PDA

View Full Version : More 20mph zones to be "rolled-out".


ZOOKER
13th Mar 2015, 17:50
Is this a genuine safety initiative, or another Treasury 'kerr-ching' from the British motorist?

Una Due Tfc
13th Mar 2015, 18:03
30 kph speed limits were introduced in Dublin by the Irish Green Party in a few years back. Idiots didn't realise no car is geared to drive that slowly constantly, meaning more fuel was used.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
13th Mar 2015, 18:15
Not as bad as road humps, favored by most know-nothing Councillors. They encourage brake/accelerate driving so increase pollution, damage tyres and suspension, damage sports cars, can be ignored by Chelsea Tractors (and are!), and cause injury to patients in ambulances. :rolleyes:

UniFoxOs
13th Mar 2015, 18:20
Is this a genuine thread, or another speeding hamsterwheel?

jolihokistix
13th Mar 2015, 18:33
We were sent a questionnaire.

The only people who speed down this residential street already ignore the 30 mph signs. Fast boom-box hot hatches, they whizz by just every so often. What difference would a 20 mph sign make to them? None.

Will the cops next want to set up cameras to regulate it, or will we have mobile units in the neighbourhood? Or will it not be regulated at all, as now?

If they put up 20 mph signs, then I hope they get rid of the humps as they are obviously not doing their job with this call by someone for 20 mph zones. Or if the humps are doing their job, then we do not need a 20 mph zone here anyway.

More waste of my tax money?

ZOOKER
13th Mar 2015, 18:35
A genuine one Uni'. I saw it online and in the newsagents today. It backs up the election blurb I've had which states that this and more of the flashing 'Your Speed......' machines are on the agenda.

MG23
13th Mar 2015, 18:42
30 kph speed limits were introduced in Dublin by the Irish Green Party in Dublin a few years back. Idiots didn't realise no car is geared to drive that slowly constantly, meaning more fuel was used.

The point isn't to save fuel, it's to make driving less convenient than cycling or taking the bus, because cars are EVIL and stuff.

G-CPTN
13th Mar 2015, 18:49
In our county, genuine 20mph (enforceable) limits are only permitted on non-through routes and must be accompanied by traffic-calming measures and are, typically, only permitted near schools.

Parish councils can fund their own 20mph signs, but these are not enforceable in law.

I confess that I favour the flashing signs, as it is too easy to overlook the limit and your speed, and I would rather people were encouraged to conform rather than be punished - resulting in resentment.

om15
13th Mar 2015, 18:56
I think the flashing speed signs are the most effective, if one lights up you instinctively slow down. As a motorcyclist I find that speed humps or bumps are pretty dire.
The rule of thumb for a 30 mph area are the street lights, however the 20 mph is more difficult to automatically register, if you miss the initial sign you could be merrily keeping to 29 mph and thinking that you are ok.
From a recent speed awareness course I understand there is no tolerance on the 20 mph limit if you are recorded over the limit.
Most people who drive over the speed limit in built up areas don't intend to do so, but are subject to distractions or other factors, so a flashing sign will do the trick, however this doesn't create revenue for the council, depends on the objective of the council, safety or income.

candoo
13th Mar 2015, 19:21
Well Im living in Bristol at the moment and virtually all the city non-through roads are 20 mph. its a nightmare and nobody seems to obey it even the instigator, the mayor, was nicked for speeding in a 20 mph zone.

VP959
13th Mar 2015, 19:33
I live in a small. very rural, village, where the "High Street" isn't wide enough in many places to let two vehicles to pass and there are no pavements, so pedestrians have to walk in the lane. The village is a 20mph zone, but frankly it wouldn't really matter if it was a 60 mph zone, as it's near-impossible to drive at any speed over around 15 to 20 mph anyway, as you have no idea what's coming at you around the next bend.

The only problem with living in somewhere like this is that your arm gets tired at waving thanks to every other motorist that either pulls over to let you pass, or to whom you've pulled over to let them pass.

I see no problem at all with having 20 mph zones in highly populated areas, where they may well be a lot of kids, other pedestrians, cyclists etc around and the streets are narrow.

I've had the misfortune to hit a fairly careless pedestrian who ran out in front of me when I was doing around 30mph. He was very severely injured (life-changingly so), and could easily have been killed. Had I been doing 20 mph I strongly suspect his injuries would have been a lot less severe.

