|
Reducing speed to 20mph ‘created more deaths than injuries’ but council can’t afford to scrap them
On 18/12/2017 09:41, Bod wrote:
A council has said that 20mph zones recently introduced in its area will stay despite a rise in the number of deaths and injuries. Â*Bath and North East Somerset Council spent £871,000 bringing in the 13 new speed zones just 12 months ago. Woman openly admits she loves her dog more than her only child But one year on, a report has found that the rate of people killed or seriously injured has gone up in seven out of the 13 new 20mph zones. The report, published in May 2017 by Bath and North East Somerset Council, says this is a national trend. Â*The council suggests people are ‘less diligent’ when walking and crossing roads within the zones, because they think they are safer. Deputy council leader Councillor Patrick Anketell-Jones has admitted there simply isn’t the money available to reverse the 20mph zones. http://metro.co.uk/2017/12/18/reduci...8/?ito=cbshare The Council said "it would cost £800,000 to remove the signs" That's a ridiculous amount! -- Bod |
Reducing speed to 20mph ‘created more deaths than injuries’ but council can’t afford to scrap them
In message , Bod
writes On 18/12/2017 09:41, Bod wrote: A council has said that 20mph zones recently introduced in its area will stay despite a rise in the number of deaths and injuries. Â*Bath and North East Somerset Council spent £871,000 bringing in the 13 new speed zones just 12 months ago. Woman openly admits she loves her dog more than her only child But one year on, a report has found that the rate of people killed or seriously injured has gone up in seven out of the 13 new 20mph zones. The report, published in May 2017 by Bath and North East Somerset Council, says this is a national trend. Â*The council suggests people are ‘less diligent’ when walking and crossing roads within the zones, because they think they are safer. Deputy council leader Councillor Patrick Anketell-Jones has admitted there simply isn’t the money available to reverse the 20mph zones. http://metro.co.uk/2017/12/18/reduci...d-deaths-injur ies-council-cant-afford-scrap-7167628/?ito=cbshare The Council said "it would cost £800,000 to remove the signs" That's a ridiculous amount! Surely there are a couple of Poles or Romanians who will do the job for a tiny fraction of £800,000? -- Ian |
Reducing speed to 20mph ‘created more deaths than injuries’ but council can’t afford to scrap them
On 18/12/2017 10:38, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Bod writes On 18/12/2017 09:41, Bod wrote: A council has said that 20mph zones recently introduced in its area willÂ* stay despite a rise in the number of deaths and injuries. Â* Â*Bath and North East Somerset Council spent £871,000 bringing in the 13Â* new speed zones just 12 months ago. Woman openly admits she loves herÂ* dog more than her only child But one year on, a report has found thatÂ* the rate of people killed or seriously injured has gone up in seven outÂ* of the 13 new 20mph zones. The report, published in May 2017 by Bath andÂ* North East Somerset Council, says this is a national trend. Â* Â*The council suggests people are ‘less diligent’ when walking and crossing roads within the zones, because they think they are safer. Deputy council leader Councillor Patrick Anketell-Jones has admitted there simply isn’t the money available to reverse the 20mph zones. http://metro.co.uk/2017/12/18/reduci...d-deaths-injur ies-council-cant-afford-scrap-7167628/?ito=cbshare The Council said "it would cost £800,000 to remove the signs" That's a ridiculous amount! Surely there are a couple of Poles or Romanians who will do the job for a tiny fraction of £800,000? A lot of truth in your answer. -- Bod |
Reducing speed to 20mph ‘created more deaths than injuries’ but council can’t afford to scrap them
In message , James Wilkinson Sword
writes On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 09:59:42 -0000, Bod wrote: On 18/12/2017 09:41, Bod wrote: A council has said that 20mph zones recently introduced in its area will stay despite a rise in the number of deaths and injuries. Bath and North East Somerset Council spent £871,000 bringing in the 13 new speed zones just 12 months ago. Woman openly admits she loves her dog more than her only child But one year on, a report has found that the rate of people killed or seriously injured has gone up in seven out of the 13 new 20mph zones. The report, published in May 2017 by Bath and North East Somerset Council, says this is a national trend. The council suggests people are ‘less diligent’ when walking and crossing roads within the zones, because they think they are safer. Deputy council leader Councillor Patrick Anketell-Jones has admitted there simply isn’t the money available to reverse the 20mph zones. http://metro.co.uk/2017/12/18/reduci...ed-deaths-inju ries-council-cant-afford-scrap-7167628/?ito=cbshare The Council said "it would cost £800,000 to remove the signs" That's a ridiculous amount! It's not just the signs, you have to get 50 people to sign off health and softy agreements to make sure the workers are safe while removing them from those er.... slow safe areas. Indeed. I often see minor road-side road works where putting the warning signs and removing them probably took a lot longer than the work itself. -- Ian |
Reducing speed to 20mph ‘created more deaths than injuries’ but council can’t afford to scrap them
On 18/12/2017 09:59, Bod wrote:
