Safe Speed Forums

No, no, a googleplex times no.!!! Roads, with obvious exceptions, are for people: people in cars, people on horses, people on bicycles, people driving flocks of geese, people - drunk or sober - walking. Each road user has, if adult and of sound mind, has a responsibility to be considerate towards other's safety and convenience. The way you phrase it, and the general tenor of the thread, indeed the forums, is that the convenience of people who want to hurry from A to B is of superior importance to that of people who just want to potter around at P.

Roads as described really do exist, een very near major conurbations. I live on a road similar to that in question but am fortunate that the HA has made it both 30mph and access only. The speed limit is irrelevant as the safe speed on the road is nowhere greater than 20mph. Access only, with the occasional police crack down and locals reporting persistent offenders is much more valuable. The only dangerous driving we see is that of delivery drivers.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

I would be very unlikely to take it. But nothing that Sam is talking about, apart from trying to destroy the road surface, is actually illegal.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Claire didn't say anything about roads being limited to use by cars.

Roads are indeed for traffic - anything that needs to get from one place to another, which includes vehicles propelled my motor engines as well as foot power. Those who 'potter' where there are more suitable places to do so who hold up traffic are causing needless obstruction.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

You miss my point.

'Roads' are for 'all traffic' that might include pedestrians needing to cross or walk at the edge of.
Pavements are for pedestrians and other legal uses (old people on mobile scooters) etc etc.
I never exclude any group of users, from pedestrians to the huge, massive cranes & lorries, that need to travel from A to B.
All road users have rights and for all road users this comes with responsibilities.
From when I was a child I have always been taught to go carefully. The road I lived on had regular crashes as it was narrow and a moderately blind corner, and someone usually went in the ditch or hit the telephone or electric poles.
But this didn't stop us from being able to negotiate the road without incident, we recognised the danger and stopped walking (or cycling) and pulled into a driveway or stepped onto the little grass 'Bump' until the car passed. All was very friendly and courteous.
Nothing has changed to prevent this from happening today.
As you quite rightly state, it is people that exist on the roads in all forms, so it is people that have to 'get on with' each other, all ALL times.
it is however your misconception that these forums somehow in your opinion favour cars !
What I favour is that everyone acknowledges each other, is courteous, behaves appropriately has shows good attitude. Beyond this there are the skills of riding and driving, (all vehicles - just in case some think I only speak of a car!) , their knowledge and abilities to apply that knowledge.
I hope that helps clarify this point ?
Perhaps on an additional note, I should add that many people have hobies and interests, and are so enthusatic about them. Many of the people here have driving and riding as a hobby or interest and so the precision and skill of riding and driving is of great specific interest. That enthusiam should never be mistaken for an obsessive and selfish behaviour ont he roads. In fact this great interest will ususally mean that these drivers and riders are liekly to be some of the very safest on the roads, as they will be slowing done long, long before an 'average' driver has even realised there is an up and coming potential danger.
You recognise it too in your sentence above where you can obviously se that many people who travel your road slow to far less than the posted limited, in order to allow for the road dangers.
Just because I suggest that children should not play on the street, simply recognises the increased dangers that they are exposed to. It does not imply that they 'cannot', not that road traffic of all types cannot deal with it.
If I had kids I would try my best to be in an area where they could play safely, but his is an 'ideal' and many, many cannot either afford to or cannot for many reason do this, so we all cope and accept that kids are on the street / road areas, and they play there. All I recommended is that in this specific area, (where children are tempted to play in what perhaps is an unsafe area), that possibly with some engineering & redesign, it can be altered and made safer, but local residents would need to club together first, to get things started. Hence why I asked if they could provide a google map - so we could 'take a look' and see what might be improved and made safer for all.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

How does Sam's posse cope with unexpected emergency vehicles?

Is everyone on standby to move their badly parked cars?

