# Full 20 mph city limit - a return to non drivers owning their town?



## albion (17 Dec 2013)

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/mobile/news/towns-set-for-pilot-20mph-plan-145696n.22975778

One of the most interesting developments since the congestion charge?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (17 Dec 2013)

To be accurate, these are not cities but very small towns.

It's difficult to imagine these new limits being widely respected. As the related BBC news article states:
_ The proposal does not include traffic calming measures. The limits are to be "largely self-enforcing"._​ 
GC


----------



## booze and cake (17 Dec 2013)

.....where 'self enforcing' is replaced with 'ignored'


----------



## glasgowcyclist (17 Dec 2013)

booze and cake said:


> .....where 'self enforcing' is replaced with 'ignored'


 

Precisely.

GC


----------



## Linford (17 Dec 2013)

Blanket limits = real problem area's at any speed just vanish into the morass


----------



## snorri (17 Dec 2013)

I find this line disappointing......
" If successful the policy could be extended to other areas where there are higher accident rates."

Using accident rates as a measure is quite out of date and unsatisfactory as it fails to recognise that the accident rate is already minimised by the actions of local people who realising the dangers of particular locations adjust their lifestyle and find alternative modes of transport or routes. There are actually few accidents at the places where the reduced speed limit is being introduced, but the quality of life and development of the towns is adversely affected by the speed and volume of motor traffic.


----------



## User482 (17 Dec 2013)

[QUOTE 2825841, member: 45"]It works in my town.

I tire of the "it'll never work so I'll find loads of silly reasons why we shouldn't bother" mindset.[/quote]

It doesn't work in Bristol. But that's purely a problem of enforcement, which would be easily solved with some political will.


----------



## steveindenmark (17 Dec 2013)

I we going back to guys with red flags in front of cars. It could reduce the unemployment figures.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (17 Dec 2013)

They are pretty much ignored around my way, current ACPO guidelines state that they will only be enforced if the areas are landscaped and engineered to feel like 20mph limits rather than 30mph limits with different signs.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (17 Dec 2013)

[QUOTE 2825841, member: 45"]It works in my town.
.[/quote]

What makes it work in your town? Is it general compliance and acceptance or is there enforcement?

GC


----------



## Platinum (17 Dec 2013)

What Keith Brown is either forgetting or he's too stupid to realise that it's not only the speed of vehicles but the number and type. When you've got town centres that look like this

then obviously speed limits are not the only answer. The road in that video is the A7, and if you're going from Carlisle/west of England to Edinburgh/east of Scotland you'd either pick that road or the A702 through Biggar. As well as pushing straight through every town they come across they're also single carriageways, so lorries should technically be limited to 40mph but I don't think I've ever seen one in my life that actually sticks to that.

If you want to avoid driving through these small towns where people live work and play than you could go up to Glasgow then across to Edinburgh and have motorway the whole way, but who in their right mind would choose to cover two sides of the triangle? The A1 in the east also takes a meandering detour around the coast so if you want the direct road south you've got to go through Jedburgh or Coldstream. It's a pattern repeated everywhere. Let me repeat that, the only roads from the South to our capital city look like the one in the video. Keith Brown has got a much larger problem than simple speed limits can solve.

If it was up to me we'd start a programme of building bypasses and filtered permeability in towns and villages on major through routes. However that costs a lot more and is more political than putting up a few non-enforced sign posts.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (17 Dec 2013)

[QUOTE 2825965, member: 45"]I think it's a combination of things. There is traffic calming and street furniture. The majority of the residents drive within the limit and so others are forced to. There are a lot of pedestrians and cyclists, and they are more confident in using the roads so drivers are learning to be more aware. And above all the residents of our town have a large ownership of the place and a strong community. It's the culture that needs to be fostered.[/quote]

Sounds great. At least you've got some traffic calming; the plan for the towns mentioned in the OP is not to have any of that, hence my cynicism.

GC


----------



## Linford (17 Dec 2013)

^ this implies that where people don't own their own houses, that the problems are worse ?


----------



## Linford (17 Dec 2013)

The Asian communities are bound together to a much greater extent than their British counterparts by religion. Go to the mosque/temple etc, get a sermon on howto be a good person, come out and then chew the fat with ones neighbours.....With the demise of the church in the UK, the majority of communities don't live like this any more....nobody even wants to make eye contact on a train or in a public space, and so we fret about the issues to our peers, but don't really deal with them as we don't really have a community spirit in the towns. Very much mind my own business, and you mind yours.


----------



## glenn forger (17 Dec 2013)

[QUOTE 2825997, member: 45"]No. We have a huge amount of rented housing.

This implies that rather than moan about it or make excuses not to do anything we get out of our swivel chairs and do something.

Slightly OT but relevant -in Balsall Heath (Birmingham) 15-20 years ago the locals got fed up of kerb crawlers. So they did something about it. They set up a rota and met on the relevant streets. You'd find groups of Asian men sitting around a table on a corner playing cards, people wandering up and down the roads logging registration numbers. And the problem moved away. It might have gone elsewhere, but the locals took ownership of the issue and did something about it.

Unless you're going to be part of the solution then I don't see that you have any right to complain.[/quote]

Exactly what happened here:









> Prime Minister Joop den Uyl and his wife accepting a record with a protest song by ‘Stop de Kindermoord’ with the radical title: “playing on the streets: death penalty”



http://lcc.org.uk/pages/holland-in-the-1970s


----------



## Shut Up Legs (19 Dec 2013)

Well, there's this:
http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/ParkingTransportandRoads/Roads/Documents/40kmh_speed_limit_map.pdf

and then there's reality. I don't see much compliance with these speed limits, because most Melbourne motorists know damn well that the police can't be everywhere.


----------



## Linford (19 Dec 2013)

Got to be honest, the title of this thread about the non drivers owning the town is at odds with the fact that the very vast majority of miles done in the uk have never been done on 2 wheels ...motorised or pedal powered.


----------



## Kies (19 Dec 2013)

Small towns in Scotland -yeah maybe
Big towns or cities - never happen


----------



## srw (20 Dec 2013)

Linford said:


> Got to be honest, the title of this thread about the non drivers owning the town is at odds with the fact that the very vast majority of miles done in the uk have never been done on 2 wheels ...motorised or pedal powered.


And when you restrict the domain to towns, and drop the myopic consideration only of 2-wheeled transport rather than 2-legged?

I'll give you a clue. The normal way to visit a town is to drive to a carpark, get out of the car and walk.


----------



## Linford (20 Dec 2013)

srw said:


> And when you restrict the domain to towns, and drop the myopic consideration only of 2-wheeled transport rather than 2-legged?
> 
> I'll give you a clue. The normal way to visit a town is to drive to a carpark, get out of the car and walk.