On 18/12/2017 09:41, Bod wrote: A council has said that 20mph zones recently introduced in its area will stay despite a rise in the number of deaths and injuries. Â*Â*Bath and North East Somerset Council spent £871,000 bringing in the 13 new speed zones just 12 months ago. Woman openly admits she loves her dog more than her only child But one year on, a report has found that the rate of people killed or seriously injured has gone up in seven out of the 13 new 20mph zones. The report, published in May 2017 by Bath and North East Somerset Council, says this is a national trend. Â*Â*The council suggests people are ‘less diligent’ when walking and crossing roads within the zones, because they think they are safer. Deputy council leader Councillor Patrick Anketell-Jones has admitted there simply isn’t the money available to reverse the 20mph zones. http://metro.co.uk/2017/12/18/reduci...8/?ito=cbshare The Council said "it would cost £800,000 to remove the signs" That's a ridiculous amount! The findings won't stop 'pressure groups' demanding more such zones or councils introducing them- leading to more unnecessary injuries and deaths. Obviously there are instances of bad driving- including of course driving under the influence etc.- and no one is suggesting they shouldn't be dealt with. However, introducing measures which are not only known to fail but be harmful is more than ridiculous. |
Reducing speed to 20mph ‘created more deaths than injuries’ but council can’t afford to scrap them
On 18-Dec-17 9:59 AM, Bod wrote:
On 18/12/2017 09:41, Bod wrote: A council has said that 20mph zones recently introduced in its area will stay despite a rise in the number of deaths and injuries. Â*Â*Bath and North East Somerset Council spent £871,000 bringing in the 13 new speed zones just 12 months ago. Woman openly admits she loves her dog more than her only child But one year on, a report has found that the rate of people killed or seriously injured has gone up in seven out of the 13 new 20mph zones. The report, published in May 2017 by Bath and North East Somerset Council, says this is a national trend. Â*Â*The council suggests people are ‘less diligent’ when walking and crossing roads within the zones, because they think they are safer. Deputy council leader Councillor Patrick Anketell-Jones has admitted there simply isn’t the money available to reverse the 20mph zones. http://metro.co.uk/2017/12/18/reduci...8/?ito=cbshare The Council said "it would cost £800,000 to remove the signs" That's a ridiculous amount! They are talking of 20mph zones. A 20mph speed limit can be reversed simply by issuing the necessary traffic order and removing the signs. A 20mph zone has to be designed to be self-enforcing, which means lots of traffic calming measures. Those would also need to be removed and the roads restored to their former condition to reverse a 20mph zone. -- -- Colin Bignell |
Reducing speed to 20mph ‘created more deaths than injuries’ but council can’t afford to scrap them
On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 5:36:34 PM UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 18-Dec-17 9:59 AM, Bod wrote: On 18/12/2017 09:41, Bod wrote: A council has said that 20mph zones recently introduced in its area will stay despite a rise in the number of deaths and injuries. Â*Â*Bath and North East Somerset Council spent £871,000 bringing in the 13 new speed zones just 12 months ago. Woman openly admits she loves her dog more than her only child But one year on, a report has found that the rate of people killed or seriously injured has gone up in seven out of the 13 new 20mph zones. The report, published in May 2017 by Bath and North East Somerset Council, says this is a national trend.. Â*Â*The council suggests people are ‘less diligent’ when walking and crossing roads within the zones, because they think they are safer. Deputy council leader Councillor Patrick Anketell-Jones has admitted there simply isn’t the money available to reverse the 20mph zones. http://metro.co.uk/2017/12/18/reduci...8/?ito=cbshare The Council said "it would cost £800,000 to remove the signs" That's a ridiculous amount! They are talking of 20mph zones. A 20mph speed limit can be reversed simply by issuing the necessary traffic order and removing the signs. A 20mph zone has to be designed to be self-enforcing, which means lots of traffic calming measures. Those would also need to be removed and the roads restored to their former condition to reverse a 20mph zone. -- -- Colin Bignell Holy Cow, talk about a blast from the past. Have you heard anything from Huge Davies or Steve Firth recently? |
Reducing speed to 20mph ‘created more deaths than injuries’ but council can’t afford to scrap them
"Nightjar" wrote in message ... On 18-Dec-17 9:59 AM, Bod wrote: On 18/12/2017 09:41, Bod wrote: A council has said that 20mph zones recently introduced in its area will stay despite a rise in the number of deaths and injuries. Bath and North East Somerset Council spent £871,000 bringing in the 13 new speed zones just 12 months ago. Woman openly admits she loves her dog more than her only child But one year on, a report has found that the rate of people killed or seriously injured has gone up in seven out of the 13 new 20mph zones. The report, published in May 2017 by Bath and North East Somerset Council, says this is a national trend. The council suggests people are ‘less diligent’ when walking and crossing roads within the zones, because they think they are safer. Deputy council leader Councillor Patrick Anketell-Jones has admitted there simply isn’t the money available to reverse the 20mph zones. http://metro.co.uk/2017/12/18/reduci...8/?ito=cbshare The Council said "it would cost £800,000 to remove the signs" That's a ridiculous amount! They are talking of 20mph zones. A 20mph speed limit can be reversed simply by issuing the necessary traffic order and removing the signs. A 20mph zone has to be designed to be self-enforcing, which means lots of traffic calming measures. Those would also need to be removed and the roads restored to their former condition to reverse a 20mph zone. but do they absolutely need to be? the road outside my estate has speed calming humps, but the speed limit is still 30 mph tim |