I watched a '999' Emergency film last night on TV and they showed a fire engine that was in an urgent hurry where 'persons reported', the most urgent need. The fire was very serious and people upstairs. The fire engine could not get to the house and the firemen had to run the last 50 yds with a ladder and other members of the public helped them to run hoses.
Why - because cars were parked either side of the road and blocked it's path. To even contemplate doing this deliberately might see criminal charges being sought by the CPS.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

It's quite likely that a clearer road is safer than one which is cluttered with parked cars, where someone could possibly spring from in between. If or when I use a so-called rat run I moderate my speed according to the conditions which, as a safe driver, will be much slower than a clearer road.

The type of driver who doesn't is likely to be a menace regardless and irrespective of how many cars people choose to park in any given road and these same selfish and stupid drivers will simply treat the run as 'more fun' possibly resulting in increased RTA.

An ignorant knee jerk reaction from a 'concerned parent' to a problem may not be the answer.

To put it a different way, an idiotic driver doing 35/40mph on your rat route may actually be safer than the same idiot weaving around cars at, a legal, 20/30mph.

_________________
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.

Not a misconception at all. That is my opinion.

Early in this thread Sam described the "vigilante" action he and his neighbours had taken to prevent speeding on their local roads: speeding which they feel endangers pedestrians. He has received a series of replies, some verging on the vitriolic, objecting to this. If someone objects to attempts to enforce the speed limit and ensure the safety of pedestrians it is difficult to avoid reaching the conclusion that that person is endorsing the right to travel at whatever speed he likes without regard for pedestrian safety.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

I'm not sure that's quite how I see it. Sam doesn't just want the speed limit to be observed, he's made it prefectly clear in several posts that he doesn't think that's good enough! As far as I can see, the bulk of his tactics are intended to make the road safer by making it more dangerous! That's a pretty well-established concept and it seems to work (at least transiently). His might work better, in fact, if all the parked cars keep moving round to different spots every day. The irony is that he is slowing the cars down by increasing the hazard density. In other words, motorists are adapting their speed to the new conditions (pretty much exactly what he believes they're incapable of doing)!

Without seeing the location it's prettty hard to comment further, but I have a fear that he's actually INCREASING the likelihood of a collision one day - it's just that he'd be offsetting that against lower speeds on impact and less traffic. These two factors might be enough to ensure greater safety overall - or they might not. It's his gamble! As I've said earlier, if it works for them, good luck to them! I certainly wouldn't be supportive of such a scheme in my village. On thing's certain. Reduced traffic volume and speed will certainly make for a more peaceful village centre. That might be a lot of what they're after. Unfortunately, on this grossly overcrowded little island of ours, I'm not sure that residents CAN demand the sort of levels of tranquility that they'd like - just as motorists can't demand the low levels of congestion that they'd like!

They may not, they cannot, demand that level of tranquillity. But if they can achieve it, within the law, then more power to their elbow. If you do not like it then you are entitled to lobby for their actions to be made illegal.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

And you have a right to your opinion, however if you have an opinion that seems to be held when perhaps it is drawn from inaccurate data or source then of course people are going to try and help you understand another person's viewpoint. Then once you have all the understanding and information you can either re-assess or at least reconsider your beliefs and consider ours.


A few replies have covered a variety of opinions.
To twist enforcing a speed limit with vigilante behaviour is frankly showing a strange preference?
Vigilant behaviour cannot be agreed with when it might be putting people's lives in danger.
Safe Speed is in favour of enforcement and I am sure you are aware of this.
As regards speed many have stated that (and I conclude), they would choose an appropriate speed that was slow enough to ensure that they can stop, in the distance that they can see to be clear in or put another way, should any potential hazard appears.
This means that if any sight of a person occurs, or if there are hidden driveways or other, a speed is chosen to ensure one can stop in that distance, on this road (without sight of it but by description only) I might estimate that a speed of 10 - 20 might be possible, but slower to 5 or less if many 'hazards' present.
I try to always ensure that we promote safety first for all and choosing an appropriate speed (within the posted limit) for the conditions.
These forums are to help discuss all aspects of road use and how to try to explore and consider all possible improvements.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

A lot of road issues can be designed and engineered out, but it cannot be right to have people take the law into their own hands and start playing with a system and especially one that can cause problems for others.
I can understand that it is difficult and is frustrating but good road safety is not met by a quick solution, it takes time and research to identify the real problems then they need to be appropriately solved.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

We have quite a few roads near us that have been reduced from NSL to 40 mph in the last five years. All have traffic "calming" refuges on them, ALL have been hit at some point, can this REALLY be considered safe???

