In Gear wrote:
ndp wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
I've split to the most important bit...
ndp wrote:
Quote:
ndp wrote:
Quote:
There are very very few such places. If any. Can you offer any evidence at all that such a place exists?
Just about every urban road with a well set 30mph, for starters.
The accident records prove you wrong. Those millions of speeding drivers simply aren't crashing.
But that is missing the point.
As I'm sure you're aware, "an accident is a rare, random, multi-factor event always preceded by a situation in which one or more road users have failed to cope with their environment". If the other factors to conspire to create the accident aren't there, then the driver gets away with driving too fast for their environment.
Its a question of risk. The fact that most of the time people get away with it is neither here nor there - even playing Russian Roulette has a 83% "escape rate".
This is really the critical mistake in road safety policy. It's true that when you drive faster than a certain speed in a certain circumstance risk goes through the roof.
But driving at 30mph would put the risk through the roof in lots and lots and lots of urban circumstances. We don't have anything like enough crashes
Don't we?
And don't forget, an awful lot of crashes are thought to go unreported.
Usually minor shunts.
Indeed, and it has been estimated that large numbers of pedestrian / cycle accidents go unreported.
The thing is most of the time the risk will result in nothing, or a near miss. Most of the rest of the time, it'd be damage only - most of the rest of the time it'd be injury only etc. The idea that "we don't have enough crashes" is simply flawed - the point is improvement. Those speeding drivers may not be killing children in their thousands - but they are adding an accident here, an accident there. And its the same with other factors, there is no one factor responsible for all these accidents. It drivers taking small risks, which occasionally results in a crash.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
anything like the crash severity to support the idea that this is actually happening.
We do have a pedestrian & cyclist fatality rate that is rather poor compared with many continental countries.
But then - they
fine [edestrains who jay-walk! The 9 year old in Schaffhausen was charged with causing an accident through stepping off in front of traffic at a crossing. There - you
have to wait from the green man to appear and it's not media hype -
happened to
me when I was aged 14 and visiitng those Swiss "rebels"
Of course, thats a complete non-starter here. It certainly isn't politically doable, and I'm far from convinced its legally doable.
And how much difference does it make?
Quote:
Also - they designed their roads to incorporate decent cycle lanes. More or less segregated. Cyclists rarely come into conflict with cars as a result - and Germany has some interesting stats in relation to areas flowing abundant with these lanes to its skimpier provisions.
However, Germany had its towns nicely rearranged by the RAF so that these facilities could be provided. We didn't (at least on nothing like the same scale).
Where would you put these cycle tracks? There isn't room for them.
And experience shows that you still end up with conflicts at junctions, and these conflicts often make these facilities more dangerous than cycling in the road.
I also understand that in Germany that motorists (insurers) have to pay out for cyclists or pedestrians they collide with unless it can be shown the pedestrian or cyclist was at fault - whereas here the pedestrian/cyclist has to prove the motorist was at fault. I imagine that focuses minds.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So why isn't it?
I dispute the assertion that we don't have the number of accidents to support the idea.
But on the other hand - if accidents were as common place as you appear to suggest - then all premiums should be sky high die to claims - and the insiurance companies say they are receiving less claims for easy fixes,
Is this not possibly people simply not reporting shunts to their insurers to save on premium rises?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It can't be the speed limit doing it - it can only be appropriate speed behaviour.
Plays its part, but the limit is needed where the behaviour isn't there.
But my customers ... does not matter if there is a camera there or not - if they have stolen a car or youngsters concentrating more on chatting to pals than on COASTing it - they'lll still have an accident
Oh indeed, no-one is saying that cameras are a panacea.
Quote:
Oh - and by the way hitting someone at 27 mph does not make them any less injured or dead - if you hit or they fall badly to be blunt.
Of course not, but it does give them more of a chance than they would have at 35mph.
Quote:
It is the behaviour, the attitude, the COAST skills which bring about the change in reaction required to avoid any collision course - and novices are slower at spotting them. They are also the ones who do not "feel" the speed as keenly as they do with experience.
I don't dispute that.
Quote:
Thus the spinal cord of safety led driving has to move towards promoting the idea that sharp observarton and hazard perceception skills are "cooler" aspirations than pushing a car to its limit.
I agree. Good luck selling that to Max Power etc
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It isn't true in any practical or useful sense that risk increases as you exceed 30mph. Risk really only increases with speed if you can't stop (comfortably) within the distance that you know will remain clear.
In an urban environment, thats quite often at speeds over 30.
Most drivers on here drive below 30 mph when appropriate....
Are drivers on here typical?
Quote:
But some of the 30 mph urban duals have no pelicans or zebras or any obvious hazard
Quote:
However on the A14 - a 70 mph 3 laner linking the M1/M6 to the M11 and the East - I have driven past signs warning me to expect pedestrians to be crossing this motorway type road
The A14 isn't a motorway type road (I think it should be but thats besides the point) - its an all purpose route (mostly dual 2 lane) which may be dualled and largely grade separated, but it does have footpath crossings, private accesses, even some crossroads.
Many drivers make the mistake of thinking its a motorway - they perceive it to be a motorway, and thus drive too fast. As a result the road has a poor accident record. It is in fact a very good place where drivers do need to be told - because their perception is inaccurate.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Drivers are amazingly effective at this, and you can bet that where the 85th percentile speed is above the speed limit the speed limit is unecessarilly low.
So do you think the 30 limit should be raised, on major roads at least?
And theres the damage limitation issue, of course.
I think the general conclusion on the board was that some roads should be 20 mph, some should remian at 30 mph and a handful of existing 30 mph raised to 40 mph and 50 mph and some of the 50 mph/ 40 mph and even a couple of single carriage NSLs downgraded to 30 mph....
There is certainly scope for adjustment - I don't think anyone disagrees.
However, Paul stated that "Drivers are amazingly effective at this, and you can bet that where the 85th percentile speed is above the speed limit the speed limit is unecessarilly low.". On alot of major 30 limit roads with properly set limits, the 85%ile is above 30.
If you've got your reasonably set limits, you've got to be able to enforce them so people (even a mionority) don't get into the habit of "I know better" or "Its only a little bit faster".
Quote:
Basically - the fault lies with speeds set inappropriately on a lot of roads and this is in fact an issue which Meredydd Hughes plans to address.
I assume by speeds you mean speed limits, and that is an issue (both ways as you acknowledge). And it needs to be dealt with.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
They do claim "they were not informed of something or other... when it all goes pear shaped - or blame the last lot..... 