Oh of course, silly me, someone who drives, doesn't actually walk anywhere....


----------



## GrasB (20 Dec 2013)

[QUOTE 2825841, member: 45"]It works in my town.

I tire of the "it'll never work so I'll find loads of silly reasons why we shouldn't bother" mindset.[/quote]When I first moved into my old house the centre of the village it was located in was quiet & relatively relaxed where one could easily cross the roads with care and the zebra crossings were superfluous. In less than 5 years after the 20mph limit was introduced the centre had been turned into to a noisy horn blaring melee & the zebra crossings had to be upgraded to toucan crossings with light jumping cameras on them so you could cross the road on foot. The average speed through the village increased about 1mph, there was approximately the same volume of traffic going through the village in 2011 compared to 1998 & there was far more mid-day speeding in 2011. 

Don't try to tell me that 20mph limits work everywhere because I KNOW they don't. In fact it was so bad it was one of the reasons I decided to move.


----------



## GrasB (20 Dec 2013)

User13710 said:


> Nothing works everywhere.


I think the main reason was the wide spread resistance to the 20mph limit. The main reason for the limit was to stop boy racers using the village to speed through at >60mph... if they're already ignoring the speed limit then putting a lower one in will obviously stop them.


----------



## Linford (20 Dec 2013)

User13710 said:


> Nothing works everywhere.



Which is a good reason why people feel that blanket limits are such a bad thing...familiarity breeds contempt.


----------



## RichK (20 Dec 2013)

It'll be interesting to see what happens with the plans here. 

http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/20mph 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-24208988


----------



## Linford (20 Dec 2013)

User13710 said:


> It certainly works with some approaches



It is by and large in human nature to rage against the machine. Blanket limits are the machine, and for many,rules are made to broken...



> Cyclist entering road from the pavement’
> The second most common contributory factor attributed to cyclists was ‘cyclist entering the road from the pavement’. This was assigned in a fifth of serious collisions and was especially common for children (over a third of serious collisions). This contributory factor includes crossing the road at a pedestrian crossing. Analysis of in-depth investigations from the ‘On The Spot’ project (Cuerden, 2008) found that ‘cyclist crossing or entering the road into the path of a vehicle’ was a frequent collision type for children. More research is required to identify why cyclists are making this manoeuvre and what can be done to reduce such collisions.
> 
> http://webarchive.nationalarchives....gr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme1/ppr445.pdfClick to expand...


----------



## Linford (20 Dec 2013)

User13710 said:


> Anyone would think you were trying derail a thread about 20 mph speed limits with irrelevant links about cyclists (which doesn't work btw).



THis is very pertinent to the discussion...don't dismiss the value of it because you only want to see good or bad in your particular favoured group. 
What I'm trying to demonstrate is that a significant number of road users whether in cars or on cycles will ignore whatever rules are written into law to rein them in. they ignore these rules because they don't like being told what to do. They also ignore these rules because they may not see any logic in the application of them where they don't see others who might report them or be put at risk.


----------



## Linford (20 Dec 2013)

@User13710 ... here is a live link to a duplicate source

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/adviceandinformation/cycling/facts-figures.aspx


----------



## GrasB (20 Dec 2013)

[QUOTE 2830686, member: 45"]And you're exaggerating.[/quote]
In the late 90s I hardly ever heard a car horn in the village, in '05 I'd hear a car horn once or twice every 10min when in the garden. It's unplesant & makes the whole village centre a very intimidating place to do your shopping. This is why it was a reason for me to move.

Crossing the road became a pain due to the fact there was more bunching of vehicles which tend not to leave gaps which overlap. Ironically the actually mid-day speed is about the same, it's just people react negatively to the 20 limit by basically crowding the car in front.

In '06 it was noticed that there had been a vehicle/pedestrian collision every 6-9 weeks since '02, most at the zebra crossings. The zebra crossings were upgraded in '07 to toucan & the number of collisions dropped

Higher average speeds came about as people ignore the 20 limit & tend to drive at a little under 40mph rather than a little over 30mph when the village wasn't busy.


----------



## Linford (20 Dec 2013)

GrasB said:


> In the late 90s I hardly ever heard a car horn in the village, in '05 I'd hear a car horn once or twice every 10min when in the garden. It's unplesant & makes the whole village centre a very intimidating place to do your shopping. This is why it was a reason for me lo
> 
> Crossing the road became a pain due to the fact there was more bunching of vehicles which tend not to leave gaps which overlap. Ironically the actually mid-day speed is about the same, it's just people react negatively to the 20 limit by basically crowding the car in front.
> 
> ...




you should realise now that anecdotal evidence has no value in debates here when someone can trot out some peer reviewed survey done 300 miles away in a totally different setting..


----------



## GrasB (20 Dec 2013)

User13710 said:


> Then clearly another traffic-calming approach was called for in your village, along with the lower speed limit.


Or, here's a novel idea, give the police enough money to actually police the area properly. Traffic calming isn't a deterrent from this behaviour, in fact it can often be seen as an extra challenge.


----------



## Linford (20 Dec 2013)

As a motorcyclist, I particularly find the sloping sides of a speed cushion an unnecessarily dangerous and unneccessary obstacle in the road. the sides of them tends to push you off at a tanget...Be that into the path of an oncoming vehicle or the kerb...


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (20 Dec 2013)

That's why I always ride through the gaps.


----------



## Linford (20 Dec 2013)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> That's why I always ride through the gaps.



I always aim to, but around this way, there is usually a car parked very close to them or there is somethign comingthe other way...or both combined.


----------



## Linford (20 Dec 2013)

[QUOTE 2831031, member: 45"][/quote]

Well that is not really what has been said (well not by me) @misterpaul

What has been said is that blanket limits create familiarity, detract from real problem zones, and ultimately breed contempt.
Sure they have their place outside schools, in shared spaces etc, but across an entire town or city ?....I don't think so


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (20 Dec 2013)

Changing one sign for another only slows down the safe attentive ones, the ones who cause issues are going to ignore it regardless. As I also pointed out before, the 20mph limits aren't enforceable by simply putting the sign up, the area will need to be re-landscaped, which will not happen.


----------



## GrasB (20 Dec 2013)

Linford said:


> As a motorcyclist, I particularly find the sloping sides of a speed cushion an unnecessarily dangerous and unneccessary obstacle in the road. the sides of them tends to push you off at a tanget...Be that into the path of an oncoming vehicle or the kerb...


I'd like to see the return of traditional speed bumps. I have never found properly installed speed bumps a problem on a pedal cycle, motorbike or car. On a cycle I've had a front or rear wheel step to the side on the side slopes & in perfectly road-legal cars which aren't that low speed cushions can cause massive engine & gearbox damage if the speed cushion is precisely the wrong size for your your cars track & suspension. While you can ground out cars on speed bumps the damage done is usually far less sever as car manufactures tend to design in such a way that you ground out things like the floor pan rather than the sump or gearbox housing!