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

The obstructions are there to justify the lower speed restriction.

If the people in this village (assuming it exists) were fixing problems which the council refuse to fix, for example removing obstructions, cutting down hedges and things put up to reduce vision, pulling down needless restriction signs and making the road a better place for everyone then I don't think I'd complain. But making things deliberately worse isn't helping anyone, except the government/councils/police who want our lives to be hell.

_________________
Andrew.

We're also entitled to appeal to their common sense to act for the common good.

We don't need extra legislation; we need more trafpol to stop selfish acts like deliberately blocking/slowing traffic causing "15-20 minute hold up" (as well as inappropriate driving speed).

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

What 'they' don't seem understand is that a successful protest for change in their road simply creates a bottleneck elswhere.

There is a direct link between this and this

I smell nimbyism

_________________
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.

HI there and


I have not read any comments by others yet. I am looking at your OP then objectively here.





A COAST driver will look and see potential hazard here. Greens = kids playing to me. ...




Have you asked local plod t audit? We get such requests ans an audit may result in the van or a "basking plobmobile"






OK ..you may benifit from COAST as you have been perhaps lucky or wiley enough to manipulate a peed cam. 'm not that daft. We know folk do and that's why this area refuted SCP as we know folk manipulate and we'd miss out on convicting the terminally stupid and unfit to hold a licence to drive a car here

You say you have had a few accidents which have been "less damaging to your walleth ad you slowed down".

So did you learn anything from these incidents? Will a COAST reminder ease the load on your wallet and make you safer on the road and bettr able to care for your brood as a result?"

But to resolve your immediate concern regarding the rat run...

1. Contact RPU of local plods and outline your concerns obhectively. Request an audit. Address letter to Supt or Insp levels

2. contact Highways dept of local council

3. Get your ward concillor to refer your concerns

4. If this fails .. involve MP

5. Contact local press. This moves red tape mountains

I hope tpo help you here. I speak as a parent as well as plod here.

As regards rest of your post - can you try to think COAST? I think it will help you avoid the odd incident. I do not know if your fault .. but if it hit your wallet . then that suggests liability on your part. Hence a suggestion to acquaint with COAST again and diffiuse tht threat to you. yours and your wallet.

\i hope I help you and really hope I have not offended you in this post of mine? Please accept my apology if I have offended you here in any way.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

If someone is been terrorised and put in danger of their life then it is unreasonable to expect them to consider the "common good" when protecting themselves.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Why is it unreasonable to expect them to protect themselves while considering the common good, yet reasonable to expect them to protect themselves while not considering the common good? Surely common sense suggests this should be reversed?

Surely it is reasonable to limit speeds to something appropriate, as opposed to simply trying to drive away all traffic? Why should those not driving like a terrorist be put out?

Is sending horse riders to venture out into and block peak time traffic, especially when surrounded by the so-called "maniacs" on "blind bends", reasonable at all?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

No. Because if you think like that - then a soldier in Afghanistan will be dead very quickly.


You protect yourself - but you also have a duty of care und protection to your neigbours - und this mean that when campaign for a speed bump or a chicane - there has to be a full audit as to whether or not area really need this. But on a residential estate - who does most of this "speeding" 24/7. Discount the hour of rush hour whereby a person may use a short cut (und to know of such - they still have to be .. errrr. LOCAL )


The residents in this area need to contact Highways Agency of local council und also local police to have this road subject to a full traffic audit. As I report from another news item though - councillors think one thing und police think differently in that particular case. But again - the locals are the ones doing all tghe alleged "speeding."

Perhaps convene a meeting for all locals to air all concerns und work in harmony. They have these back home und it not end in fisticuffs

_________________
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!