Reducing speed to 20mph ‘created more deaths than injuries’ but council can’t afford to scrap them
On 18/12/2017 10:38, Ian Jackson wrote:
Bod wrote Bod wrote: A council has said that 20mph zones recently introduced in its area willÂ* stay despite a rise in the number of deaths and injuries. http://metro.co.uk/2017/12/18/reduci...d-deaths-injur ies-council-cant-afford-scrap-7167628/?ito=cbshare The Council said "it would cost £800,000 to remove the signs" That's a ridiculous amount! Surely there are a couple of Poles or Romanians who will do the job for a tiny fraction of £800,000? Sorry, has to be done. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8dB4YnLSsE |
Reducing speed to 20mph ‘created more deaths than injuries’ but council can’t afford to scrap them
On 18-Dec-17 6:12 PM, tim... wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message ... .... They are talking of 20mph zones. A 20mph speed limit can be reversed simply by issuing the necessary traffic order and removing the signs. A 20mph zone has to be designed to be self-enforcing, which means lots of traffic calming measures. Those would also need to be removed and the roads restored to their former condition to reverse a 20mph zone. but do they absolutely need to be? the road outside my estate has speed calming humps, but the speed limit is still 30 mph Some measures are not considered to be effective in a 30mph limit and would probably need to be removed. If humps are retained, they would need lit warning signs (not required in a 20mph zone) and appropriate road markings (also not a requirement in a 20mph zone) to be added. -- -- Colin Bignell |
Reducing speed to 20mph ‘created more deaths than injuries’ but council can’t afford to scrap them
On 18/12/2017 09:59, Bod wrote:
On 18/12/2017 09:41, Bod wrote: A council has said that 20mph zones recently introduced in its area will stay despite a rise in the number of deaths and injuries. Â*Â*Bath and North East Somerset Council spent £871,000 bringing in the 13 new speed zones just 12 months ago. Woman openly admits she loves her dog more than her only child But one year on, a report has found that the rate of people killed or seriously injured has gone up in seven out of the 13 new 20mph zones. The report, published in May 2017 by Bath and North East Somerset Council, says this is a national trend. Â*Â*The council suggests people are ‘less diligent’ when walking and crossing roads within the zones, because they think they are safer. Deputy council leader Councillor Patrick Anketell-Jones has admitted there simply isn’t the money available to reverse the 20mph zones. http://metro.co.uk/2017/12/18/reduci...8/?ito=cbshare The Council said "it would cost £800,000 to remove the signs" That's a ridiculous amount! It doesn’t surprise me. The liberals like to mollycoddle. It's obvious that when people feel safer they'll take more risks. Of course, the liberals will be thinking to lower the speed limit top 10mph, to prevent people being seriously injured or killed. I've noticed at crossings on busy roads, when people see the green man, they just cross without looking for any traffic, thinking that people that drive will always be alert and stop. I always look to see if anybody driving as seen the red traffic light. It's saved me from injuries a few times. At crossings on busy roads where there are traffic lights but not the red/green man for pedestrians, I'm always extra cautious before crossing. The best way for any person not getting run over, is for their survival instinct to be at the highest level. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
Reducing speed to 20mph ‘created more deaths than injuries’ but council can’t afford to scrap them
On 18/12/2017 20:53, Woolly Jumper wrote:
On 18/12/2017 09:59, Bod wrote: On 18/12/2017 09:41, Bod wrote: A council has said that 20mph zones recently introduced in its area will stay despite a rise in the number of deaths and injuries. Â*Â*Bath and North East Somerset Council spent £871,000 bringing in the 13 new speed zones just 12 months ago. Woman openly admits she loves her dog more than her only child But one year on, a report has found that the rate of people killed or seriously injured has gone up in seven out of the 13 new 20mph zones. The report, published in May 2017 by Bath and North East Somerset Council, says this is a national trend. Â*Â*The council suggests people are ‘less diligent’ when walking and crossing roads within the zones, because they think they are safer. Deputy council leader Councillor Patrick Anketell-Jones has admitted there simply isn’t the money available to reverse the 20mph zones. http://metro.co.uk/2017/12/18/reduci...8/?ito=cbshare The Council said "it would cost £800,000 to remove the signs" That's a ridiculous amount! It doesn’t surprise me.Â* The liberals like to mollycoddle.