Used in the right locations 20mph zones make sense, used in the wrong locations they are pointless and probably a nuisance.

ZOOKER
13th Mar 2015, 19:40
candoo,
I was just reading about that.. I like the quote, "I shall be paying the penalty charge willingly from my own pocket"
Did he think the rate-payers might want to pick up the tab for that too?

joy ride
13th Mar 2015, 19:45
What is the point of more rules and legislation when there is no-one to enforce them? How many drivers still use hand-held mobiles, speed, use wrong lane, hog the middle lane etc.? Law without enforcement is a joke. Giving the Police yet more potential work while shrinking their numbers is even dumber.

SSD: Speed humps don't just damage cars...the impacts are starting to damage building foundations around my area!

ExSp33db1rd
13th Mar 2015, 20:40
The only people who speed down this residential street already ignore the 30 mph signs. Fast boom-box hot hatches, they whizz by just every so often. What difference would a 20 mph sign make to them? None.


Precisely. Our "town" in NZ ( would hardly rate as a "village" in the UK ) has recently become a 30 kph ( about 20 mph ) zone, down from 50 kph. During most of the day it is barely possible to even maintain 15 kph, and when the town is quiet what's the problem ? Those who previously ignored the 50 kph limit now just as equally ignore the 30 kph limit.

Pointless exercise.

Thinks ? Why not bring back the Man With A Red Flag walking in front of every mechanical vehicle ?

finfly1
13th Mar 2015, 20:50
I think my car would need to be in second gear to go 20mph comfortably. There are six.

VP959
13th Mar 2015, 21:11
All this rubbish about cars being unable to drive as slowly as 20mph is plain BS,

We have everything from high performance sports cars, through big 4x4s, to refuse and delivery tricks driving through our village. Often they are doing no more than 10 mph if that, with frequent stops at passing places to let others through.

I've never, ever seen any vehicle have any problem whatsoever in staying below the 20mph limit.

So what if you have to spend ten minutes in a low gear? It's not going to harm the car, but may well just prevent an accident.

I'm no fan at all of indiscriminate speed limits. but there are plenty of places where driving slowly makes a really big difference to road safety, especially when pedestrians and cyclists have to share the same narrow lane.

con-pilot
13th Mar 2015, 21:16
Why don't you just ban private vehicles, seems that would solve a lot of problems. :p

MG23
13th Mar 2015, 21:52
So what if you have to spend ten minutes in a low gear? It's not going to harm the car, but may well just prevent an accident.

You're not going to prevent accidents by forcing drivers to stare at their speedometers, rather than watch the world around them. In areas where speed is particularly dangerous due to poor visibility, most drivers already slow down, because... poor visibility. Adding more speed limits is attempting to make bad drivers drive better they're already bad drivers who probably won't even see the signs.

Besides which, if everyone in the UK wastes five minutes a day because of artificially low speed limits, I make that the equivalent of wasting around 2500 lives every year. Which is around the same level as the total number of road deaths, isn't it?

(That seemed too large to me, but I did the calculations three times and got the same results, so I presume it's correct).

Gertrude the Wombat
13th Mar 2015, 22:04
even the instigator, the mayor, was nicked for speeding in a 20 mph zone
Well, I'm the instigator of 20mph in residential streets in Cambridge, and I haven't been nicked. (Yet.)

Gertrude the Wombat
13th Mar 2015, 22:05
All this rubbish about cars being unable to drive as slowly as 20mph is plain BS
My car, which is a loooong way from being brand new, will do 20mph quite happily on cruise control (I'm aware that some even older ones can't cope, but they've got a driver after all).

VP959
13th Mar 2015, 22:11
You guys don't read very well, do you?

Note that I twice mentioned that these zones should only be used where appropriate, in this post:

http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/558079-more-20mph-zones-rolled-out.html#post8900698 (bottom line) and in this post: http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/558079-more-20mph-zones-rolled-out.html#post8900786 (referring specifically to traffic speeds through our village).

Using 20mph zones where there is no safety requirement or justification for them would be counter-productive, and would most probably cause driver frustration and may even increase accident risk.

That does not mean that 20mph zones in the right place are a bad thing though, it just means that they should only be used where they are really needed.