----------



## snorri (20 Dec 2013)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> As I also pointed out before, the 20mph limits aren't enforceable by simply putting the sign up,


 Other speed limits are enforceable, why not the 20mph?


----------



## Markymark (20 Dec 2013)

Cameras are everywhere in London. Surely they could work out using average speed cameras in areas, not just along roads?


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (20 Dec 2013)

snorri said:


> Other speed limits are enforceable, why not the 20mph?



They will be, however, the landscaping and area must feel like a 20mph, so it cannot be mistaken for a 30mph limit, therefore just changing the 30 signs to a 20 is not suitable, and ACPO guidelines state that in this circumstance they will not enforce them.

Where as the link previously to the Birmingham 20mph ones, simply states that no additional traffic calming will be installed, just a change of sign, it's a political keep locals happy tool, not a serious intent to make a difference.


----------



## Globalti (20 Dec 2013)

I thought those bumps were put there for cyclists to jump off?


----------



## snorri (20 Dec 2013)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> They will be, however, the landscaping and area must feel like a 20mph, so it cannot be mistaken for a 30mph limit, and ACPO guidelines state that in this circumstance they will not enforce them.


 There is no conspicuous difference in landscaping between 30 and 40 mph locations, so why do we need it for 20? ACPO guidelines are irrelevant to the OP, but I agree it is a political sop, motor traffic reduction is required as much as reducing speed.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (20 Dec 2013)

snorri said:


> There is no conspicuous difference in landscaping between 30 and 40 mph locations, so why do we need it for 20? ACPO guidelines are irrelevant to the OP, but I agree it is a political sop, motor traffic reduction is required as much as reducing speed.



Street lighting is the usual difference between 30 and 40 limits.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (20 Dec 2013)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> Street lighting is the usual difference between 30 and 40 limits.



30mph limits don't have those smaller speed limit reminder signs.


----------



## Linford (20 Dec 2013)

[QUOTE 2831149, member: 45"]According to the links posted earlier about Birmingham earlier extra measures will be used where necessary. So it will happen. The content of the news story suggests that the planners know what they're talking about rather more than some on here would like to believe.[/quote]

If you might appreciate the enormous mess made of my towns road system over the years, you would be left in no doubt that they are just dabbling. Instead of doing some trials to test the theory, they just plough millions into these ideas with no real idea if they will work.
Subsequently most residents with the benefit of hindsight have lost faith in the experts ability to get it right...they are now meddling with the town centres traffic flow...they have been pushing for it for decades to stop a raod which deals with 10,000 vehciles a day....all they will do is push the problem into the residential streets, create massive gridlock on other roads which have a set of lights every 50 metres...or both !


----------



## Linford (20 Dec 2013)

User3094 said:


> Do Cheltenham Town Council know of these unknown talents?




of who...all of the residents who have to deal with it ?

In my dealings with them I don't think I've come across a more self serving bunch...they are power mad.


----------



## Linford (20 Dec 2013)

[QUOTE 2831414, member: 45"]Cheltenham is 45 minutes south of Birmingham. Please stay relevant to the post you're quoting.[/quote]

I'm not convinced that they might have any more of a clue in Birmingham than anywhere else(or my town....see what I did there )...they all seem to have come from numpty city college...


----------



## Platinum (20 Dec 2013)

The towns in these new trials are not just normal everyday villages with sleepy residential streets which we can happily slap on 20mph signs with few problems. These are *major *trunk roads with the vast majority through traffic. Like I said in my post above, ALL traffic heading north and south between Edinburgh and Carlisle will pass through either Biggar or Langholm, two of the places mentioned for these 20mph trials.

It's not an official trunk road but the A91 at Muckhart has a 20mph limit. It's a major through road carrying traffic from Fife towards Stirling. All the limit succeeds in is pissing people off. Other towns and villages along the same road have 30mph limits. You've been happily driving at 60mph in the country and 30mph in the villages, it's pattern we're all used to. When you come to the twenty, it just seems incomprehensible, like nails dragging down a blackboard, your mind is all perturbed at this alien and incomprehensible spanner that's been put in your A to B works. Regardless of all the arguments, it just doesn't make logical sense from a drivers pov. Which is why the vast majority of traffic I've seen doesn't stick to it, some over 40mph. Traffic volumes are still too high and unpleasant to encourage walking and cycling, then once you're out of the village you're back on twisting 60mph country roads carrying the same volume of traffic anyway only faster. (A cyclist was killed on the A91 at Gateside this summer). On the other hand the very same A91 passes through Cupar, where it has a 30mph limit, but on the busy shopping streets traffic _naturally _travels at around 20mph, below the speed limit, because this is a place where it's narrow, busy, lots of people, parked cars and no central line, the environment screams that this is a place where traffic should slow, and magically it does, and as a driver it doesn't feel weird, you don't feel as though you're having to hold yourself back. (As a side note, I don't know if I want them to make this an official 20mph limit, it might make people think they can speed up!)

So, even if you can find that magic formula, you achieve that elusive 20mph with _actual _measured speed of vehicles, not theoretically on a sign post - it's _still _not a pleasant place to cycle or walk, to cross the road, or when the pavement narrows, if you're looking after kids, if you want to sit and eat a sandwich, if you want to chat with your friends..... because traffic volumes esp lorries is still very high. They still make noise, pollute, amber gamble, split towns in two. The vast majority of though traffic probably wish they didn't have to go through the town and all that palaver too.

If the people of Langholm and Keith Davies think that a 20 limit will solve all their problems then I think they are very wrong. Sure, you're better of being hit by something going at 20mph than 30mph but it's not just speed that makes roads unpleasant places to be. You don't just put in a 20mph limit like a sticking plaster and hope that somehow all that traffic just melts away and the street will become a lively pleasant place where you can shop in peace, cafe culture, your kids can play. If only things were that simple.