Â* It's obvious that when people feel safer they'll take more risks.Â*Â* Of course, the liberals will be thinking to lower the speed limit top 10mph, to prevent people being seriously injured or killed. I've noticed at crossings on busy roads, when people see the green man, they just cross without looking for any traffic, thinking that people that drive will always be alert and stop. I always look to see if anybody driving as seen the red traffic light.Â* It's saved me from injuries a few times. At crossings on busy roads where there are traffic lights but not the red/green man for pedestrians, I'm always extra cautious before crossing. The best way for any person not getting run over, is for their survival instinct to be at the highest level. Except for cyclists, they rely on everyone else for their safety and take no responsibility at all. |
Reducing speed to 20mph ‘created more deaths than injuries’ but council can’t afford to scrap them
On 18/12/2017 20:53, Woolly Jumper wrote:
On 18/12/2017 09:59, Bod wrote: On 18/12/2017 09:41, Bod wrote: A council has said that 20mph zones recently introduced in its area will stay despite a rise in the number of deaths and injuries. Â*Â*Bath and North East Somerset Council spent £871,000 bringing in the 13 new speed zones just 12 months ago. Woman openly admits she loves her dog more than her only child But one year on, a report has found that the rate of people killed or seriously injured has gone up in seven out of the 13 new 20mph zones. The report, published in May 2017 by Bath and North East Somerset Council, says this is a national trend. Â*Â*The council suggests people are ‘less diligent’ when walking and crossing roads within the zones, because they think they are safer. Deputy council leader Councillor Patrick Anketell-Jones has admitted there simply isn’t the money available to reverse the 20mph zones. http://metro.co.uk/2017/12/18/reduci...8/?ito=cbshare The Council said "it would cost £800,000 to remove the signs" That's a ridiculous amount! It doesn’t surprise me.Â* The liberals like to mollycoddle.Â* It's obvious that when people feel safer they'll take more risks.Â*Â* Of course, the liberals will be thinking to lower the speed limit top 10mph, to prevent people being seriously injured or killed. I've noticed at crossings on busy roads, when people see the green man, they just cross without looking for any traffic, thinking that people that drive will always be alert and stop. I always look to see if anybody driving as seen the red traffic light.Â* It's saved me from injuries a few times. At crossings on busy roads where there are traffic lights but not the red/green man for pedestrians, I'm always extra cautious before crossing. The best way for any person not getting run over, is for their survival instinct to be at the highest level. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus Agreed, I do the same....*never assume*. -- Bod |
Reducing speed to 20mph 'created more deaths than injuries' but council can't afford to scrap them
MrCheerful wrote:
On 18/12/2017 20:53, Woolly Jumper wrote: On 18/12/2017 09:59, Bod wrote: On 18/12/2017 09:41, Bod wrote: A council has said that 20mph zones recently introduced in its area will stay despite a rise in the number of deaths and injuries. Bath and North East Somerset Council spent £871,000 bringing in the 13 new speed zones just 12 months ago. Woman openly admits she loves her dog more than her only child But one year on, a report has found that the rate of people killed or seriously injured has gone up in seven out of the 13 new 20mph zones. The report, published in May 2017 by Bath and North East Somerset Council, says this is a national trend. The council suggests people are 'less diligent' when walking and crossing roads within the zones, because they think they are safer. Deputy council leader Councillor Patrick Anketell-Jones has admitted there simply isn't the money available to reverse the 20mph zones. http://metro.co.uk/2017/12/18/reduci...8/?ito=cbshare The Council said "it would cost £800,000 to remove the signs" That's a ridiculous amount! It doesn't surprise me. The liberals like to mollycoddle. It's obvious that when people feel safer they'll take more risks. Of course, the liberals will be thinking to lower the speed limit top 10mph, to prevent people being seriously injured or killed. I've noticed at crossings on busy roads, when people see the green man, they just cross without looking for any traffic, thinking that people that drive will always be alert and stop. I always look to see if anybody driving as seen the red traffic light. It's saved me from injuries a few times. At crossings on busy roads where there are traffic lights but not the red/green man for pedestrians, I'm always extra cautious before crossing. The best way for any person not getting run over, is for their survival instinct to be at the highest level. Except for cyclists, they rely on everyone else for their safety and take no responsibility at all. They rely on everything and everybody. This is known as sponging. |
Reducing speed to 20mph created more deaths than injuries
Brian Reay posted