Keef
13th Mar 2015, 23:02
Far too sensible, VP959. Let's have them everywhere, to annoy car drivers.

bcgallacher
13th Mar 2015, 23:16
Edinburgh will shortly have a city wide 20 mph limit. I go there as little as possible as it is already the most car unfriendly place I know.

ZOOKER
13th Mar 2015, 23:39
bcgalacher,
It achieved that back in 1982.

crippen
14th Mar 2015, 01:02
I am sure the catalytic converter will not be working when doing 10 m.p.h,so up go the emmisions from the exhaust.:{

galaxy flyer
14th Mar 2015, 01:23
British lefties being Luddites, maybe they should bring back the requirement for a flag man walking in front of every car. All of Britain could be a year round London to Brighton race.

GF

joy ride
14th Mar 2015, 09:10
The Elephant in the Room is the Cycling Budget: when Transport for London was set up nearly 20 years ago it was given the task and a generous budget to improve safety and facilities for cyclists. It immediately promised continuous cycle lanes all across London, as in many other cities around the world.

Since then TfL's cycling budget has almost been entirely blown on buffle-headed bureaucrats, whose numbers swelled to consume the budget.

Countless reports, studies, guides, leaflets, pamphlets, focus groups, meetings, consultations were produced, then they found there was no money to actually DO anything.

They then "invented" Plan B: Road Sharing....all drivers and cyclists share road space equally. In other words NOTHING is done, no cycle lanes made, all parties agree to share.

Interesting to note that this policy requires no money to be spent, so the buffle-headed dandiprats have multiplied enough to chow down even more of the Cycling Budget.

It never occurred to the poltroons at TfL that when a motor vehicle decides to "Share" the same bit of road as a cyclist, the results are serious.

30,000 cycle/vehicle accidents and 80 dead cyclists in just 4 years in London.

Now the media are starting to get concerned at the death and injury record, and some are even starting to wonder just why the Cycling Budget has all gone with precious little to show for it.

So Boris Tosspot and TfL feel the need to do something so what can they do which costs little? Impose a speed limit. Drivers will get more frustrated, and more of them will, as usual, take it out on cyclists.

Then Boris/TfL propose to ban lorries in rush hour. Again, it costs virtually nothing and looks like they are doing something, but it just moves the load to a different time (possibly night time to prevent people sleeping!)

The biggest cause of cyclist deaths recently has been construction site lorries working on Boris Urban Clearances Programme: Compulsory Purchase Orders slapped on countless homes and small businesses who are forced to move out, so that more and more speculative "Build to leave empty" investment flats and offices can go up.

The Mayor of New York recently castigated Boris, saying that he should represent the interests of ALL Londoners, and that he should NOT give out development contracts to a highly discredited US Developer which has been BANNED from working in NY. The lorries serving Boris's ambition are the biggest killers, often at junctions where their speed is well below 20 mph.

Brain-dead, buffle-headed Bureaucrats!

Mr Chips
14th Mar 2015, 09:49
New design of lorry being rolled out with more visibility
Cycle super highways being constructed
Priorities changed on major roundabouts

Yeah, TFL have done nothing for cyclist safety in London
:ugh:

joy ride
14th Mar 2015, 10:26
I have never used or seen a Cycle Superhighway in SOUTH London, whenever I do see or use them in North London there are always motor vehicles driving or parked in them. London's Cycle Lanes are about the only places where vehicles can park all day for free.

The proposed new "Segregated" Cycle Lanes will only be "Segregated" on part of their length. 95% of their length will, as usual, be north of the Thames.

Soon after being set up TfL listed Vauxhall Cross as being the worst area for cyclists in London. Billions of pounds has been spent on massive re-development there, but not a bean on Cycling.

In 20 years Holland built a national network of cycle lanes, cycle bridges, even cycle ferries just about everywhere, and set up laws governing their use and instant fines for any non-cyclists in them.

In almost the same amount of time TfL has increased the amount of cycle lane by less than 5%, and such as do exist are usually badly designed, dangerous, short and discontinuous (Cyclists Dismount signs everywhere!). Worst of all, show me a "Cycle Lane" and I'll show you a Free Car Park!

Gertrude the Wombat
14th Mar 2015, 12:11
Besides which, if everyone in the UK wastes five minutes a day because of artificially low speed limits, I make that the equivalent of wasting around 2500 lives every year. Which is around the same level as the total number of road deaths, isn't it?

