|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
How To Discourage Motoring
In article , Ian Smith wrote:
On 10 Sep 2010, Alan Braggins wrote: In article , Ian Smith wrote: I note that despite being told that 2000 miles of motorway match my example (ie, have a 30mph limit) no-one has actually come up with any. It's possible that a variable speed limit on a motorway might have been left at 30mph when over 50mph was safe sometime. Not for 2000 miles though. Do variable limits ever go as low as 30? I've certainly seen 40 on the M25, but I don't recall seeing them go lower than that. Apparently they can, but don't as part of normal operation. http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/doc...flet_FINAL.pdf "Variable speed limits. 40, 50 or 60mph with red rings are automatically displayed. 20 & 30mph with red rings can also be set if required." http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...0100775_en.pdf "In addition, 40 mph signals are set to protect backs of queuing traffic. Lower speed limits such as 20 mph or 30 mph can be manually set by operators when considered necessary for the safety of the travelling public or those working within the carriageway." (I can't remember whether I've seen them that low. If so, it was almost certainly for roadworks where that was an appropriate speed. But I've seen "fog" warning lights turned on in clear daylight with no fog, and it's not impossible that somewhere with variable limits would have them set as low as possible in similar conditions. I've been in motorway fog where 30mph would have been excessive, but there were no variable limit signs.) |
Ads |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
How To Discourage Motoring
On 10/09/2010 09:54, Ian Dalziel wrote:
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 21:17:07 +0100, "Tim wrote: "Roger wrote in message ... Ah, so in formulating your second example you accept that there is absolutely no correlation between what is *safe* and what is arbitrarily imposed by some bureaucrat. In that case, what is the *purpose* of the limit? One point that you may have missed is that the simple existence of a speed limit makes driving faster than the speed limit dangerous. Consider the person crossing the road or pulling out in front of you - they will be expecting you to be obeying the speed limit when deciding whether it is safe to go or whether they have to wait. Driving at a speed such that you cannot react to someone pulling out or stepping into the road is a strange connotation of "safe". One can always react. But being able to guarantee to stop before hitting a pedestrian a few yards in front would require such a low travelling speed as to negate the benefits of motor-vehicles. And of bicycles. Is that what you meant? |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
How To Discourage Motoring
|
#164
|
|||
|
|||
How To Discourage Motoring
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 16:12:28 +0100, JNugent
wrote: On 10/09/2010 09:54, Ian Dalziel wrote: On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 21:17:07 +0100, "Tim wrote: "Roger wrote in message ... Ah, so in formulating your second example you accept that there is absolutely no correlation between what is *safe* and what is arbitrarily imposed by some bureaucrat. In that case, what is the *purpose* of the limit? One point that you may have missed is that the simple existence of a speed limit makes driving faster than the speed limit dangerous. Consider the person crossing the road or pulling out in front of you - they will be expecting you to be obeying the speed limit when deciding whether it is safe to go or whether they have to wait. Driving at a speed such that you cannot react to someone pulling out or stepping into the road is a strange connotation of "safe". One can always react. But being able to guarantee to stop before hitting a pedestrian a few yards in front would require such a low travelling speed as to negate the benefits of motor-vehicles. And of bicycles. Is that what you meant? The discussion was of travelling at a safe speed. Travelling at a speed at which one cannot stop in the distance one can see to be clear - or relying on the reactions of other road users to avoid an accident - does not come within my definition of "safe". The hypothetical pedestrian who is allowing for your speed being 30mph rather than 50mph is hardly "a few yards away". -- Ian D |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
How To Discourage Motoring
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 18:19:41 +0100
Ian Dalziel wrote: On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 16:12:28 +0100, JNugent wrote: On 10/09/2010 09:54, Ian Dalziel wrote: On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 21:17:07 +0100, "Tim wrote: "Roger wrote in message ... Ah, so in formulating your second example you accept that there is absolutely no correlation between what is *safe* and what is arbitrarily imposed by some bureaucrat. In that case, what is the *purpose* of the limit? One point that you may have missed is that the simple existence of a speed limit makes driving faster than the speed limit dangerous. Consider the person crossing the road or pulling out in front of you - they will be expecting you to be obeying the speed limit when deciding whether it is safe to go or whether they have to wait. Driving at a speed such that you cannot react to someone pulling out or stepping into the road is a strange connotation of "safe". One can always react. But being able to guarantee to stop before hitting a pedestrian a few yards in front would require such a low travelling speed as to negate the benefits of motor-vehicles. And of bicycles. Is that what you meant? The discussion was of travelling at a safe speed. Travelling at a speed at which one cannot stop in the distance one can see to be clear - or relying on the reactions of other road users to avoid an accident - does not come within my definition of "safe". The hypothetical pedestrian who is allowing for your speed being 30mph rather than 50mph is hardly "a few yards away". I think you're talking about different things. Being able to stop in the available distance when you can see ahead that same distance is one thing (this is the careful pedestrian who is judging the speed of the traffic before stepping out), but being able to deal with an obstacle (i.e. a careless pedestrian) stepping into the road just ahead of you is entirely different. -- Brian Morrison |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