On 18/12/2017 09:59, Bod wrote: On 18/12/2017 09:41, Bod wrote: A council has said that 20mph zones recently introduced in its area will stay despite a rise in the number of deaths and injuries. Â*Â*Bath and North East Somerset Council spent £871,000 bringing in the 13 new speed zones just 12 months ago. Woman openly admits she loves her dog more than her only child But one year on, a report has found that the rate of people killed or seriously injured has gone up in seven out of the 13 new 20mph zones. The report, published in May 2017 by Bath and North East Somerset Council, says this is a national trend. What a pity the report doesn't cite the actual numbers of accidents. Perhaps they are so insignificant that no inferences can be drawn. Perhaps in the wards where accidents increased, they increased by only one each, while in the ward where they decreased, they decreased by 10 each. Perhaps the annual variations in accident numbers were large *before* the 20mph limits were introduced, perhaps much larger than the variations after introduction. Which would suggest that several more years of data are needed. Â*Â*The council suggests people are ‘less diligent’ when walking and crossing roads within the zones, because they think they are safer. Deputy council leader Councillor Patrick Anketell-Jones has admitted there simply isn’t the money available to reverse the 20mph zones. http://metro.co.uk/2017/12/18/reduci...ed-deaths-inju ries-council-cant-afford-scrap-7167628/?ito=cbshare -- Jack |
Reducing speed to 20mph ‘created more deaths than injuries’ but council can’t afford to scrap them
On 18/12/2017 23:38, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 20:53:10 -0000, Woolly Jumper wrote: On 18/12/2017 09:59, Bod wrote: On 18/12/2017 09:41, Bod wrote: A council has said that 20mph zones recently introduced in its area will stay despite a rise in the number of deaths and injuries. Â* Bath and North East Somerset Council spent £871,000 bringing in the 13 new speed zones just 12 months ago. Woman openly admits she loves her dog more than her only child But one year on, a report has found that the rate of people killed or seriously injured has gone up in seven out of the 13 new 20mph zones. The report, published in May 2017 by Bath and North East Somerset Council, says this is a national trend. Â* The council suggests people are ‘less diligent’ when walking and crossing roads within the zones, because they think they are safer. Deputy council leader Councillor Patrick Anketell-Jones has admitted there simply isn’t the money available to reverse the 20mph zones. http://metro.co.uk/2017/12/18/reduci...8/?ito=cbshare The Council said "it would cost £800,000 to remove the signs" That's a ridiculous amount! It doesn’t surprise me.Â* The liberals like to mollycoddle.Â* It's obvious that when people feel safer they'll take more risks.Â*Â* Of course, the liberals will be thinking to lower the speed limit top 10mph, to prevent people being seriously injured or killed. I've noticed at crossings on busy roads, when people see the green man, they just cross without looking for any traffic, thinking that people that drive will always be alert and stop. I always look to see if anybody driving as seen the red traffic light.Â* It's saved me from injuries a few times. At crossings on busy roads where there are traffic lights but not the red/green man for pedestrians, I'm always extra cautious before crossing. The best way for any person not getting run over, is for their survival instinct to be at the highest level. At lights?!Â* Round here they just walk blindly across at any point on the road then are surprised when they hear my horn. LOL --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
Reducing speed to 20mph created more deaths than injuries
On 19/12/17 09:25, Handsome Jack wrote:
Brian Reay posted On 18/12/2017 09:59, Bod wrote: On 18/12/2017 09:41, Bod wrote: A council has said that 20mph zones recently introduced in its area will stay despite a rise in the number of deaths and injuries. Â*Â*Bath and North East Somerset Council spent £871,000 bringing in theÂ* 13 new speed zones just 12 months ago. Woman openly admits she lovesÂ* her dog more than her only child But one year on, a report has foundÂ* that the rate of people killed or seriously injured has gone up inÂ* seven out of the 13 new 20mph zones. The report, published in May 2017Â* by Bath and North East Somerset Council, says this is a national trend. What a pity the report doesn't cite the actual numbers of accidents. Perhaps they are so insignificant that no inferences can be drawn. Perhaps in the wards where accidents increased, they increased by only one each, while in the ward where they decreased, they decreased by 10 each. Perhaps the annual variations in accident numbers were large *before* the 20mph limits were introduced, perhaps much larger than the variations after introduction. Which would suggest that several more years of data are needed. Quite. If the death rate was so high that it is possible to notice a change just one year after the alterations, it seems that they had a much bigger problem to solve than putting in 20 limits. Even if they can find something statistically significant after just a year, perhaps it is because it takes time for people to adjust to the changes. For instance, perhaps they find their old crossing points are no longer convenient or optimum and they have to find new ones. But is 20mph the only change that has been introduced? How about changes outside the zones that have moved traffic into them? Light controlled crossings, perhaps? - these encourage risk taking amongst people that don't want to stand and wait. But if the changes make people *feel* safer to be out and about, then in one respect, it must be considered a success. Residential roads that feel intimidating can't be a valid safety measure. |