Nope, I'm of the opinion that roads should be fit for purpose. I'm not anti-car. No one argues the M25 or the Edinburgh bypass is anti-car. Through traffic has a purpose, and we all need to do it at some point, hopefully in as pleasant and stress-free a way as possible. Residential areas should reduce the amount of traffic passing through as well as speeds. I don't want to be driving through villagers' space as much as they don't want me to be there either. Which is why I support Dutch methods of classifying roads according to their purpose and designing for that, rather than the other way around. I've driven hundreds of miles around the Netherlands and practically the only times you have to go into a town centre is if you have business there, and when you are there, you still don't have to pass through the quieter residential streets. I just don't understand why the British public is so vehemently against bypasses, when even the smallest of Dutch villages have them, making life more pleasant for everyone, villagers and drivers. They've also just got such an incredibly dense motorway network, there's just no need to drive long distance on small single carriageways through towns, and they're still building more! Jeez I could go on forever about how we need more motorways across the whole of the UK. Langholm itself says they can't build a bypass, it's too difficult or its too expensive. There are countless examples of mind-boggling Dutch engineering and design, and they don't start things with "here's the list of reasons why we can't do this". The truth is the people of Langholm don't want to lose their golf course (in a country with the most golf courses per head in the world). They're choosing a little recreation (which frankly a lot of people are not interested in) over the future of their town. They adopted Neil Armstrong, but cannot themselves think big, beyond their narrow horizon, beyond "it's what we've always done".


----------



## snorri (21 Dec 2013)

Yet Transport Scotland are intent on spending megabucks on the A9 between Perth and Inverness , a road that already bypasses every community along its length.


----------



## srw (22 Dec 2013)

Platinum said:


> The towns in these new trials are not just normal everyday villages with sleepy residential streets which we can happily slap on 20mph signs with few problems. These are *major *trunk roads with the vast majority through traffic. Like I said in my post above, ALL traffic heading north and south between Edinburgh and Carlisle will pass through either Biggar or Langholm, two of the places mentioned for these 20mph trials.


No it won't. Most of it will go via Glasgow and the motorways. If there are 20mph zones in place even more of it will. Traffic follows the line of least resistance. Put a block in place and it goes somewhere else.

This is the exact parallel to the argument I've made pointing out why I think archie_tect and others are nuts to want to upgrade the A1 through Northumberland to a dual carriageway - it will just attract traffic.


----------



## bof (2 Jan 2014)

glenn forger said:


> Exactly what happened here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He was Dutch Prime Minister when I first lived there. I never realised he was married to Thora Hird.


----------



## albion (5 Jan 2014)

On the subject of obeying driving laws, 7 out of 10 bus lane rule flouters are London drivers.

http://yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/mai...vers-pay-millions-in-bus-lane-fines-1-6351250

And that often dodgy AA almost seems to think drivers are 'above the law'.

It really does look as though motorists are being used to raise revenue for cash-strapped councils."


----------



## albion (6 Jan 2014)

Sorry RAC. I corrected my comment to 'AA'.

Those people of a more socially responsible nature should choose the RAC.

http://www.moneysupermarket.com/car-insurance/blog/m-way-madness-govt-moots-80mph-limit/

Seems the AA have supported 80mph for years now, even if as a nation we cannot afford the balance of payments loss on top of the deaths, pollution and maybe increased congestion.


----------



## albion (15 Jan 2014)

Edinburgh next, though it looks like it could be a slow rollout.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/news/transport/edinburgh-to-have-20-mph-speed-limit.23162120


----------



## dellzeqq (17 Jan 2014)

Platinum said:


> *I just don't understand why the British public is so vehemently against bypasses*, when even the smallest of Dutch villages have them, making life more pleasant for everyone, villagers and drivers. They've also just got such an incredibly dense motorway network, there's just no need to drive long distance on small single carriageways through towns, and they're still building more! Jeez I could go on forever about how we need more motorways across the whole of the UK. Langholm itself says they can't build a bypass, *it's too difficult or its too expensive.* .


er - because they're too difficult and too expensive? And the Netherlands is the thinking person's vision of transport hell. Roads upon roads upon roads upon roads........


----------



## dellzeqq (17 Jan 2014)

albion said:


> On the subject of obeying driving laws, 7 out of 10 bus lane rule flouters are London drivers.
> 
> http://yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/mai...vers-pay-millions-in-bus-lane-fines-1-6351250
> 
> ...


no - seven out of ten fines imposed for flouting bus lanes are in London. Which is why so few drivers in London flout bus lanes.


----------



## Paspie (17 Jan 2014)

20 Zones (as well as traffic calming) appear to have been dreamt up predominantly out of political will, bolstered by misguided information collected using inadequate methods, rather than out of aspiring to improve road conditions. The 30mph limit has been well advertised and enforced, I highly doubt many road users will respect them given all the damage caused when responsibility for highways were passed on to local councils.


----------



## Paspie (17 Jan 2014)

2878191 said:


> Half right


_Okay_...I really meant well known, but if your going to be persnickety about an oversight on my part, then be my guest.


----------



## Paspie (17 Jan 2014)

It wasn't the point of the message in any case, so why the need to comment on that specific passage.


----------



## Linford (17 Jan 2014)

2878388 said:


> Because 30mph limits are hardly enforced or observed at all



So what makes you think that people who ignore the 30's will all of a sudden take notice of the 20's ?

It isn't the ones already observing the limits who need slowing down is it !


----------



## Stonechat (18 Jan 2014)

If the road system was designed , it wouldn't be like this
It has evolved in a random way, and I agree as a motorist 20 mph sections don't seem to make much sense
I know some 20 sections that were later removed.
Keeping it 30 and having a speed camera is better than a 20 section


----------



## theclaud (18 Jan 2014)

Stonechat said:


> Keeping it 30 and having a speed camera is better than a 20 section



Eh? Why not have a camera _and _a 20mph limit, if it comes to that?


----------



## srw (19 Jan 2014)

2878715 said:


> Cars limited to local speed limits via information from roadside transmitters would be a good idea. I would imagine that could manage motorways better than any current arrangement as well.


In your and my lifetime, self-driving cars will be normal. They will keep to the speed limit and be an awful lot safer than cars driven by over-evolved monkeys.


----------



## MattyKo (19 Jan 2014)

I shall say before adding my comment to the argument, that I have not taken the time to read the comments so far. So I shall apologise for any duplications.

However in a week in which investigation is taking place into the sale of Formula One Motor Sport - How one comes to actually sell a sport seems to me to defeat the notion of sport. However that is how the world has gone - everything and everyone ?

But with the greater ownership of car and motor vehicles and our greater reliance upon these.

All I do wish to say in support of this notion is that whatever vehicles are intended for the distance in which these things have to travel, ie the distance from one town to the next has not increased because of the wider vehicle ownership issue. So driving at 20 mph would reduce prevent accidents and reduce prevent the extent in which these incidents cause injury. 

If we can manufacture HGV vehicles to drive at speeds no greater than 55 mph WHY can we not install within vehicles electronic devices accompanies by infrastructure to prevent them exceeding the speed limit within the city landscape.


----------



## Paspie (19 Jan 2014)

Usually it's not speed that kills though.

On the one hand, we've got overloaded main roads that, while good quality, have got too much traffic for most cyclists to feel comfortable.
On the other hand, we've got quiet back roads with poor design characteristics (resulting in poor visibility etc).

