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

[very-near]

Which is no justification for your adamant refusal to deal with the proven fact that 20mph speed limits save lives. So there are other ways to save lives too, ways that should be looked at. What of it?

What roads do you want to see these 20mph limits applied on ?

 

[very-near]

Reducing deaths on the roads is unnecessary.

That's what you're saying, right?

I'm still waiting for an answer on which roads you think should have the 20mph limits applied ?

 

[very-near]

So a 20mph limit in the right places are a good idea then?

Have I ever said it wasn't . You need to follow this thread before you jump in with your size 12's

 

[Cab]

What roads do you want to see these 20mph limits applied on ?

Primarily, urban ones. And suburban and country ones where pedestrians and cyclists are frequently encountered, plus of course any such roads where we're trying to encourage pedestrians and cyclists.

 

[very-near]

Why? You haven't asked me that. You need to follow this thread. Or at least what you're saying.

And this isn't what the discussion is. It's been proven that 20mph limits improve road safety, and they will increase. You're arguing against it.

Sorry, it was actually Cab who I asked, but seeing as you are both singing from the same song sheet, perhaps you can give a straight answer. I have already stated that this is a sensible idea around schools (certainly when they are actually being used during term time) and also around pedestrianised areas where there is a high foot fall. I don't have aproblem with it being applied to narrow residential streets, but to stick it on dual carriageways with an existing 40/50 or NSL like the North circular makes little sense at all.

Are you suggesting it be applied nationwide on all roads which aren't designated as motorways ?

 

[very-near]

Primarily, urban ones. And suburban and country ones where pedestrians and cyclists are frequently encountered, plus of course any such roads where we're trying to encourage pedestrians and cyclists.

Oh, right - can I join in with this NIMBY attitude ?

If we accept this as a reasonable suggestion to make life easier for the more vulnerable users on the transport network, can I chip in that I'd like to see all lycra clad MTBers banned from bridlepaths as they were built for horseriders and my horses don't like irresponsible and inconsiderate riders charging past them with reckless abandon ? (as they have done)

 

[very-near]

I think by their very nature, only roads with an existing speed limit of 30mph would be deemed appropriate given due consideration for a reduction?

Corrected

 

[Cab]

Oh, right - can I join in with this NIMBY attitude ?

If we accept this as a reasonable suggestion to make life easier for the more vulnerable users on the transport network, can I chip in that I'd like to see all lycra clad MTBers banned from bridlepaths as they were built for horseriders and my horses don't like irresponsible and inconsiderate riders charging past them with reckless abandon ? (as they have done)

Demonstrate an increased risk associated with cyclists on such routes and we can talk about it. You know the kind of thing I mean, like the clear and proven fact that 20mph limits work really well to improve safety.

 

[very-near]

Non Sequiter alert!

A Bearded lycra clad roadie caused my kids pony to bolt through fear when they were hacking down a main road as he came too close to them and was 'grunting' with effort as he cycled up the hill towards them. Should we ban beards on cycles because the pony didn't like him ?

 

[Cab]

A Bearded lycra clad roadie caused my kids pony to bolt through fear when they were hacking down a main road as he came too close to them and was 'grunting' with effort as he cycled up the hill towards them. Should we ban beards on cycles because the pony didn't like him ?

On the basis of one incident? No. But as the study on 20mph zones has nothing whatsoever to do with that and bears no similarity at all to that incident, who gives a $417?

 

[very-near]

Demonstrate an increased risk associated with cyclists on such routes and we can talk about it. You know the kind of thing I mean, like the clear and proven fact that 20mph limits work really well to improve safety.

Most horses don't like cyclists. They don't hear a cycle approaching as they do a car or motorcycle and are only aware of them when they come into their field of vision. When a cycle does come past, they can do so at great speed and cause the horse to bolt if they don't take the time to consider the animal. This is common knowledge amongst horse riders and I've personally had many more near misses on the horse with cyclists not slowing down when passing than cars or m/cyclists or HGV's (both do actually take more care than any other groups as they are aware of the noise factor from their machines/lorries)

Is that good enough ?

 

[very-near]

On the basis of one incident? No. But as the study on 20mph zones has nothing whatsoever to do with that and bears no similarity at all to that incident, who gives a $417?

I was actually following behind on my MTB at the time without fazing the animal one bit and this demonstrates the difference between the right and wrong way to approch animals on the road, but this last bit of your sentence just demonstrates that your attitude is one of a self serving NIMBY and really shows that this crusade of yours has little to do with the welfare of the other vulnerable groups who share the road with you and might be put at risk by the inconsiderate - Well done

 

[very-near]

Statistical Analysis not a strong point then mate?

OK, ride into a any field full of horses , and see how many run when you try to ride close to them.

Do you really need to see statistics to figure that they will either 'fight or flight' or are you that ignorant of them that you don't know how they will react when faced with a fast moving and nearly silent possible 'predator' bearing their teeth (as they see us all). Your lack of awareness of others around you is worrying me

 

[very-near]

^ He meant who gives a sh!t in that its not relevent to this thread, plumpty.

He wants 20mph limits to be applied everywhere to safeguard vulnerable users. I gave an example of a similar solution to safeguard other vulnerable users on bridlepaths and he considered it was not of value. I beg to differ and say it will save lives because we remove rhe risk of dangerous cyclists on bridleways completely - you don't like my plan

 

[Cab]

^ He meant who gives a sh!t in that its not relevent to this thread, plumpty.

Indeed.

What he's saying is about as relevant as 'I once stubbed my toe, so there's no point in road safety'.