Reducing speed to 20mph ‘created more deaths than injuries’ but council can’t afford to scrap them
On 18/12/2017 17:36, Nightjar wrote:
They are talking of 20mph zones. A 20mph speed limit can be reversed simply by issuing the necessary traffic order and removing the signs. A 20mph zone has to be designed to be self-enforcing, which means lots of traffic calming measures. It doesn't have to be: all of the recent 20mph zones in Lancashire just have new signs on poles. Those would also need to be removed and the roads restored to their former condition to reverse a 20mph zone. ... and some stretches of roads reverted to 30mph after the locals complained. |
Reducing speed to 20mph ?created more deaths than injuries? but council can?t afford to scrap them
On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 18:22:23 +0000, Nick Finnigan
wrote: On 18/12/2017 17:36, Nightjar wrote: They are talking of 20mph zones. A 20mph speed limit can be reversed simply by issuing the necessary traffic order and removing the signs. A 20mph zone has to be designed to be self-enforcing, which means lots of traffic calming measures. It doesn't have to be: all of the recent 20mph zones in Lancashire just have new signs on poles. Where I live we have loads of 20MPH zones and it too has just been done with signs and some road markings. Those would also need to be removed and the roads restored to their former condition to reverse a 20mph zone. ... and some stretches of roads reverted to 30mph after the locals complained. |
Reducing speed to 20mph ‘created more deaths
On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 18:22:23 +0000
Nick Finnigan wrote: On 18/12/2017 17:36, Nightjar wrote: They are talking of 20mph zones. A 20mph speed limit can be reversed simply by issuing the necessary traffic order and removing the signs. A 20mph zone has to be designed to be self-enforcing, which means lots of traffic calming measures. It doesn't have to be: all of the recent 20mph zones in Lancashire just have new signs on poles. Those would also need to be removed and the roads restored to their former condition to reverse a 20mph zone. ... and some stretches of roads reverted to 30mph after the locals complained. I doubt anyone expects cars to stick to 20 anyway. I imagine the thinking behind it is that at 30 cars do anything up to 40 so put 20 signs up and they'll do 25-30 which is acceptable. |
Reducing speed to 20mph ‘created more deaths than injuries’ but council can’t afford to scrap them
On 20-Dec-17 6:22 PM, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 18/12/2017 17:36, Nightjar wrote: They are talking of 20mph zones. A 20mph speed limit can be reversed simply by issuing the necessary traffic order and removing the signs. A 20mph zone has to be designed to be self-enforcing, which means lots of traffic calming measures. Â*It doesn't have to be: all of the recent 20mph zones in Lancashire just have new signs on poles.... Are you sure they are 20mph zones, which have the word ZONE under the 20mph speed limit sign at the start of the zone, and not simply areas with a 20mph limit, which don't have the word ZONE and, if long enough, will have 20mph repeater signs? -- -- Colin Bignell |
Reducing speed to 20mph ‘created more deaths
|
Reducing speed to 20mph ‘created more deaths
|
Reducing speed to 20mph ‘created more deaths than injuries’ but council can’t afford to scrap them
On 21/12/2017 12:47, Nightjar wrote:
On 20-Dec-17 6:22 PM, Nick Finnigan wrote: On 18/12/2017 17:36, Nightjar wrote: They are talking of 20mph zones. A 20mph speed limit can be reversed simply by issuing the necessary traffic order and removing the signs. A 20mph zone has to be designed to be self-enforcing, which means lots of traffic calming measures. Â*Â*It doesn't have to be: all of the recent 20mph zones in Lancashire just have new signs on poles.... Are you sure they are 20mph zones, which have the word ZONE under the 20mph speed limit sign at the start of the zone, and not simply areas with a 20mph limit, which don't have the word ZONE and, if long enough, will have 20mph repeater signs? Most people, including metro reporters would refer to them as zones. Lancashire refer to them as areas; BathNES refer to them as rural areas. |
Reducing speed to 20mph ‘created more deaths than injuries’ but council can’t afford to scrap them
On 21-Dec-17 11:36 PM, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 21/12/2017 12:47, Nightjar wrote: On 20-Dec-17 6:22 PM, Nick Finnigan wrote: On 18/12/2017 17:36, Nightjar wrote: They are talking of 20mph zones. A 20mph speed limit can be reversed simply by issuing the necessary traffic order and removing the signs. A 20mph zone has to be designed to be self-enforcing, which means lots of traffic calming measures. Â*Â*It doesn't have to be: all of the recent 20mph zones in Lancashire just have new signs on poles.... Are you sure they are 20mph zones, which have the word ZONE under the 20mph speed limit sign at the start of the zone, and not simply areas with a 20mph limit, which don't have the word ZONE and, if long enough, will have 20mph repeater signs? Â*Most people, including metro reporters would refer to them as zones. Lancashire refer to them as areas; BathNES refer to them as rural areas. Which is why I asked. If they are not officially designated as 20mph zones, but simply have a 20mph limit, traffic calming measures are optional. -- -- Colin Bignell |
Reducing speed to 20mph ‘created more deaths
On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 17:42:28 +0000