How To Discourage Motoring
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 18:52:09 +0100, Brian Morrison
wrote: On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 18:19:41 +0100 Ian Dalziel wrote: On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 16:12:28 +0100, JNugent wrote: On 10/09/2010 09:54, Ian Dalziel wrote: On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 21:17:07 +0100, "Tim wrote: "Roger wrote in message ... Ah, so in formulating your second example you accept that there is absolutely no correlation between what is *safe* and what is arbitrarily imposed by some bureaucrat. In that case, what is the *purpose* of the limit? One point that you may have missed is that the simple existence of a speed limit makes driving faster than the speed limit dangerous. Consider the person crossing the road or pulling out in front of you - they will be expecting you to be obeying the speed limit when deciding whether it is safe to go or whether they have to wait. Driving at a speed such that you cannot react to someone pulling out or stepping into the road is a strange connotation of "safe". One can always react. But being able to guarantee to stop before hitting a pedestrian a few yards in front would require such a low travelling speed as to negate the benefits of motor-vehicles. And of bicycles. Is that what you meant? The discussion was of travelling at a safe speed. Travelling at a speed at which one cannot stop in the distance one can see to be clear - or relying on the reactions of other road users to avoid an accident - does not come within my definition of "safe". The hypothetical pedestrian who is allowing for your speed being 30mph rather than 50mph is hardly "a few yards away". I think you're talking about different things. Being able to stop in the available distance when you can see ahead that same distance is one thing (this is the careful pedestrian who is judging the speed of the traffic before stepping out), but being able to deal with an obstacle (i.e. a careless pedestrian) stepping into the road just ahead of you is entirely different. In what circumstances might driving at 50mph past pedestrians who are likely to step into the road be construed as "safe"? -- Ian D |
#167
|
|||
|
|||
How To Discourage Motoring
Tony Raven wrote:
d wrote: Really? Seems totally relevant to me. Despite the lack of speed limits you don't find carnage throughout the island because when left to their own devices most drivers are perfectly capable of picking a safe speed. You'll get the odd boy racer who'll overcook it but that sort ignore limits anyway. Really!!! Well, an average IoM road death rate of 11 per annum in a How did you reach an average of 11 ? |
#168
|
|||
|
|||
How To Discourage Motoring
Tony Raven wrote:
d wrote: On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 12:51:34 +0100 Tony Raven wrote: Really!!! Well, an average IoM road death rate of 11 per annum in a population of 80,000 makes that 14 deaths per 100,000 population per annum. For Great Britain its 2538 deaths for 61 million or 4.2 deaths per 100,000 per annum. Sounds like carnage to me. If the IoM figures translated to the UK we would have 8,500 road deaths per annum, a figure only seen here during WWII. Care to tell us how many of those deaths were related to excess speed? Probably most of them since a major factor is motorcycle visitor coming to exploit the lack of speed limits. In 1993 I think 11 motorcycle fans (not competitors) were killed on the roads just in the TT week alone. How does it compare with motorcycle visitors coming to exploit the speed limits on the A537, in recent years? |
#169
|
|||
|
|||
How To Discourage Motoring
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 17:26:21 +0100
Tony Raven wrote: Care to tell us how many of those deaths were related to excess speed? Probably most of them since a major factor is motorcycle visitor coming to exploit the lack of speed limits. In 1993 I think 11 motorcycle fans (not competitors) were killed on the roads just in the TT week alone. Who cares about bikers? If they want to become organ doners thats up to them. And the whole point of the TT is its dangerous. Columbine High School was 765 deaths per 100,000. So you think that we should not bother with speeding as a cause of road deaths until the UK reaches an annual road death toll of half a million a year, that being the point at which its no longer "hardly carnage on the roads" by your definition. Sound about right. 1000 people a year die by falling down the stairs at home. Perhaps we should mandate that all stairs have airbags at the bottom or maybe just ban 2 storey houses altogether? Life has risks, deal with it or go live in a monastery and huddle in a corner. B2003 |
#170
|
|||
|
|||
How To Discourage Motoring
Nick Finnigan wrote:
Tony Raven wrote Really!!! Well, an average IoM road death rate of 11 per annum in a How did you reach an average of 11 ? Figures issued by the IoM Government. 112 deaths over the ten years from 1993-2003 and 1042 seriously injured. http://www.gov.im/lib/news/transport...fetyinitit.xml Tony |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Letter to discourage cycling for transport. | [email protected] | UK | 127 | April 29th 09 06:18 PM |
Letter to discourage cycling for transport. | spindrift | UK | 3 | April 26th 09 08:22 PM |
Letter to discourage cycling for transport. | pk | UK | 0 | April 26th 09 05:48 PM |
How to discourage unwanted drafting on a ride | Tom Sherman[_2_] | General | 1 | March 6th 08 03:04 PM |
How to discourage unwanted drafting on a ride | Tom Sherman[_2_] | Techniques | 2 | March 6th 08 01:31 PM |