Off the bike - speeding cars shock.

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008, Tim Woodall wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 16:35:46 +0100,
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

And apply Monderman's "shared space" principle within towns, with
the Dutch principle of presumed fault. I think that's an approach
that tackles risk by forcing people to think, assess and take
responsibility.

It should be noted though that even Monderman accepts that there is
a hard core (IIRC 10-15% of motorists) who actively abuse this
ideal and use the "might is right" to bully their way through.

Indeed - on the shared space high street in my town, I've had a
motorist leaning on their horn for the fact that I dared to stop in
order to let my daughter climb into her pushchair. Obviously I should
have run for the cover of the buildings (presumably she was happy her
4x4 would get over a mere two-year -old without damaging the
paintwork).

Also, in that particular shared space, motorists clog it solid with
cars parked too close to the buildings to get a pushchair (or
wheelchair, or even shopping trolley) down the street other than down
the middle, and the ones in the middle are very sure it's not their
job to give way to pedestrians who have nowhere else to go (more
hooting, gesturing, swearing).

http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/parking/

I no longer go into the high street on a Sunday, so yes - I've been
bullied off the street in my home town.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

"John" wrote in message
...
Simon Mason wrote:

, and in the arguments purporting to
"prove" that helmets or speed cameras are the panacea.

I can't recall anyone proposing that cameras are a panacea for road safety,
but there are plenty of road safety "experts" who consider cycle helmets to
be just that.

For those of you wondering why experts is in inverted commas, it's cos they
ain't no such thing.

"David Green" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 17:46:44 +0100, "S Mason"
wrote:

A few weeks ago I was off the bike and had to endure the misery of driving
to work for a few days. The law breaking I saw shocked me into writing
this
letter to our local newspaper:


http://www.swldxer.co.uk/zletter2.jpg

Complete load of unjustifiable assertions snipped.

Just for the hell of it really.

Personally, if I was going to post claims like that, I'd have a few facts to
back them up. But hey, petrolheads and facts are mutually incompatible, so
that explains the lack of.

"John" wrote in message
...


The residents asked for some in a street near here, claiming the current
30 limit was being flouted. The results of a survey performed by the
council showed the "average" speed to be 18 mph, with next to no-one going
above 24 mph (IIRC). The request was dismissed.



We had the opposite happen with one of our streets:
Hull Daily Mail 14 APR 07:

"A whole street has backed calls for traffic-calming measures to be put in
place in a once quiet neighbourhood. Residents living along the north
section of Pickering Road, west Hull, have joined forces to ask Hull City
Council to reduce traffic flow and slow down speeding drivers.
It comes after a traffic survey showed more than 2,200 cars exceeded the
30mph speed limit every day - almost 45 per cent of the total traffic. And
the research, carried out in October, revealed that on an average day, more
than 45 vehicles were travelling between 40 and 50mph - and one car was
clocked driving at more than 60mph.

With almost half of all drivers found to be speeding in Pickering Road,
action is certainly needed to slow cars down.
The area's residents are asking Hull City Council to put traffic- calming
measures in place.

Their plea follows research that showed more than 2,200 vehicles exceeding
the 30mph speed limit every day.

Considering some of these drivers were travelling at between 40 and 50mph,
the residents' concerns are understandable.

For many, their own street has become an accident waiting to happen. "

To be fair, the article goes on to say that this new situation is down to
nearby 20 mph zones "forcing" drivers onto their road to get around the
traffic calming measures in nearby ex rat runs!



--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/



The rest of the

Simon Mason wrote:
In my experience, motorists are *extra* careful around safety cameras to
the point of actually going past them below the limit a lot of the time.

Which gives rise to the idea of noting how much below the limit drivers
pass a camera, and reducing the limit to match, as this indicates that
the drivers think the limit is too high.