Nightjar wrote: On 21-Dec-17 11:09 AM, wrote: .... I doubt anyone expects cars to stick to 20 anyway. I imagine the thinking behind it is that at 30 cars do anything up to 40 so put 20 signs up and they'll do 25-30 which is acceptable. The aim really is to reduce speeds to 20mph, or not much above it. This is based upon the 1979 findings that pedestrians struck by a car doing 30mph have a 20% risk of dying, as compared to 2.5% at 20mph. More recently, this has been revised down to 8% and 1.5%, which may be due to improvements in vehicle design since the first report. However, it is I get a bit fed up with those statistics. You could take it to its absurd logical conclusion and say at zero mph there is a 0% risk of anyone dying! However society has to balance risk with activity and I think most drivers accept that 30mph is pretty much the best compromise limit on local streets unless they're really narrow or unpaved. the most ignored limit of all, with 84% of cars exceeding 20mph, as compared to 46% exceeding 70mph on motorways. Hardly surprising. I ignore them too. The only people who stick to 20 are pensioners but thats their normal driving speed anyway. |
Reducing speed to 20mph ‘created more deaths
On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 19:42:28 +0000
Ian Jackson wrote: In message , Nightjar writes On 21-Dec-17 11:09 AM, wrote: ... I doubt anyone expects cars to stick to 20 anyway. I imagine the thinking behind it is that at 30 cars do anything up to 40 so put 20 signs up and they'll do 25-30 which is acceptable. The aim really is to reduce speeds to 20mph, or not much above it. This is based upon the 1979 findings that pedestrians struck by a car doing 30mph have a 20% risk of dying, as compared to 2.5% at 20mph. More recently, this has been revised down to 8% and 1.5%, which may be due to improvements in vehicle design since the first report. However, it is the most ignored limit of all, with 84% of cars exceeding 20mph, as compared to 46% exceeding 70mph on motorways. One problem is that if there is an accident because of 'speeding', there is often an immediate call to lower the speed limit - with little reference to how fast the offending vehicle was actually going. I recall near here there was fatal accident on a 50mph limit main road. Some people wanted a 40 limit - despite the vehicle's estimated speed being at least 80mph. The obvious answer might be simply be to enforce the existing limits. Unfortunately a lot of councils do that with speed humps which limit your speed to far lower than the posted limit (which is probably deliberate) unless you want to pay for expensive suspension repairs. If you even did 20 over some speedhumps you'd **** one or more struts, never mind 30. I find I have to crawl over some at not much more than 10 or my car risks bumping its stops. |
Reducing speed to 20mph ‘created more deaths
In message , writes
On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 19:42:28 +0000 Ian Jackson wrote: In message , Nightjar writes On 21-Dec-17 11:09 AM, wrote: ... I doubt anyone expects cars to stick to 20 anyway. I imagine the thinking behind it is that at 30 cars do anything up to 40 so put 20 signs up and they'll do 25-30 which is acceptable. The aim really is to reduce speeds to 20mph, or not much above it. This is based upon the 1979 findings that pedestrians struck by a car doing 30mph have a 20% risk of dying, as compared to 2.5% at 20mph. More recently, this has been revised down to 8% and 1.5%, which may be due to improvements in vehicle design since the first report. However, it is the most ignored limit of all, with 84% of cars exceeding 20mph, as compared to 46% exceeding 70mph on motorways. One problem is that if there is an accident because of 'speeding', there is often an immediate call to lower the speed limit - with little reference to how fast the offending vehicle was actually going. I recall near here there was fatal accident on a 50mph limit main road. Some people wanted a 40 limit - despite the vehicle's estimated speed being at least 80mph. The obvious answer might be simply be to enforce the existing limits. Unfortunately a lot of councils do that with speed humps which limit your speed to far lower than the posted limit (which is probably deliberate) unless you want to pay for expensive suspension repairs. If you even did 20 over some speedhumps you'd **** one or more struts, never mind 30. I find I have to crawl over some at not much more than 10 or my car risks bumping its stops. In my local town, there are 13 speed bumps in a 30 limit, all in a distance of about 600 yards. They are the individual, rectangular type, in pairs - one on each half of the road. Motor bikes can pass between the bumps, or on either side. Chelsea Tractors (which comprise at least half the vehicles in this affluent part of the world) can usually completely straddle one the bumps. It's really only those with 'ordinary' cars with a 'normal' wheel width that really suffer. You have the choice of having either the left side or the right side of the car experiencing the full lift of centre of the a bump, or partially straddling it - with both sides of the car getting only a partial lift as the wheels pass simultaneously over both of the sloping shoulders. Despite it being a 30 limit, I wouldn't dream of passing over any of the 13 bumps at more than about 20mph. As I resist the temptation to accelerate between the bumps, I end up travelling the whole 600 yards at 20. [I don't mind this at all - and would indeed be happy to do the same if there was a bump-less 20 limit.] However, I then often end up with a procession of vehicles following me at 20mph. There are occasions when one vehicle will suddenly break rank, and tear off furiously to the front of the procession at a hell of a lot more than the 30 limit. As the road with the bumps ends at a 'Give Way' sign at a T-junction with another road, I usually reach the end immediately behind the vehicle that couldn't wait behind me, waiting at the Give Way sign. The whole thing is crazy. -- Ian |
