I don't understand this talk about frustration at 20mph. I would be delighted now if I could maintain 20mph.
On my bike.
Mary
I don't understand this talk about frustration at 20mph. I would be delighted now if I could maintain 20mph.
On my bike.
Mary
Hmm, most schools around me employ the traffic calming measure of 20 SUV's parked up and unusual angles. you're lucky to creep past at
5mph let alone 20.Jim.
yes, often parked on zig-zags before/after crossings, endangering the little darlings that they appear to be so keen to cocoon and protect.... don't get me started on that one!
-- Richard Sampson
email me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk
Nor me ...
Mary
maybe useful to add (?)Stephen Coveys extra bit:
"We see the world, not as it is, but as we are - or as we are conditioned to see it."
There's a lot of conditioning going on out there ...
Another issue is the resulting mess on the road either side of the hump, in some cases this can be quite considerable and makes the road dangerous particularly for two wheeled road users.
When spped bumps were installed round an estate I used to live on in Oman the *only* significant results were a number of injuries to cyclists and motorcyclists.
Just because a saying appears wise and profound, does mean that it is actually correct. If it really was true, it would invalidate all behavioural research, psychiatry etc.
The reason I know why someone else is driving like that, is because I drive along that road every day and pass 9 speed cameras. I have observed the behaviour of enough drivers to be be sure beyond any reasonable doubt that my assessment of his driving was correct.
Bob
Ahem, not being sufficiently wise and profound myself, my typo has changed the meaning of that! It should have read (of course):
"Just because a saying appears wise and profound, does NOT mean that it is actually correct"
Bob
No, what I meant is that there are speed humps everywhere except in the area that is full of pedestrians, so all the cars use that road - ie there is traffic calming on the roads that don't have many pedestrians most of the time and none on the one that's full of them and where the majority are crossing from shop to shop!
I have no problem with slowing traffic, but I really object to speed humps
- they're okish in my car (Rover 400), harsh and uncomfortable even at very low speeds in my wife's car (Nissan Almera) and damaging to my other car (Robin Hood Kit-car). They are also active 24 hours a day (on some roads for a mile or more) even though the hazard is prehaps a hundred yards long and only during limited hours of the day.
There are better solutions. There is a speed ramp design that consists of a collapsible, air-filled ramp which when driven over at up to the set speed, just collapses, but at higher speed the air valves lock and keep it solid. I would have no problem with having these on every road in the area. I'm just fed up with having more and more roads that I can't drive one of my cars along (well I can, but it frustrates the hell out of me and anyone behind me as I have to crawl over each ramp at walking pace or slower) and that even in the other cars makes me slow to well below the speed that would actually be safe.
Steve W
Maybe your cobbles are of a different material than the setts that I've driven on - they really are dangerous.
Not at all - I completely agree that drivers must slow to speeds that are suitable for the hazards or even to stop. On the other hand, if the hazard is not considered sufficient to warrant lowering the speed limit from 30mph to 20mph and the residents' worry is drivers doing 40mph, why do the ramps on the road have to reduce you to 10mph?
Steve W
A year or so ago there was a report by a European study group which praised some of Britain's road design, but specifically critisised a mismatch of speed limits and road design - both roads that had an artificially low limit and roads that had a sensible limit (maybe built-up area, school, etc.), but were designed (wide, multiple lanes, clear, signage, etc.) in a way that looked like the speed limit should be higher. This was found to encourage drivers to break the limits, as they then appeared to be too low (even when there was a good but not immediately obvious reason for the low limit).
*Some* people will never accept limits. *Some* will stick rigidly to them all. *Many* people will accept them, but will question or break those that seems wrong. Any law that falls into disrepute due to a perceived unfairness (deserved or not) gradually gets broken by more and more people.We do need a wholesale review of speed limits in the UK. Some roads should have a higher limit, many should have a lower one.
We also seem to have an emphasis as the moment entirely on speed. Yes, it's extremely important, but so are driving without due care and attention, reckless driving and tailgating. The emphasis on speed seems to be leading to more and more speed cameras and fewer and fewer traffic police doing anything about other forms of dangerous driving.
Steve W
This is something that we did discuss in yesterday's seminar where I compared practice here with practice in France and Germany where lane disipline is very good. The reply was that there the rules are enforced.
It was quite interesting - both sides had to be presented, ranging from all speed limits are wrong to bring back the red flag.
The final decision was that more needs to be done about instructing drivers about the reasons for speed limits and the need to still be aware of the requirement to slow further where hazards dictate. It was also suggested that regular retests should be required (not the driving test, where everything must be by the book, but more on the lines of advanced motoring assessments where there would be flexibility as long as the drive was considered safe - so you wouldn't fail for the bad habits that you've picked up, but only for unsafe driving.)
Steve W
Some statistics I have (from the Metropilitan Police if I remember correctly) indicate that a small proportion of accidents are recorded as being due to excessive speed. I think it's about 6%. Of course many of those may still be happening at speeds lower than the speed limit, the cause is "Excessive speed having regard to the circumstances".
One of the major problems with any blanket speed limit is that, even if it's set 'perfectly' it will be too low 50% of the time and too high 50% of the time (and now we can start arguing about averages, means, medians and all those lovel;y things!).
I've long thought it rather daft that you can pass your test at 17 and not have to produce any further evidence as to your competence to drive(*) until you are 70. Personally I'd be happy to pay around =A350 every five years for a retest.
Any such retest ought to include simple theory part on the changes in the legislation since the last retest. Things like seatbelts, children/adults front/rear seats etc none of the current regulations in that area existed when I passed 27 years ago.
(*) Yes you are supposed to tell the DVLA if things alter your abilty to drive but I bet there is a significant number of people who don't because they are frighthened of having their driving licence revoked.
The signs are generally lies.
Like everything else the so-called "Safety Partnerships" say.
That just goes to show there are at least 2 people who have no idea what they're talking about.
Like much of this sort of thing, it's superficially a good idea, but in practice it sucks. The children never learn to cross the road safely, and if you've ever sat behind a Pennsylvania school bus (as I have) for mile after mile after mile after mile after mile after mile after mile after mile after mile after mile after mile after mile after mile after mile after mile after mile after mile after mile after mile after mile after mile after mile after mile after mile after mile after mile, where you can't overtake when it's moving because of double lines and you can't overtake when it's stopped because you can't, then you realise what a dumb idea it is.
On Fri, 28 May 2004 12:50:14 +0100, Steve Walker strung together this:
Hmm, not very well though.
That sounds promising, it'll be interesting to see if anything transpires.
Actually it's not always, which is why about 15 competitors on our round of the world rally championship got done in 2002.
If bonkers Brunstrom's daughter doesn't realise what the limits are, I can't imagine why residents of Monaco should.
Depends which way you look at it. If you get caught by a fixed camera and there are no signs or the signs are incorrectly placed or of non-standard design they can't make the speeding ticket stick.
Yes there are roads with signs and no fixed camera(s), there are several stretches of road near here like that but those stretches have claimed the lives of half a dozen people in the last couple of years and there is hard standing for the mobile camera.
These days I think the mobile cameras have to put out signs at designated distances from them. This doesn't apply to handheld radar speed guns though.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.