can resonably be and have to accept that occasionaly people do stupid thing and some times innocent people get caught up in their stupidity"?

People must have to handle a multitude of dangerous situations in a day to day situation at work that require a far more sophisticated approach than just "do it slower" and survive.

I honestly think our war is won..well maybe we've had our el alemain....not the end, not even the begining of the end but the end of the begining.

The nu labour experiment is now in full retreat, the anti motorist game is up and the greenwash has been exposed....now we see the slow decay of the politics of envy dressed up as safety/environmentalism but as is the case when hostile invaders driven from a newly liberated land be prepared for vicious reprisals and sporadic counter offensives but............

The game is up.

Now we have to chase them out of town.

The election of Boris in london is a clear sign that we've just passed through a sea change in our political consensus.

It also isn't the right of the car driver to travel 5 or 10mph over in the first place. I suggest SPECS cameras would stop that.

why isn't it right?

How will specss top that? Personally the thought of specs in urban streets terrifies me. Have we hit rock bottom now? are we legislatively bankrupt?

What do you mean "why isn't it right?"

In this hypothetical situation:

a) The driver is exceeding the speed limit.
b) There are pedestrians about who are presumably about to foolishly about to walk into the road.

In short, the driver should be anticipating they are there and reduce speed appropriately so that when said peds walk out, they can stop, or if unavoidable, have a lower impact speed.

Please note, I'm not discounting the responsibility of the pedestrian in stupidly walking out. But the aim of road safety is to avoidthe scenario of us lot having an argument about who was to blame when someone has died in an RTA!

I prefer Civil Engineer's outlook!

But I think you're both right really. The tide has turned and we're past the worst, but it will be a gradual process. I'm not expecting miracles when the Conservatives get power back, but it will be something at least. However I strongly agree that we shouldn't support any particular party and should still "push" whoever's in power. I just think that in a few years, our campaign will be more about changing policies in the right direction than stopping them going in the wrong direction (which is, unfortunately, mostly what we've been doing since Safe Speed was formed, not because we haven't won the debate about cameras, but just because the facts are being willfully ignored by those with an anti-motorist agenda).

I do think (possibly naively) that whatever the Conservatives do, it will be because they really believe they're improving road safety, whereas this current lot have shown that they are downright malicious, and care much more about persecuting motorists and pursuing a socialist agenda than improving safety. I sincerely hope the Conservatives never show such a shameful disregard for road users' lives.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

Two years ago cameroon was 'hugging hoodies' and looking at glaciers etc etc...no sign of that now. Had the Conservatives won an imaginary election then they'd have been jumping on the ecowagon and taxing my emissions they morph to suit.

I think the change is more profound than party politics. I really do believe that there's been a sea change the little boy has dared to stand up and point out the emperor's naked state. I see it in the media, in social circles and also professionally where there seems to be less tolerance of the snake oil sold by 'team working' consultants.

The pendulum may not yet be swinging in the direction of common sense but I would suggest it's gone as far to the loony left as it can. I just hope that there is true thatcheresque readjustment rather than a macmillian management of the 'consensus'.

As for mpaton i have no idea whether its mpajeckyl or mpahyde this week but the teenage female debating style is becoming somewhat outmoded. Its irrelevent what degree I exceed the limit by or indeed if i drive within the limit, the fundamental concern is that my full attention is on the road to enable a full assessment of the risks. Rules are old school, central control is sooooo nu millenium get with the groove its all about personal responsibility now baby.

I was waiting patiently at a Zebra crossing and instead of stopping, some clod in a BMW gave me the finger! I mean... what was THAT All about? HE could have just ignored the crossing, but no, he had to make the point that he was going to drive through it and there wasn't anything I could do about it.

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/