(That seemed too large to me, but I did the calculations three times and got the same results, so I presume it's correct).
I'm afraid I don't believe your sums.

Firstly, reducing the speed limit from 30mph to 20mph reduces actual speeds from something like 24mph to 23mph.

Secondly, in most places the 20mph zones cover residential streets and not main roads, so a typical journey will involve a couple of hundred yards only of 20mph limits.

Those are the order-of-magnitude errors in your assumptions ... maybe you'd like to redo your sums based on 1mph slower for 300yds twice a day, I don't think you'll find it's anything like five minutes.

Then there are the factors that push in the other direction.

As more people choose sustainable modes, their lifetime actually inceases. Plus, as they're not driving as much, the roads have less congestion, so those who continue to drive find that their overall journey times are reduced, even if they have done part of the journey 1mph slower than before.

Then there's the theory (I'm not sure what hard evidence there is for this one, but the maths and psychology in the theory seems to make sense) that if traffic is moving a little slower it's a little easier to pull out into traffic streams at junctions, again reducing overall journey times.

Keef
14th Mar 2015, 12:33
I'm afraid I don't believe your sums.

Firstly, reducing the speed limit from 30mph to 20mph reduces actual speeds from something like 24mph to 23mph.

... and gets you a speeding ticket for 23 in a 20.

ExXB
14th Mar 2015, 15:07
Bring on self-driving cars. We humans are both too incompetent and inconsiderate to drive ourselves.

Then, there will be no need for speed limits.

The Flying Pram
14th Mar 2015, 15:53
Secondly, in most places the 20mph zones cover residential streets and not main roads, so a typical journey will involve a couple of hundred yards only of 20mph limitsNot so, it seems:

But in a major policy shift, 20mph limits are to be introduced on major arterial roads – and policed by the latest digital speed camerasIf the 18-month trials are judged a successWe all know that is a forgone conclusion, and once it's in place how much farther will this creep - every village & town on any major route throughout the country? Drive from Norwich to Ipswich on the A140 to see what constant changes from 60-50-40-30 mph every couple of miles is like. Add 20 to the mix and you might as well have a man walking in front carrying a red flag.

As more people choose sustainable modes (of transport?)Bang goes private flying - particularly in a radial engined, float equipped Beaver!

Bronx
14th Mar 2015, 16:11
Gertrude

reducing the speed limit from 30mph to 20mph reduces actual speeds from something like 24mph to 23mph.

If that's true, is it worth doing?
(Except as a revenue gathering exercise.)

Loose rivets
14th Mar 2015, 16:15
What a lot of waffle. The old ACPO guideline - IIRC - of 10% plus 2 mph seemed reasonably logical.

http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/uniformed/2013/201305-uoba-joining-forces-safer-roads.pdf


I know cameras can't work out general attitude of the driver, but in all other cases, I feel a momentary lapse should not generally be prosecuted. I know that with best intentions, that needle slips over the mark now and then. It would be so annoying to spoil a good record for, say, 5 seconds of lawbreaking.

Gertrude the Wombat
14th Mar 2015, 17:51
Bang goes private flying - particularly in a radial engined, float equipped Beaver!
Well, I've got two answers to that:

(1) I'm making the most of it whilst it's still allowed.

(2) I add up how much avgas I burn in a year, and compare it to how much people burn commuting stupid distances to work in their cars.

Oh, and there's a third:

(3) I take my greenie friends flying.

vctenderness
14th Mar 2015, 18:03
The Green Party lunatics running Brighton Council introduced 20 mph limits some time ago.

I was in Hove recently on one of the roads that run down to the seafront.

It was capable of having cars parked on both sides and still enough room for two cars on each direction to travel.

At 20 mph it was like standing still! :ugh:

Gertrude the Wombat
14th Mar 2015, 18:04
If that's true, is it worth doing?
(Except as a revenue gathering exercise.)
Well, that's an interesting question, to which there are all sorts of long and complicated answers. (It's not a "revenue gathering exercise", of course, as there is no source of revenue.)

Here's one of the answers to be going on with.

One reason I proposed it in Cambridge was to save money, the argument being as follows:

(1) There were lots of little campaigns for 20 limits, a couple of streets at a time.

(2) Each one had to scrabble around various funding pots to put together the few K it cost.