I still believe that bypasses and motorways that accommodate cyclists on the the bypassed surface level and, perhaps, include a new-build local access road along side, are a much better solution than simply bolting on stop-start cycle lanes and ASLs. To those who say that motorways will just accelerate car use: _It will accelerate even without new roads_. Factors such as population and economic growth are much bigger causes of growth in nominal car usage than road construction.

The secondary things we can do is improve training for all road users. We need car drivers to make more considerate passes, avoid tailgating, among other things. In return, they need us to stop filtering down the left side so that they can't see us. I'm even on the verge of suggesting cycle lanes should be removed as they cause too much conflict, and it means there's too much variation in cycling styles (vehicular or segregation?).

This was probably more worthy of a different thread, but that's my thoughts on the entire matter. Bear in mind that I'm not a regular cyclist yet, just very fascinated and keen to start taking it more seriously soon.


----------



## snorri (19 Jan 2014)

Paspie said:


> Bear in mind that I'm not a regular cyclist yet,


That explains a lot
Keep reading, there is more to this road transport than meets the eye.


----------



## glenn forger (20 Jan 2014)

Speeding is the single most common factor in road fatalities. Even that fact misses the point, there doesn't have to be a death for speeding to be anti social, frightening for vulnerable road users and children and old people.


----------



## Paspie (20 Jan 2014)

So what sort of speed do you consider sociable? It really depends on the class of road. We've been happy enough with the urban 30 limit for almost 80 years. 40s are fine for roads with less property and pedestrian density. And then we have 60s, again well established and I don't see any reason for changing (we're talking S2's (single-carriageways) here).

The pesky ones are 20 and 50, which have been cropping up on urban and rural roads respectively. The nearest 20 to me is on an ex-village high street, with traffic calming features and bollards blocking off a rat-run. I haven't noticed any difference in the quality of life since it was implemented, there's still cars, it's still fairly noisy. It is now more difficult to cross the road as there are now more features to have to be aware of. Oh and besides that...the limit is ignored! So all you're left with is a bunch of signs and cheap engineering that make the whole place look...cheap.

There's not many 50s around where I live, but where they are they're often complemented with speed cameras (make up your own mind about these). Traffic will default to 60 until the camera sign, when fierce braking causes the flow to bunch up. I can't blame the council for trying to finance their highways, but they definitely shouldn't be investing in these as they are more of a safety hazard than they should be.

I'd say road design has a bigger social impact than solely speed limits. Thankfully, there is a solution, and that is shared space areas. These are showing a lot of promise but there are still some challenges to be overcome. However, they are good at reducing speed without all the clutter and draconian enforcement schemes. I should hope that in a few years time they will be able to accommodate disabled persons with ease, but for now that's in the future.


----------



## theclaud (20 Jan 2014)

Paspie said:


> So what sort of speed do you consider sociable? It really depends on the class of road.* We've been happy enough with the urban 30 limit for almost 80 years*. 40s are fine for roads with less property and pedestrian density.



Speak for yourself. And what if one of the main _reasons _for the lower pedestrian density is the bloody great 40mph dual carriageway that's slicing up the space they might otherwise be using?


----------



## Paspie (20 Jan 2014)

theclaud said:


> Speak for yourself. And what if one of the main _reasons _for the lower pedestrian density is the bloody great 40mph dual carriageway that's slicing up the space they might otherwise be using?


Maybe there shouldn't be a dual-carriageway there. Maybe it should be partly shared space, partly parking, partly ped. crossings.


----------



## Paspie (20 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2882664, member: 45"]It works in my town.[/quote]
Did the 30 work before it?


----------



## Paspie (20 Jan 2014)

Ugh I don't want to fight it anymore. Maybe I should find something better to do than argue over speed limits.


----------



## Paspie (20 Jan 2014)

Hmmm, I don't own a motor vehicle...


----------



## Paspie (20 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2882828, member: 45"]You don't drive?[/quote]Not yet, and hopefully not even after I get a license.


----------



## Paspie (20 Jan 2014)

Well that's my idea, but it depends on how things turn out.


----------



## MattyKo (23 Jan 2014)

User13710 said:


> It's a pity you didn't bother to read what other people have posted before you joined the debate. And even more of a pity that, apart from the last sentence (just), none of that makes any sense.



I hope you do not consider it unfortunate that I wish to reply to your obvious criticism of my posting.

Does there not exist a direct correlation between vehicles travelling in excess of the speed limit, because of the increased prominence of the motor sports industry (including formula one). Therefore selling the sport by Bernie Ecclestone, seems to run counter to the notion of sport been the testing of man against man or in this case man and machine. 

The second point refers to the fact that the journey between say London to Guildford remains the same distance irrespective of the mode of transport used to travel it. 

Maybe I make little sense, maybe I should consider my statements before posting. 

However I do believe that there is an element of criminality in a world where I would probably be demonised for the stealing a vehicle (as a criminal), whilst causing someone serious injury (or worse) whilst driving would be viewed less serious. Somehow?


----------



## qigong chimp (2 Feb 2014)

Paspie said:


> So what sort of speed do you consider sociable? It really depends on the class of road.


A better q is what sort of personal transport we consider sociable.


> We've been happy enough with the urban 30 limit for almost 80 years.


Oops!


----------



## ComedyPilot (2 Feb 2014)

MattyKo said:


> I hope you do not consider it unfortunate that I wish to reply to your obvious criticism of my posting.
> 
> Does there not exist a direct correlation between vehicles travelling in excess of the speed limit, because of the increased prominence of the motor sports industry (including formula one). Therefore selling the sport by Bernie Ecclestone, seems to run counter to the notion of sport been the testing of man against man or in this case man and machine.
> 
> ...



Read up the word 'intent'

A thief intends to steal something, to thereby deprive the legal owners of the possession of said item.

A person crashing a car, believe it or not (and dare I say like it or not), doesn't intend to crash.

There are a lot of people in this forum and on other cycle-related twitter/facebook/forums that are sick to the back teeth of the catch all, "I didn't see them/didn't mean to do it" excuses carp that drivers have become accustomed to spouting to excuse their hitting other vehicles/people and damaging/injuring and KILLING them.

IMO (and this is only mine) I truly believe EVERY driver is responsible for every INCH their vehicle travels, and if found to be at fault for hitting another person/vehicle, then they should be banned as a minimum and re-tested. 

If they kill or badly injure someone during the incident, then I don't think they deserve the permission to EVER drive again.


----------



## Paspie (2 Feb 2014)

qigong chimp said:


> A better q is what sort of personal transport we consider sociable.


I agree, but unfortunately we don't live in a society where cycling is practical for most people. We live in a society where mums have to look smart for the office, perhaps pop to Sainsburys, the gym, pick the kids up etc.

