More than 32,000 people have died on British roads in the past 10 years

[very-near]

You mean you make yourself look that stupid delibrately?!

It would only be fair to be give that tag to someone who claims that they believe that slower driving is the way forward, but then totally ignores it and picks up multiple convictions for speeding smeggers

 

[very-near]

I dont believe, Linford, I know. On account of reading the evidence. Have you?

answer truthfully, does 'knowing' actually make a difference ?

 

[Cab]

answer truthfully, does 'knowing' actually make a difference ?

I know on account of the evidence. I've read it. Have you?

 

[StuartG]

I'm sorry, I wrongly attributed your cycle activity to cycle commuting as you come across as fairly hardcore.

Thank you.

However, If you cycle on public roads, the point made about being overtaken still stands!

Not sure what you are on about here. Some motorists overtake safely. Others do not. If you ride correctly it should not unduly effect the good driver. It may protect you from the bad (if they keep their cool). It is not something to get emotional about.

Same with speed. How do we cope with the inconsiderate driver? 20mph calming is one way in some residential areas. The upside in KSI is compelling. Compelling enough surely to be a minor inconvenience to the considerate. So is anybody arguing against the principle of an expansion of zones?

How far is a separate and more complicated question.

 

[marinyork]

How far?

If someone wants to have a look at the south sheffield cycle map I can show you how many 20 and traffic calmed zones there are in the city. The answer is very few.

It's 750kb in pdf so it won't be posted on the forum http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/roads-a...-walking-and-prow/cycling/sheffield-cycle-map

it is the pink areas. A lot of the pink areas aren't even 20s, they are mildly traffic calmed 30s.

 

[StuartG]

How far?

I assume the usual rule of diminishing returns. There is no point in putting them in places which will not produce a significant result. It costs money, it alienates people and in the end it jeopardises the places we really need them.

Sounds like it is not an immediate issue Sheffield-wise. So how will the LEA and other stakeholders determine if when there will an extension. May be something to have on the table for the upcoming local elections in May?

 

[very-near]

How far?

I assume the usual rule of diminishing returns. There is no point in putting them in places which will not produce a significant result. It costs money, it alienates people and in the end it jeopardises the places we really need them.

Sounds like it is not an immediate issue Sheffield-wise. So how will the LEA and other stakeholders determine if when there will an extension. May be something to have on the table for the upcoming local elections in May?

We are in agreement!

 

[marinyork]

How far?

Sounds like it is not an immediate issue Sheffield-wise. So how will the LEA and other stakeholders determine if when there will an extension. May be something to have on the table for the upcoming local elections in May?

It's not an election issue in the sense that the Liberal Democrat administration has passed it on to community assemblies to sort out. The community assembles are made up of people that make Bad Company and Linford seem restrained and pro-bicycle yoghurt knitters. The only ones that aren't are the lot around the city centre so there's a chance we'll get a 20mph zone in the city centre.

The where it is needed argument is not one people entertain. The biggest rewards would be on 900 yards of A road that has a very bad ped and cyclist record.

 

[just jim]

answer truthfully, does 'knowing' actually make a difference ?

Does having you come on to C+PP actually make a difference?

Same old same old. Why not finish up like you usually do with a winking smilie, and we can get it over with.

 

[StuartG]

The community assembles are made up of people that make Bad Company and Linford seem restrained and pro-bicycle yoghurt knitters

Why is Sheffield like that? Our local CA would probably go head over heels for traffic calming. After every crash there is a knee-jerk call for humps, traffic cameras et al. But it is not delegated decision.

 

[very-near]

The only unspoken agenda is yours. 20mph limits save lives. They're supported in here because of this.

You're anti them because of, well you've not said yet, and your agenda will remain unspoken until you start being honest with yourself and with us.

The fact that you've dredged the depths for as many arguments against them as you can and come up with some real pathetic classics (they'll make me fall asleep and I'll kill someone is perhaps the best) shows that there's something else behind it.

And no, we're not all pedestrians in the sense that a pedestrian is someone who walks further than to and from their car. You'll know this full well, especially living in an area like Cheltenham.

I'm sorry if you don't like what I'm posting, but the reality is that your crusade doesn't really do more than scratch the surface. To say that 300 deaths due to tiredness is pathetic is a bit beyond the mark.

The way you trivialise this is not doing your argument any favours.

 

[very-near]

Why do you think our local primary school tries to dissuade the pupils from cycling in? Go on, have a guess. I'm sure you've got some idea.

And while you're at it, have a think about the average distance between a child's house and their school. It's more than the 200yds either side of the entrance that you'd want to restrict the 20mph limit to.

Perhaps because they feel that mixing kids who have no road sense with drivers who drive at a standard which is below the safe minimum requirement is a risk they cannot be party to ?



Hopefully this situation will change in the near future, when we've done something to slow the traffic down on the routes the children take to school. (there's a very big clue there for you)

The clue is in the 'standard'. Whether the limit is 20 or 30, if they are not paying attention, a life could be lost, and as we know already by my previous example of the 12mph death that even 20mph is too fast if the victim lands badly.

You focus on impact speed like all drivers point their cars like some sort of blind dodgem game, I've had a few offs over the years and consider that collision avoidance is always going to be better option.

Simple question:-

What is more dangerous ?

1. a 20mph collision
2. a near miss as the alert driver managed to avoid the 'potential' victim

 

[very-near]

How ironic that someone who has spent 48 pages rubbishing a proven method of improving road safety is accusing supporters of reducing the number of deaths on the road of trivialising the issue.

I see you've not responded to my very easily found list of links which completely debunks all of your arguments against the further implementation of 20mph limits.

I also see that you've continued to avoid the question speed at which you'd prefer to be hit by a car (20 or 30), and it's blatantly clear why.

I'm sorry, you answered a question with another one

What is more dangerous ?

1. a 20mph collision
2. a near miss as the alert driver managed to avoid the 'potential' victim

 

[Cab]

Very-near, you're not answering questions put to you. Fair questions. Its unsirprising that this is frustrating people. You want a good, fair, un-heated discussion? Answer the questions put to you before asking more. Your attitude here is, sooner or later, going to frustrate someone to the point of crossing the line, and then the record (in what will, likely as not, be a locked thread) reflect badly on you.

 

[very-near]

They are concerned that their intelligent and road aware children will be run over by the idiot drivers who blast around the local roads.

The safe minimum requirement should not have to take into account these idiots. And why should it?

So the community is doing something about it.


And you also know that 20mph limits will certainly reduce this risk.

No I don't.

20mph limits are proven to save lives. What's the focus on? Slowing people down.

Yes, collision avoidance improvements would also help, but it's not one or the other, as you so regularly try to make it.



D'oh. We both know the answer.

And one right back at you-


At the point when this alert driver is alerted to the hazard, which is more dangerous?

• Him travelling at 30mph?
• Him travelling at 20mph?

Note that I'm pandering to you despite the fact that you can magic up however many scenarios you like, but the fact remains that 20mph limits improve road safety. Pretend that it's not the reduction in speed that makes the difference if you like, but it won't change anything. You'll still be wrong.

What age will you be happy for your kids to go to school on their own ?