(3) Then each one had separate project management overheads and TRO costs, and there were no economies of scale in the consultation processes or the procurement of the before-and-after surveys or the lines and signs.

(4) The moment each campaign succeeded and got implemented, the next street along started a new campaign.

Which I reckoned was going to cost several million by the time the whole city was covered, two or three streets at a time, so by doing the whole city as a single project for a few hundred grand I've saved most of those several millions, plus saved all the energy the campaigners would have expended. (Bit double-edged, that, of course, as it frees them up to campaign against "the council" on other matters, but hey, that's the democratic process.)

west lakes
14th Mar 2015, 18:35
A read of the sections regarding 20 mph zones may be appropriate

http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/uniformed/2013/201305-uoba-joining-forces-safer-roads.pdf

Councils that simply change signs may find a lack of will to enforce by the police is my reading of it!

angels
14th Mar 2015, 19:26
Our 'triangle' of a dozen or so streets in Greenwich was fitted with speed bumps about two years ago and a 20 mph limit imposed. People rarely sped because the streets just aren't conducive to speeding.

There was a laughable 'consultation'. Basically the attitude was, 'if you don't say anything, you are for the speed bumps.' During the consultation I found out that in our triangle there had been no road deaths or serious injuries in the last 10 years.

Tragically, a few weeks back we had the first fatality -- an unborn child in a car that overturned (the police are calling it a fatal). Yes, it was speeding (running off from a drug deal gone wrong) and hit a speed bump....

Statistically it wasn't broke, but they fixed it.

Keef
14th Mar 2015, 19:45
If I had my way, speed bumps would be banned. I've carried enough passengers with various illnesses and heard them whimper as I creep slowly over the bumps. For ambulance drivers, it must be a nightmare. They must be one of the most dangerous and evil "safety" measures on our roads.

Speed limits I can cope with, although some of them are absurdly low. I just set the cruise control to the limit and look where I'm going.

From Ipswich to Norwich, the A140 is a joke. It's meant to be the "main road" but it's got speed limits over almost the whole length. I use the B1077, which is "national speed limit" most of the way (and much more pleasant scenery, too).

Gertrude the Wombat
14th Mar 2015, 21:07
There was a laughable 'consultation'. Basically the attitude was, 'if you don't say anything, you are for the speed bumps.'
Round our way there is typically a very high response rate to the consultations with 2:1 in favour of 20mph, so no need to assume anything about the non-responders.
If I had my way, speed bumps would be banned.
Yes, agreed, and I did what I could in my time on the council.

Typical senior county council officer response, however, was: "yes, well, we wouldn't put them in these days, but I'm afraid there isn't any money to get rid of the ones that are already there".

My 20mph project in Cambridge included adding exactly 0 speed bumps, and if any had been proposed I wouldn't have approved them.

paulc
14th Mar 2015, 21:39
my home city has recently introduced a 20mph speed limit in the city centre (no residential areas) which the police have publicly stated they will not enforce. Total waste of tax payers money

Gertrude the Wombat
14th Mar 2015, 22:22
which the police have publicly stated they will not enforce
The police are there to do what they're told, like any other public servants. This sort of nonsense shouldn't be tolerated.

Flying Lawyer
14th Mar 2015, 23:07
The police are there to do what they're told


Told by whom? :confused:


Councils may make representations (via the local Police & Crime Commissioner), and the Police & Crime Panel (representatives from city/town, county and district councils plus a few independent members) scrutinises the Commissioner's performance, but councils have no power to tell a Chief Constable how to utilise available resources/manpower, nor which offences must be given priority.

ShyTorque
14th Mar 2015, 23:32
I live in a village and only this week a 20 mph zone has been signposted (our little cul de sac turn off is just inside it). No problem with that, there is a school in there. However, I first noticed the "end of" speed limit, but not the "beginning of", which concerned me. Next time out I looked out for the relevant sign. It's on the left of the road, alongside the stretch where any number of large vans are always parked on the same side. This means that one naturally looks away from it, to the right, to see if the road ahead is clear before crossing the white line to drive past these parked vehicles. If the two usual tallest vans are there, it's hidden behind them.

I drove into the village today, behind a 40 tonne artic HGV, which was driving to its base here. I couldn't help but notice that it pulled away from my car and was doing at least 45 mph as it passed the 30 mph signs, which are very visible.

"Professional" truck drivers rule OK, eh what? :rolleyes:.

Flying Lawyer
15th Mar 2015, 00:17
joy ride
30,000 cycle/vehicle accidents and 80 dead cyclists in just 4 years in London.

The various cycling lobbies, supported by some sections of the media, frequently quote those or similar stats and people who don't drive in London could be forgiven for assuming that careless drivers are solely responsible.

I live in London and drive a 30 mile round-trip to/from work 3-4 times per week. Of those 30 miles, about 12 are through central London.
To the best of my recollection, there has not been a single day when I have not seen cyclists riding along the inside of vehicles (under-taking) approaching junctions - even when some or all of those vehicles, including lorries, are indicating their intention to turn left.
Why do they do it despite the glaringly obvious risk?
Regardless of who is at fault, it's the cyclist who is likely to be injured or killed if there is a collision.

Lorries
Why, despite repeated road safety campaigns drawing attention to the danger of under-taking, prominent signs on many lorries appealing to cyclists not to under-take and all the well-publicised accidents/fatalities, do cyclists continue to do it?

Whether driving, cycling or walking, our progress is constantly delayed; it's a fact of life in busy urban areas. We just have to wait until it's our turn to move, an obstruction clears, lights change etc.
Why are so many cyclists not prepared to wait?
Overtaking on the right can also be hazardous.
Why don't cyclists hold back and move with the flow instead of trying to pass?

Vauxhall Cross ….. the worst area for cyclists in London.

Vauxhall Cross is on my route. It's a major junction on the Inner Ring Road where four multi-lane roads converge. It's a big junction. ie It's quite a long way across the junction from one road to the next.
I regularly see cyclists (usually Lycra-clad) beginning their way across the junction after the lights have already changed against them and, on many of those occasions, an accident has been very narrowly avoided only by the quick reaction of drivers. Ignoring traffic lights appears to be SOP for very many London cyclists but doing it there is breath-takingly dangerous.
So is weaving through moving traffic at what is a busy and rather complex junction, but many cyclists do it. I find it hard to believe that all the accidents there are caused by drivers, despite what the various cycling lobbies would like people to believe.


Cyclists Dismount signs everywhere!
A waste of money, I suspect.
Most London cyclists don't seem to dismount whatever the circumstances. They just ride where they want to go, including towards oncoming traffic in one-way systems. Taking a short-cut is understandable, but why not dismount to do it?

I realise you may not do any of these things yourself. I'm just interested in an obviously enthusiastic cyclist's answers to questions which have always puzzled me.
I've got no axe to grind. I drive, ride a motorcycle and cycle in London. When on two wheels, I ride on the basis that anyone with four or more is a threat.
Drivers also drive without due care, jump lights and ignore road traffic laws but, if there's an accident, they are unlikely to be seriously injured or killed.


A question:
When I was training for my motorcycle test, the importance of the 'lifesaver' (looking over shoulder before changing direction) was drummed into me. Cyclists rarely do it - even when suddenly moving out of the cycle lane to pass slower cyclists.

Why? :confused:

Surely it's common sense to do so?

racedo
15th Mar 2015, 00:51
Vauxhall Cross is on my route. It's a major junction on the Inner Ring Road where four multi-lane roads converge. It's a big junction. ie It's quite a long way across the junction from one road to the next.

Put cycle lanes in the air here and split completely from other road users is bet bet.

racedo
15th Mar 2015, 00:53
I like the way in the US where during school hours the zones around the school all have reduced speed.

Way better idea.

Flying Lawyer
15th Mar 2015, 01:07
racedoPut cycle lanes in the air here and split completely from other road users is bet bet.

I agree.

TfL has already made some changes to help cyclists, and more are in the pipe-line, but given the high volume of motor traffic through the area, there's a limit to what can be done with the shared space.
Separation at Vauxhall Cross by the method you suggest would be better for everyone.

