Safe Speed Forums

Nevertheless, neither councillors nor engineers make any money whatsoever from camera partnerships. No money actually goes to the local authority - anything that isn't spent by the camera partnership goes straight to the treasury.

The bus stop could easily be moved about 30 yards further up the road which would allow other vehicles to overtake stationary buses.

I don't think this kind of thing is ever acceptable.

_________________
"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

Assuming that wouldn't conflict with private accesses, you would have to provide a new footway to accomodate the relocated bus stop (a few grand at least), and then there are the consequences of this.



The resident of the house outside your relocated bus stop would no doubt think the same of the newly inflicted noise from buses pulling away, the fact they can't park their car immeadiately outside their house and so on.

No, motorists don't have a monopoly, but conversely, they shouldn't be made subject to this artificial congestion either. I'm sure that motorists, once clear of all these stupid obstacles, put their foot down and exceed the posted limit to try to make up time lost.

As regards the chicane to prevent rat-running - definitely not. The road in question is a main road. It's now got to the point that in rush hour, because cars cannot get through the chicane (because of high traffic volume), that cars side-step the chicane and drive on the pavement & grass verge to get through! And I don't blame them doing so!

If bus drivers can't get into the bus stops that were there (before the council filled in the bus stops) then maybe the bus drivers need to re-take some training.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

But its a fact of life that sometimes you have to wait in order to allow others to use the highway, and if you get enough people having to wait, you get congestion.

If you didn't fill in the bus laybys, the buses would continue to face unacceptable delays due to inconsiderate motorists. So what else can you do to help them?



Whilst that it would be wrong to say that never happens, I haven't seen anything to suggest it is especially common. Do you have any evidence to support that?



Define a "main road".



Even the bus laybys which are/were not physically big enough for a modern bus to manoeuvre into?

You miss my point - I'm talking about ARTIFICIAL congestion - i.e. where none existed before.

Ummm, they didn't have a problem before, so why fill in bus stops?


Yes. I know I do this.


Ummm, it's a big wide thing, originally intended for vehicles to use to get from A to B...


The bus stops I refer to, were big, huge areas you could get 2 buses in...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Unless we're talking about bendy buses, the typical size of a bus hasn't increased since the 1970s.

And, as stated earlier today on another forum by a bus driver, if you're a bit assertive you shouldn't have any difficulty getting back into the stream of traffic.


Yes, while there are usually what may seem well-meaning reasons behind these schemes, the fact remains that they create congestion which wasn't there before.

_________________
"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

a) Thats doesn't make it common

b) That's not especially responsible, is it?



I would point out that many main roads (even trunk roads) were not originally intended full stop.



Maybe so - but then theres the issue of traffic not allowing buses to pull out - perhaps people who like you are in too much of a hurry to bother with niceties like the highway code.

Perhaps not, but that doesn't mean the laybys weren't too small then. Additionally, people now expect buses to pull up to the kerb to make things easier for the elderly, disabled etc - hence bus boarders.



And, as stated by the very next post in the thread you mention, it was contradicted by another bus driver.



As I said, sometimes you have to wait to allow others to use the highway. Perhaps if drivers were generally more courteous to buses attempting to pull away from bus stops the build outs wouldn't be needed, and everyone would get where they're going that bit quicker. Unfortunately, they didn't - people simply took the "me first " approach.

I didn't say it was

What is irresponsible about trying to make speed (safely)?


So the Romans just happened to build them just for fun?

Who said I'm in too much of a hurry? All I said was that I will try to make up lost time, caused by "people like you" vandalising my roads! And I do so, safely & courteously!

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

The amount of time lost is a matter of seconds.

So were your driving slower than necessary before (not that thats necessarily a bad thing), or are you driving too fast now in your efforts to make up time?



So did the Romans build all the roads?



They're not "your" roads. You share them wih everyone else - and some of them take the bus.




Quite - but why tolerate that when we can play persecuted instead?

Unfortunately I have come to the conclusion that there are certain members of this site who are not at all in it for safety, more as a venting ground for various grievances.

We really need to address bad driving and disrespect for the highway code immediately. If everyone drove like they did on the test, followed the highway code, and pedestrians/cyclists behaved themselves also there would be hardly any accidents and therefore we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today.

Ultimately the motorist is to blame.

Great idea - think that is backbone of this site (least i thought it was)- back to the old days of a human being in a police car in uniform policing our roads - petty arguements sidelining the main issues amongst us are a bonus for the pratnerships


Yes - would be nice, but even nicer if we advanced a bit through the years and those that had helped/were courtese to those that had not ,and those that displayed any sign of just passing a test. Would also be nice if we had experts to help us - like in days of yore --blokes called traffic police - to kick ass, advise and keep the peace, and help the newbies.Its been proved to work - look at the north east.

Pedestrians - the sue culture has helped their stupidity - perhaps the most needed law is "dangerous walking" or walking without due care" --enforced by the traffic police.
Cyclists - a bit more respect for the genuine ones, and the chav ones taken to task might help.


Yes - i suppose we are - we let election after election go by without showing the government that we have teeth ,and our wallets are not that fat.

_________________
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

Extremely well said.

That's a bit of a dangerous oversimplification.

Firstly we aren't safe drivers when we take our tests. Experience is extremely important.

Secondly if drove to the minimal letter of the highway code that wouldn't be safe at all. We all do zillions of things way beyond the Highway Code requirements. Things like planning and anticipation for example. Since these are 'real' human behaviours we can't hope to run your idealised 'work to rule' while also benefitting from more advanced and subtle human behaviours.

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

We're not safe because of the simple fact most others choose to ignore the system which increases the risk exponentially. Experience compensates for the various "interpretations" by drivers at a micro level of how to drive correctly which over time equates to an ability to manage the risk factors present in the system.

I think getting people to read and learn the highway code again is an excellent start. A recent survey has shown us that we have a majority of people on the roads who don't even know what half the roadsigns mean, so god help them dealing with the more intricate material.

Take the driving test. If you crash and/or do something dangerous you fail immediately. Everyone who is (legally) on the UK roads has proven they can drive a vehicle for a length of time within the system while obeying the rules of the road without crashing or doing something dangerous.

But newly qualified drivers have at least 10 times the crash risk of average drivers. The skill set employed to pass a driving test is way below averagely safe.

I do agree we could do a lot better in terms of folowing the Highway Code - but it's not useful as a SUBSTITUTE for many unwritten behaviours that help to keep us safe.

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

Yes they have the risk because they are not used to compensating for others ignorance of correct procedure for any sustained length of time.

I know I'm talking about a perfect world, but that's what we're striving to acheive isn't it? (in terms of road safety)

But we need to recognise that we live in a very imperfect world, and we have to look at what is realistically effective in encouraging more responsible behaviour. Enforcement, enforcement, enforcement is not the answer - and safe driving cannot be wholly or even largely encapsulated in a hard and fast set of rules.

We also need to remember that safety isn't an absolute - it must be balanced against the utility of the transport system. Perfect safety can only be achieved with zero utility. Obviously the objective must be to improve safety without compromising utility, but there is a risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Also people need to be given a certain amount of freedom to be able to develop the ability to judge risk and decide what is responsible. Many would argue that a vibrant society that is constantly exploring new ways of doing things is preferable to a cosy, suffocating one, even if the actual risk level is a bit higher.

As Benjamin Franklin famously said, "They that can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither Liberty nor safety."

_________________
"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