Drivers routinely slow down to about 30 for a camera near me, where the
actual limit is 40.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:00:06 GMT, Tim Woodall
said in
:

30 years ago we used to play in the street (quiet cul-de-sac) all the
time. Car drivers expected there to be kids playing. The only accidents
were kids falling off their bikes and grazing their knees.
A week ago I walked past the end of the road. Beautiful weather. Not a
single kid out playing in the street.

Exactly. Viewed in the context of the "licenses" for independent
mobility granted to children by parents, we are considerably worse
than most comparable European countries - our "safer" roads might be
safer simply because we've scared the vulnerable off them.

Hillman & Witelegg, again.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:32:01 +0100, Danny Colyer
wrote:

On 14/10/2008 20:44, David Green wrote:
A less
prejudiced person would realise that the speed limit there was
probably far too low for the conditions, having been lowered from NSL
within the last 5 years by a councillor who had a vested interest in
doing so

Perhaps as a result of demand from local residents whose lives were
blighted by motorists driving at excessive speed past their homes?

Do you see many homes on stretches that are (or were) NSL? And what
do you mean by "excessive speed"? 41-60? Over 60? Any speed at all
(because motorists "shouldn't be driving")? Something else? (I think
of excessive speed as a speed too fast for the conditions, but since
the regulars here seem to think that's *completely* unimportant
compared to The Holy Speed Limit, I doubt that's what you meant.) Say
the speed limit was lowered from NSL to 40. Is driving at 60 any more
dangerous than it was before the reduction?

Have you ever seen a speed limit that you thought was too low? Or do
you believe that there couldn't possibly ever be a speed limit that
was too low, because it "doesn't matter how low a speed limit is as
long as it's not too high"? Do you think it's right that councillors,
rather than traffic engineers, should set speed limits? Do you have
any evidence that the speed limit is anything but an unimportant
safety factor? If not, why swear by it in the way that you appear to?
Do you always believe what the authorities tell you without
investigating yourself? If so, you're incredibly naive; if not, why
make such a glaring exception with cameras?

Keeping to the speed limit simply isn't *anywhere near* the top
priority when it comes to driving safely, and insisting that people
stick rigidly to speed limits (especially unreasonable ones) comes
with a host of deadly side effects. There's plenty of evidence for
that, and none for the opposite point of view. And neither Crapman,
SCPs, Labour or any other camera opponents have come up with any, nor
have they tried, because they know they CAN'T. Speed cameras and low
speed limits are a dangerous scam; those who don't realise that are
either uninformed or stupid, while those who do realise that but
continue to support cameras anyway are control freaks at best, and
motorist-hating scum who don't care about the cameras' deadly side
effects at worst. Chapman is in the latter category, and one day,
he'll get his comeuppance.

Please, if you're a genuinely intelligent, decent and reasonable
person without an anti-motorist agenda or similar, look into the whole
thing with an open mind and I promise that you'll eventually realise
you've been had. I know it's not nice to have to admit to anyone (or
even yourself) that you've had the wool pulled over your eyes, but
surely finding out the truth now is better than not at all? Plenty of
people have fallen for this particular scam; there's no shame in it.
But there is shame in refusing point blank to even consider whether
you're wrong. Don't let the control freak authorities or the
motorist-hating ****s use you anymore; do yourself a favour and
discover the truth about real road safety. Because the longer you
leave it, the more you'll kick yourself when the penny finally does
drop.

On 15/10/2008 22:29, David Green wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:32:01 +0100, Danny Colyer
Perhaps as a result of demand from local residents whose lives were
blighted by motorists driving at excessive speed past their homes?

Do you see many homes on stretches that are (or were) NSL?

Yes. There are quite a few villages round here where the main road
passing through has had the speed limit reduced from NSL to 40 or, more
recently, to 30 for the benefit of local residents. There are always
houses on the main road, but residents of side roads also need to be
able to cross the main road in order to get from one side of the village
to the other.

And what
do you mean by "excessive speed"? 41-60? Over 60? Any speed at all
(because motorists "shouldn't be driving")? Something else?