MungoP
15th Mar 2015, 01:45
Anyone that needs a painted sign to tell them what's safe or not safe by way of speed shouldn't be holding a driving license.
I'm in my 51st year of driving, have never bothered too much about speed limits (and often been fined accordingly on four continents) always adjusting speed to what's safe and have yet to be involved in a moving traffic accident. On the two occasions I've suffered a collision it was once while stopped at a traffic light in Munich (Police arrived and fined the offending driver a very large sum of Marks).. and on the second occasion while having been stopped at a pedestrian crossing in the UK for a good 30 secs got rammed from behind by a silly creature who afterwards told me that she'd been attending to her toddler in the back of her car.. UK police couldn't give a sh*t in spite of this being a blatant example of driving without due care and attention. Had my car not been there she'd have plowed into the two ladies and the push-chair that were by then in front of my car which sustained 7K pounds worth of damage.
Speed is not the problem, bad driving is the problem. We've arrived at a stage where people are moving 1 ton plus of machinery around at speeds of 70 mph many of whom have no natural affinity with machinery and the attention span of a gnat..
Statistically the safest roads in the world are the unregulated German autobahns, the reason being that the Germans insist on a very high standard of driving before issuing a license.
We need to begin prosecuting people who have 'accidents' (very few of which are 'accidents' , rather they're the result of not paying attention to the driving).. and stop this money making nonsense of fining people on purely technical offences.

ExSp33db1rd
15th Mar 2015, 03:57
I like the way in the US where during school hours the zones around the school all have reduced speed.

Way better idea. Disagree - that's the same here in NZ plus having to slow down to 20 kph when passing a stationary school bus, and there is now a suggestion that we follow the example of some US States, and make all vehicles totally stop when school buses are also stationary. Gives the kids the wrong message, what are they going to do when they alight from their first public bus after leaving school, and surprise ! surprise ! cars don't even slow down for them ?

Parents have a responsibility here, too, to educate their offspring not to run willy nilly across the road when getting off a school bus. Children aspire to become grown-up, but they must first learn grown-up ways, why should the responsibility be the drivers' alone ?

No driver wants to injure anyone, child or adult, and it behoves them to drive cautiously when passing any stationary bus, irrespective of any special speed limit.

QED ( when I'm World Dictator etc ..... )

Solar
15th Mar 2015, 04:22
FL
When I did my motorcycle test more years ago than I like to think about, the examiner just after observing me ride asked me did I know what a lifesaver was and I hadn't a clue, never had heard of it. I tried all the answers I could think off lights on, hi vis and such but to no avail so I failed the test, not only obviously because of that but it appeared to be the clincher.
I was on a trail bike and wearing a full face helmet which because of its blinkering nature at junctions and turns I would emphasize looking in the mirrors for his benefit, I also pointed out that when at a junction where cars are in front it's not a great idea to be swiveling your head like an owl due to the helmets vision constrictions.
I resat the test a couple of weeks later and luckily it was the same examiner. I had a spare open face helmet with me in a back pack and before we started the test I removed it and he exclaimed " I not going with you" I replied I know and proceeded to change helmets. He then got the message I think. I passed.
In those days the test was done in a residential rectangular area in Omagh were you rode around it and the examiner walked around observing you.
I found out later that the examiner had never been on a bike in his life.
Still biking and as you say it hightens your awareness to potential injury and I believe makes you a better rider/driver.

Reminds of a story whether true or not it's still funny about a chap in Derry doing his bike test under similar circumstance where the examiner said just keep going around and when I step out perform an emergency stop as it was then called. The lad went round and round several times and no sign of the examiner, eventually he went back to the test center to be told the examiner had stepped in front of the wrong motorcyclist and was now in hospital.

ExSp33db1rd
15th Mar 2015, 04:39
Did my motor cycle test on my old school pushbike that I had "enhanced" with the addition of Cyclemaster 25cc engine built around the rear hub. The examiner dutifully watched me ride around the circuit, occasionally pedalling to assist the struggling 25 cc., then leaped out into the road with outstretched arm and a demanding shout of "STOP". Fortunately the 25cc engine responded to the old push bike brakes - I passed.

I was then legal to go and buy a Vincent Black Shadow 1000 cc. monster, had I chosen to, and have never taken another motor cycle test anywhere, and still ride, but the 25cc Cyclemaster is long gone ( thank goodness ! )

My son eventually discovered that bike, minus the engine, and also a pedal at the back of our then shed, took it to Oxford Uni. where he was able to freewheel downhill in the morning when he was late from oversleeping, and walk it back uphill at the end of the day, for the morrow. It got stolen. What twisted dwarf stole a pedal-less bike, he moaned.

crippen
15th Mar 2015, 07:24
look at your local police force accident stats!!(if you can find them.)

Shurmer, a former police driving instructor, claims the standard of police driver training has fallen.