By the way, don't take me too seriously. As I tried to rant 'anti-20' in this thread I'm now trying my luck wearing the 'pro-20' stance on another forum where most speed cuts are despised. You can check out my progress here.


----------



## oldstrath (3 Feb 2014)

Paspie said:


> I agree, but unfortunately we don't live in a society where cycling is practical for most people. We live in a society where mums have to look smart for the office, perhaps pop to Sainsburys, the gym, pick the kids up etc.



I'm not a mum, but I do try to look presentable - it's called a shower, I don't need to go to the gym, no problem picking up shopping in the trailer on the way home. if we stopped believing that everything had to be done by car kids could walk or cycle.


----------



## Paspie (3 Feb 2014)

Okay, I'll admit I was trolling. In reality I'm undecided as to whether we should or should not cater for the car, instead of anything else. Whether we should cater for the culture or whether we should try to manipulate it.

Once you've seen the kind of road designs I like to work on that try to cater for everything, then maybe you'll change your opinion about me.


----------



## oldstrath (3 Feb 2014)

Paspie said:


> Okay, I'll admit I was trolling. In reality I'm undecided as to whether we should or should not cater for the car, instead of anything else. Whether we should cater for the culture or whether we should try to manipulate it.
> 
> Once you've seen the kind of road designs I like to work on that try to cater for everything, then maybe you'll change your opinion about me.



Easy question. Chuck the car away and stick with bikes and pedestrians. Anything else is just a stupid compromise intened to offer a sop to the killing machine fans.


----------



## Linford (3 Feb 2014)

glenn forger said:


> *Speeding is the single most common factor in road fatalities*. Even that fact misses the point, there doesn't have to be a death for speeding to be anti social, frightening for vulnerable road users and children and old people.




Wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## oldstrath (3 Feb 2014)

Linford said:


> Wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


First part might be wrong, but the bit about fear isn't - fast traffic scares people. The other advantage of universal 20 is it would take away one imagined advantage of cars.


----------



## glenn forger (3 Feb 2014)

> Speeding is the main cause of road traffic collisions, deaths
> and serious injury. Loss of control of the driving task, and thus potentially of the vehicle, arises when the demands of the
> driving task exceed the available capability of the driver. As speed increases the task demand rises and the driver’s capability
> is reduced.



http://www.etsc.eu/documents/PRAISE Thematic Report 8 Driving for Work Managing Speed.pdf



> According to police, speeding was the main cause of death on the roads in 2012 - followed by inattention and use of drugs or alcohol.



http://www.u.tv/News/Concern-over-level-of-2013-road-deaths/ba61b2b5-62cd-453f-b140-392dcc352f5a

It's common sense, it's why 20 mph zones can reduce casualties by up to 40% and the only thing that's changed is that cars go slower, so accidents sharply fall.


----------



## mickle (3 Feb 2014)

Linford said:


> Wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Go on then, tell us, what is the single most common factor in road fatalities?


----------



## Paspie (3 Feb 2014)

The trouble with a lot of these surveys is that they don't examine other factors that may be involved during road accidents. Sure, they can say that fatalities have reduced since the introduction of a lower speed limit, but advances in vehicle design and road engineering have been doing just that for decades and without a way to discount this they cannot prove that 20s reduce accidents. That's why you see speed limits being reduced where accidents are common, even though many of those accidents happened at less than the speed limit. More importantly though, lowering speed limits will not stop drivers who are already speeding.

Can't believe some of you are still missing the point that I haven't even got a car. :/


----------



## Flying Dodo (3 Feb 2014)

Linford said:


> Wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



If a car doesn't move at all, then I can't think of any way it could possibly kill anyone. So cars at rest are fine. Unless of course someone from the Starship Enterprise tried to beam into the same volume of space as occupied by the car engine for example. But that's a fairly remote possibility.

Once a car starts moving, then it becomes a lethal weapon.


----------



## Linford (3 Feb 2014)

glenn forger said:


> http://www.etsc.eu/documents/PRAISE Thematic Report 8 Driving for Work Managing Speed.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Wrong !!!!!!!!!!

You cherry pick and paint with too broad a brush to be taken seriously

Your numbers include 'inappropriate' speed which can cover anything from walking pace to triple the posted limit



> *January 2011*
> 
> Inappropriate speed contributes to around 14% of all injury collisions, 15% of crashes resulting in a serious injury and 24% of collisions which result in a death and are recorded by the police.1 This includes both 'excessive speed', when the speed limit is exceeded but also driving or riding within the speed limit when this is too fast for the conditions at the time (for example, in poor weather, poor visibility or high pedestrian activity).
> 
> ...



Your quotes just go to show that you only see the issue from a very narrow perspective.....


----------



## Tin Pot (3 Feb 2014)

Make driving mandatory for all journeys.


----------



## Paspie (3 Feb 2014)

2909589 said:


> Perhaps no one cares?


No one needs to care, but it ought to be acknowledged before anyone jumps to assumptions.

Just for the record, speeding has nothing to do with speed limits.


----------



## Paspie (3 Feb 2014)

Not trolling this time round. And, to be completely honest, I don't advocate speeding, that is just dangerous. However, it is assuming that the limits are set sensibly. Councils used to set them by the 85th percentile , until they decided we couldn't be trusted so 'nannying' with traffic calming, speed cameras, among other things, started. This sort of road vandalism should not be accepted.


----------



## Paspie (3 Feb 2014)

User3094 said:


> In our Carcentric Brave New World, we the motorist decide what the limits are and how "appropriate" our speeds will be.


Sometimes though, we fail to decide properly, either caring too much about one's enjoyment on the road, being drunk, careless, or just plain stupid. These matters should be dealt with separately. What they don't warrant is for rules to be forced upon everyone else, most of which are law-abiding citizens.


----------



## Paspie (3 Feb 2014)

I say there's good and bad points to both the Safe Speed and BRAKE manifestos, but I think there's one thing we can all agree on: there is too much conflict between the advocates of both. It's a shame the UK population can't agree on anything, and that will leave our road system in a precarious state for some time to come.


----------



## oldstrath (3 Feb 2014)

Paspie said:


> Sometimes though, we fail to decide properly, either caring too much about one's enjoyment on the road, being drunk, careless, or just plain stupid. These matters should be dealt with separately. What they don't warrant is for rules to be forced upon everyone else, most of which are law-abiding citizens.


If they are actually law abiding then the rules are not being 'forced on them'. Tell you what though, let's allow the arrogant twunts to set their own limits. But if you hit someone we take away their car, their licence (permanently), their liberty and any money we can find. Because freedom has a cost.


----------



## Linford (3 Feb 2014)

[QUOTE 2909613, member: 45"]Inappropriate speed_ is _speeding, silly.[/quote]


Wrong !!!!!!!

I've highlighted the pertinent bit so you better understand the true definition of the term 



> _n._
> The act or an instance of driving especially a motor vehicle *faster than is allowed by law*.
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/speeding


----------



## theclaud (3 Feb 2014)

Paspie said:


> I say there's good and bad points to [...] the Safe Speed [...] manifesto.



Should I go for "pffffft!" or ""snork!"?


----------



## Linford (3 Feb 2014)

[QUOTE 2909710, member: 45"]Sorry Linf, but you're being a buffoon. That's not the true definition.

Here's one you won't like, as it's from your buddies... http://roadsafety.mccofnsw.org.au/a/49.html[/quote]


Ah yes, these people who warn me of the risk of running over a passing Kangaroo on their website 










> *About Us*
> Established in 1982, the MCC of NSW is the peak body for motorcycling in this state. It represents over 41 clubs, with more than 36,000 riders.
> 
> We lobby locally, nationally and internationally for motorcycle riders' rights. We promote motorcycling and the interests of motorcyclists.
> ...



So not really affiliated to anyone apart from themselves....I'd trust the dictionaries definitions than the website of a collection of self interest groups.


----------



## glenn forger (3 Feb 2014)

Paspie said:


> I say there's good and bad points to both the Safe Speed and BRAKE manifestos.



Have BRAKE suggested using grieving families to avoid speeding fines?


----------



## Linford (3 Feb 2014)

[QUOTE 2909757, member: 45"]So why did you ignore the other dictionary definitions which don't agree with you?[/quote]

I'm more interested to know why you have to go to the far side of the world to get something which agrees with your world view 



> driving faster than is allowed in a particular area:She was fined for speeding last month.
> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/speeding





> (past and past participle speeded)[NO OBJECT] (of a motorist or vehicle) travel at a speed that is greater than the legal limit:_the car that crashed was speeding_
> http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/speed?q=speeding#speed__16





> *speed·ing*
> [spee-ding] speed limit: a $50 fine for speeding.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/speeding?s=t





> speed‧ing [uncountable]
> 
> the offence of driving faster than the legal limit:
> http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/speeding



All dictionary definitions Paul


----------



## Linford (3 Feb 2014)

[QUOTE 2909837, member: 45"]Look again. You're excluding definitions on your first results page.

No, actually, don't. You're trolling. It's pathetic.[/quote]






And another thing....all this right of way nonsense in your sig...you can't give away your priority...you can choose to invite others out, but that still doesn't give them priority in the event if it were argued in court...just saying


----------



## Linford (3 Feb 2014)

[QUOTE 2909875, member: 45"]It's a direct quote from the Highway Code. Go argue it with them.[/quote]

The Highway code also states the difference between 'should' and 'must' which are pertinent to written law...I don't see either in that statement


----------



## snorri (3 Feb 2014)

Linford said:


> The Highway code also states the difference between 'should' and 'must' which are pertinent to written law...I don't see either in that statement


 Linf, please don't allow yourself to drift off the thread topic, it just ruins the forum for everyone.


----------



## glenn forger (4 Feb 2014)

> Roger Lawson of the Alliance of British Drivers said they were not effective in promoting safety. “If these cameras are grey rather than yellow they are going to be harder to spot and so will have no impact in slowing traffic down,” he said. “If there is a good reason for the traffic to be slowed down then the cameras need to be as visible as possible.”



http://www.theguardian.com/politics...son-hosts-his-lbc-phone-in-politics-live-blog

Motorists lobbying against their criminal behaviour being addressed.


----------



## Linford (4 Feb 2014)

snorri said:


> Linf, please don't allow yourself to drift off the thread topic, it just ruins the forum for everyone.



You mean that people just apply their interpretation of terminology to distort the true picture, and that is OK, but when anyone you dislike questions that, you claim your right to accuse people of trolling?

Far too many people looking at the issue and allowing their prejudices to distort reality....


----------



## snorri (4 Feb 2014)

Linford said:


> You mean that people just apply their interpretation of terminology to distort the true picture, and that is OK, but when anyone you dislike questions that, you claim your right to accuse people of trolling?
> 
> Far too many people looking at the issue and allowing their prejudices to distort reality....


See Post 154.


----------



## Stonechat (4 Feb 2014)

[QUOTE 2910537, member: 45"]To clarify, and bring this back from the dead-end...

Speeding, as in going too fast, is the single most common factor in road fatalities.

And for clarity, a couple of examples of the definitions listed in your Google search which you have chosen to omit (though the argument is irrelevant:

_noun 
☆ the act of driving a motor vehicle at a higher speed than is safe or legal_

_speed·ing (spē′dĭng) 
adj. 
Moving with speed._

_*Speeding* – *defined* as "exceeding the posted speed limit, driving too fast for conditions, or racing"_

*What is speeding?*
_There are two types of speeding:_

_Where a heavy vehicle travels faster than the posted speed limit._
_Where a driver travels within the speed limit but because of road conditions (eg fog or rain) this speed is inappropriate._
[/quote]
There are two entirely different issues here - perhaps it would be better if there were different words

1 Going faster than legal speed limit. This is not in itself inherently dangerous - though speed as said is a big factor is the level of injury in accidents.

2 Driving beyond the safe speed given the road and conditions. Ther are many country roads with a 60 limits but it is not safe to go at anywhere near that speed.

To me speeding always meant driving over the speed limit.
Going too fast is what it says


----------



## Linford (4 Feb 2014)

Stonechat said:


> There are two entirely different issues here - perhaps it would be better if there were different words
> 
> 1 Going faster than legal speed limit. This is not in itself inherently dangerous - though speed as said is a big factor is the level of injury in accidents.
> 
> ...




Do stop trying to offer rational definitions...it just promotes irrational fervour amgonst the discombobulated


----------



## Linford (4 Feb 2014)

2910813 said:


> Taken by itself alone, without any need to consider how speed increases the probability of a collision in the first place, this appears sufficient to settle the matter.



Would you liketo have a go at explaining why the fastest roads in the UK (motorways) are also the safest ?


----------



## Stonechat (4 Feb 2014)

Linford said:


> Do stop trying to offer rational definitions...it just promotes irrational fervour amgonst the discombobulated


NO it is a response to confusing references by earlier posters


----------



## Linford (4 Feb 2014)

2910834 said:


> Relative.




Your relatives use the fastest roads in the UK....can't you go and have an illogical rant at them as well?


----------



## Paspie (4 Feb 2014)

Ironically the social problems associated with motor-vehicles on public roads were best put by J. Clarkson on 4x4s:

"4x4s are like nuclear weapons. Once one person has one then for protection, so must everyone else."


----------



## Paspie (5 Feb 2014)

But what if I'm not trolling? I said earlier I'd stopped...