I would suggest, as a start, that any speed that makes it difficult or
threatening for pedestrians to cross the road is excessive. The wishes
of travellers passing through should *not* be given priority over the
needs of local residents to be able to move around their own village.

Say
the speed limit was lowered from NSL to 40. Is driving at 60 any more
dangerous than it was before the reduction?

Yes, because it is aberrant behaviour. If the speed limit is 40 then
other users of the road should have a reasonable expectation that
vehicles will not be travelling at 60. If the speed limit is 60 then
those road users will be more alert to the possibility of vehicles
travelling at 60 (or 80!).

Regardless, if the speed limit has been reduced from 60 to 40 then that
would seem to be an indication that the original 60 limit was too high.
Perhaps it was a reasonable limit at the time that it was set, but
traffic conditions or residential/business developments during the
intervening years now warrant a lower limit.

Have you ever seen a speed limit that you thought was too low?

No. I have seen 30 or 40 speed limits on main roads through villages
where, as a driver, it has seemed frustrating to go so slowly, but I am
able to put myself in another man's shoes and know that, if I was a
resident in the habit of walking along or across that road (perhaps with
my children), I would /not/ want vehicles shooting through at 60.

(Thankfully I have fully functional ears, which means as a driver that I
am easily able to judge my speed and stay within the limit by listening
to the sound of the engine without having the problem that many
motorists claim to have whereby they have to constantly watch the speedo
rather than watching the road).

I'll cite as an example the village in which I work and used to live.
When I lived in the village, my walk to and from work involved crossing
the A4 at rush hour. Despite the (widely ignored) 30 limit, the section
of road that I needed to cross in order to avoid walking a considerable
distance out of my way was always challenging, even for a fit young man.
I felt sorry for the parents who had to cross the same stretch of road
to take their children to nursery. I would say that the 30 limit there
was too high. Many of the motorists *passing through*, so not residents
and seemingly oblivious to the fact that people lived and worked in the
village, evidently thought it was too low.

It didn't help that this stretch of road was on the edge of the village,
between about 100 and 300 yards from the NSL boundary. Cars coming into
the village were still slowing down from 60 (or more), cars leaving the
village were already accelerating. The situation has improved
considerably in recent years, thanks to the introduction of a speed camera.

Or do
you believe that there couldn't possibly ever be a speed limit that
was too low,

I accept it as a theoretical possibility.

Do you think it's right that councillors,
rather than traffic engineers, should set speed limits?

Yes, in some circumstances. Traffic engineers have a tendency to
prioritise throughput of motor traffic above the needs of local
residents. Local councillors, OTOH, have an interest in addressing the
needs of local residents. I repeat, the wishes of travellers passing
through should *not* be given priority over the needs of local residents
to be able to move around their own village.

Do you have
any evidence that the speed limit is anything but an unimportant
safety factor?

It's been posted more than once in this thread and threads passim.

Keeping to the speed limit simply isn't *anywhere near* the top
priority when it comes to driving safely,

I agree that it is not the top priority, but that does not, in any way,
stop it from being *a* priority.

--
Danny Colyer http://www.redpedals.co.uk
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:29:30 +0100,
David Green wrote:
(I think
of excessive speed as a speed too fast for the conditions,
I'd agree. Which means in a residential area an absolute maximum of
30mph due to the tyre noise on the road. Ideally it would be 25mph but
we don't have 5mph steps and from a tyre noise POV there's little
difference between 20 and 25mph. There are some residential streets
where the houses are set way back from the road and are screened by
trees where speeds greater than 30mph might not be excessive but there
aren't that many residential areas like that.

If we had variable speed limits then a higher limit during the day might
be appropriate if we're only considering noise. Maybe 30mph during the
day and 20mph at night might be better.

Safety considerations may well mean it needs to be lower but that's
going to depend a lot more on location.

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://www.woodall.me.uk/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:22:18 -0600 (MDT), Fred Pinkerton
said in
t:

Stop right there. Citing that as a "source" is enough to let us all
know you're an idiot.

We already know that, it's nuxx bar.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound