Eh? Why not have a camera and a 20mph limit, if it comes to that?
Full 20 mph city limit - a return to non drivers owning their town?
- Thread starter albion
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Eh? Why not have a camera and a 20mph limit, if it comes to that?
MattyKo
Active Member
- Location
- The North Bank of the HUMBER
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.
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
Senior Member
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.
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
Legendary Member
- Location
- East coast, up a bit.
That explains a lot
Keep reading, there is more to this road transport than meets the eye.
glenn forger
Guest
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
Senior Member
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.
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.
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
Senior Member
Maybe there shouldn't be a dual-carriageway there. Maybe it should be partly shared space, partly parking, partly ped. crossings.
MattyKo
Active Member
- Location
- The North Bank of the HUMBER
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?