BTW you guys sure aren't living up to the slogan you bill yourselves with. It isn't fun, and it's certainly not friendly.


----------



## theclaud (5 Feb 2014)

Paspie said:


> But what if I'm not trolling? *I said earlier I'd stopped..*.



Gee - thanks for letting us know. I'm sure everyone's really enjoying the little game.


----------



## StuartG (5 Feb 2014)

Stonechat said:


> There are two entirely different issues here - perhaps it would be better if there were different words
> 
> 1 Going faster than legal speed limit. This is not in itself inherently dangerous ...


Can I stop you right there and claim that it is for at least two reasons:

1. Those of us who drive within the legal limit are all too often intimidated by those that do not. Some are are pushed into driving faster - which can sometimes be justified as speed differential on some roads is even more dangerous than speed itself. 

2. Those that willingly speed all so often justify their misbehaviour on _"everybody does it, don't they". _(Which also demonstrates their lack of observation!)


----------



## benb (5 Feb 2014)

I'd point out that the attitude of "Well I can exceed the speed limit quite safely, not like some drivers, but I'm excellent, so should be able to drive as fast as I like" is exactly the same attitude as "Obviously it's stupid to drink and drive if you can't handle it, but I'm capable of driving perfectly well after a couple, well 3 max, plus one for the road"


----------



## Paspie (5 Feb 2014)

As with everything it is subjective.

The future, we can only hope, is that we can all use the road responsibly and we won't need speed limits but...it is impossible to tell the right time for that to happen.


----------



## Paspie (6 Feb 2014)

2912614 said:


> Until then, is there a problem with taking limits as limits and enforcing them as such?


Please stop talking to me.


----------



## Linford (6 Feb 2014)

2912255 said:


> I'm sorry that you don't find it fun or friendly. Perhaps you could try a couple of things. Firstly leave off tolling and don't mention it again. That way you could leave it behind.
> Secondly, stick to things you understand.




Special prize for arrogant and aloof post of the week nomination ?

BTW, it doesn't stop you from rattling on Adrian


----------



## Feastie (6 Feb 2014)

I live in one of these 20mph areas and to be honest I don't feel it makes much difference. The people who drive a bit dangerously are exactly the same people who don't really care about 20mph limits. The good drivers continue driving well, and the drivers with poor judgement and risk-taking tendencies continue to do so. 

In fact, all the traffic calming measures - islands, road bumps etc. - I've actually grown to dislike. It's like a red flag to a bull. They *HAVE* to overtake the cyclist before the speed bump or before the traffic island but then having accelerated past at top speed, they have to slam on the brakes for said obstacle, and usually almost take out the car in the opposite lane/you as the cyclist as they suddenly pull across then brake right in front of you.

Also, on an irrelevant note, I hate cycling over speed bumps :P


----------



## Linford (6 Feb 2014)

Feastie said:


> I live in one of these 20mph areas and to be honest I don't feel it makes much difference. The people who drive a bit dangerously are exactly the same people who don't really care about 20mph limits. The good drivers continue driving well, and the drivers with poor judgement and risk-taking tendencies continue to do so.
> 
> In fact, all the traffic calming measures - islands, road bumps etc. - I've actually grown to dislike. It's like a red flag to a bull. They *HAVE* to overtake the cyclist before the speed bump or before the traffic island but then having accelerated past at top speed, they have to slam on the brakes for said obstacle, and usually almost take out the car in the opposite lane/you as the cyclist as they suddenly pull across then brake right in front of you.
> 
> Also, on an irrelevant note, I hate cycling over speed bumps :P



You are inviting the wrath of the riteous for talking common sense...


----------



## snorri (7 Feb 2014)

Paspie said:


> The future, we can only hope, is that we can all use the road responsibly and we won't need speed limits but...it is impossible to tell the right time for that to happen.


When control of the vehicle is taken out of the hands of the driver speed limits and all of the annoying paraphernalia, speed humps pinch points etc. can be discarded. Roll on the day.


----------



## snorri (7 Feb 2014)

Linford said:


> You are inviting the wrath of the riteous for talking common sense...


 
Snorri gives virtual double flash of headlights in direction of Linf to warn of unmarked vehicle in next layby on his left occupied by a couple of snooping spelling pedants.


----------



## Linford (7 Feb 2014)

2915820 said:


> No one likes speed bumps. If only we could find a way to live without them.



Some people do = @User 

We still live without them on many roads....their presence causes a lot of unnecessary erosion and repairs to the fabric of the road. I can live with the odd one in specific places like outside schools, but they are overkill where I live and cause more problems than they solve.


----------



## Linford (7 Feb 2014)

Pedants corner ?


----------



## albion (7 Feb 2014)

A 20 mph speed limit is likely preferable to speed bumps, unless you own a repair garage.


----------



## albion (7 Feb 2014)

Are you also a fully fledged member of the 'pothole protection league' ?


----------



## benb (7 Feb 2014)

I hate speed bumps, cushions and the like.
Even more, I hate the fact that they are necessary.


----------



## Linford (7 Feb 2014)

User3094 said:


> Do you drive a particulary flimsy car?




Get a 'proper' 4x4 and the job's a goodun 

In fact, they may become a real requirement for the regular roads before long. The water damage is going to show in the next few months on roads which appear to be OK now as the ground underneat them dries.


----------



## Linford (7 Feb 2014)

[QUOTE 2916272, member: 45"]Potholed roads can be safely driven in a normal car without damaging the vehicle, if you have the right skills.[/quote]

Tell that to the cyclist who went over the bars in front of me last night because they hit a pothole.
I safely drove that track for 2 years before the weld gave way. It was probably wekened by successive passes, and eventually succumbed to metal fatigue...regular cars are not designed to be driven reguarly over rough terrain..that is why proper 4x4's are heavy...thye are built fit for purpose.


----------



## Linford (7 Feb 2014)

User3094 said:


> Only if you cant drive.



I think you ought to beat the rush and get a 'proper' car which is fit for the roads of Britain...instead of that noddy type thing you use


----------



## Linford (7 Feb 2014)

[QUOTE 2916335, member: 45"]Trolling or dim? You tell me.[/quote]


Who the cyclist who rode into the pothole instead of around it ? I think that is very uncharitable of you if you feel that way


----------



## albion (7 Mar 2014)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...estion-means-average-speed-towns-17-8mph.html

So increased congestion means the average non London city speed is now 17.8mph.
I bet that means London is down to about 13mph or less.

Would they not at the very least half deaths if they mandated all inner London Roads as a 20mph maximum ?


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (7 Mar 2014)

It may be an idea to ask anyone against traffic calming if they're in favour of speed cameras set at speed limit +1mph.
Wonder what the reaction would be?


----------