Mr Shurmer, 68, said: “This is an unacceptably high bill for repairs to cars in a single force over 12 months. I believe it is a direct result of officers not having been trained to the proper standards. These days it seems you are just as likely to have a police car smash into the back of you as you are to have the officer pull you over.”

fireflybob
15th Mar 2015, 09:47
I find it difficult to stay awake when driving at 20 mph

Gertrude the Wombat
15th Mar 2015, 11:25
Told by whom?
The political process. Priority setting is done at several levels, from Home Office through Community Safety Partnership to whatever Neighbourhood Panels are called round your way.

west lakes
15th Mar 2015, 11:57
which the police have publicly stated they will not enforce The police are there to do what they're told, like any other public servants.

This sort of nonsense shouldn't be tolerated.


I suggest a read of this link I posted before explains about the police and a 20 mph limit

http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/uniformed/2013/201305-uoba-joining-forces-safer-roads.pdf

Gertrude the Wombat
15th Mar 2015, 14:00
This is an improvement on previous ACPO positions, but at the end of the day ACPO is a private club of made up of people who each have to do what they're told. ACPO "policy" is not subjected to any part of the democratic process and should not be taken too seriously. (It's also sometimes several years behind the real world and catching up only rather slowly, as in this case.)

The police are given vast quantities of public money. I'm sure that nobody here really believes that they should be able to make up for themselves what they will and won't spend it on without any input from the public who're doing the paying.

Keef
15th Mar 2015, 14:52
The police have a difficult job, setting priorities. The Chief Constables aren't a private club: they are the people who for good reason have been promoted to leadership positions and who have a weighty job to lead their forces in keeping the peace and preserving order.

They have more credibility in priority-setting than locally-elected politicians who in many cases are in it only for their own status. I would back the ACPO over any caucus of second-tier politicians. Some members of the ACPO are a bit wacky, but most are eminently capable people.

The greater concern is that Chief Constables, who are on the whole sane and sensible, are told what to do by the Home Secretary and by failed politicians appointed to "PCC" positions.

At the moment, the process seems to be broken. Hopefully, it will be repaired soon.

Gertrude the Wombat
15th Mar 2015, 15:25
by failed politicians appointed to "PCC" positions.

At the moment, the process seems to be broken.
Well, we can certainly agree on that bit.

ExSp33db1rd
15th Mar 2015, 22:31
I find it difficult to stay awake when driving at 20 mph

Likewise, I find my mind wandering off the driving and diverted to looking at passing boobs, instead.

ShyTorque
15th Mar 2015, 22:44
Reminds of a story whether true or not it's still funny about a chap in Derry doing his bike test under similar circumstance where the examiner said just keep going around and when I step out perform an emergency stop as it was then called. The lad went round and round several times and no sign of the examiner, eventually he went back to the test center to be told the examiner had stepped in front of the wrong motorcyclist and was now in hospital.

It occurred in an episode of "Some mothers do have 'em" with Frank Spencer.

BT4KE6vR9oI

fireflybob
15th Mar 2015, 23:17
Where I live they've just imposed 20 mph speed limits on many urban roads (which already have speed bumps).

Coming home tonight following the 20 mph limit and am tailgated by a taxi who then overtakes me driving on the wrong side of a bollard and goes off into the night at circa 35 mph. You really wonder what the point is.

ShyTorque
15th Mar 2015, 23:50
Taxi drivers!

I followed one tonight on the country lane leading to our village (Merc driver). He drove at 30 to 35 mph in a 60 mph limit. It's safe to drive at 50 to 60 for much of that road because the view is open, no tight bends.

Oh well, thought I, he's a careful driver (quite unusual for local taxi drivers in my experience), so no worries, I'll back off and stay clear.

We reached the village. The main drag has a terraced row of 70 houses. It is narrow, made worse by dozens of parked vehicles, a blind summit over the canal bridge by three shops and a junction on the left side, just after that is the railway crossing. Obviously, as a built up area, the speed limit is 30 mph. I drive the stretch in question at 20-25 mph because of the likelihood of someone stepping out between parked cars, if there is oncoming traffic there is no room to swerve at all.

The taxi driver accelerated away from me, against oncoming traffic. I would estimate he was doing 45 mph by the time he reached the shops....... Total lack of intelligence and consideration for safety and totally illogical speed control.