Reducing speed to 20mph 'created more deaths than injuries' but council can't afford to scrap them
James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:03:39 -0000, Brian Reay wrote: On 18/12/2017 09:59, Bod wrote: On 18/12/2017 09:41, Bod wrote: A council has said that 20mph zones recently introduced in its area will stay despite a rise in the number of deaths and injuries. Bath and North East Somerset Council spent £871,000 bringing in the 13 new speed zones just 12 months ago. Woman openly admits she loves her dog more than her only child But one year on, a report has found that the rate of people killed or seriously injured has gone up in seven out of the 13 new 20mph zones. The report, published in May 2017 by Bath and North East Somerset Council, says this is a national trend. The council suggests people are 'less diligent' when walking and crossing roads within the zones, because they think they are safer. Deputy council leader Councillor Patrick Anketell-Jones has admitted there simply isn't the money available to reverse the 20mph zones. http://metro.co.uk/2017/12/18/reduci...8/?ito=cbshare The Council said "it would cost £800,000 to remove the signs" That's a ridiculous amount! The findings won't stop 'pressure groups' demanding more such zones or councils introducing them- leading to more unnecessary injuries and deaths. Obviously there are instances of bad driving- including of course driving under the influence etc.- and no one is suggesting they shouldn't be dealt with. However, introducing measures which are not only known to fail but be harmful is more than ridiculous. Especially speedbumps which cause criminal damage to the spines of the elderly and disabled. I want to see council employees jailed. Hucker's psychopathic views on road safety are below. What a ******! "I have driven a Ford Sierra 1.6 at 90mph on single track roads with passing places in the NW of Scotland. ****ing great fun"! "I am proud of being nicked 10 times, and even prouder of talking my way out of twice that number of offences". "Make that 12. 9 speeding offences, 2 seatbelts, and 1 unroadworthy vehicle". Make that 3 seatbelt offences, "I don't give a **** about the law". "**** the law". "It's only illegal is you get caught". "Something being illegal does not matter". "The law is irrelevant". |
Reducing speed to 20mph ‘created more deaths
On 22/12/2017 20:40, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , writes On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 19:42:28 +0000 Ian Jackson wrote: In message , Nightjar writes On 21-Dec-17 11:09 AM, wrote: ... I doubt anyone expects cars to stick to 20 anyway. I imagine the thinking behind it is that at 30 cars do anything up to 40 so put 20 signs up and they'll do 25-30 which is acceptable. The aim really is to reduce speeds to 20mph, or not much above it. This is based upon the 1979 findings that pedestrians struck by a car doing 30mph have a 20% risk of dying, as compared to 2.5% at 20mph. More recently, this has been revised down to 8% and 1.5%, which may be due to improvements in vehicle design since the first report. However, it is the most ignored limit of all, with 84% of cars exceeding 20mph, as compared to 46% exceeding 70mph on motorways. One problem is that if there is an accident because of 'speeding', there is often an immediate call to lower the speed limit - with little reference to how fast the offending vehicle was actually going. I recall near here there was fatal accident on a 50mph limit main road. Some people wanted a 40 limit - despite the vehicle's estimated speed being at least 80mph. The obvious answer might be simply be to enforce the existing limits. Unfortunately a lot of councils do that with speed humps which limit your speed to far lower than the posted limit (which is probably deliberate) unless you want to pay for expensive suspension repairs. If you even did 20 over some speedhumps you'd **** one or more struts, never mind 30. I find I have to crawl over some at not much more than 10 or my car risks bumping its stops. In my local town, there are 13 speed bumps in a 30 limit, all in a distance of about 600 yards. They are the individual, rectangular type, in pairs - one on each half of the road. Motor bikes can pass between the bumps, or on either side. Chelsea Tractors (which comprise at least half the vehicles in this affluent part of the world) can usually completely straddle one the bumps. It's really only those with 'ordinary' cars with a 'normal' wheel width that really suffer. You have the choice of having either the left side or the right side of the car experiencing the full lift of centre of the a bump, or partially straddling it -Â* with both sides of the car getting only a partial lift as the wheels pass simultaneously over both of the sloping shoulders. Despite it being a 30 limit, I wouldn't dream of passing over any of the 13 bumps at more than about 20mph. As I resist the temptation to accelerate between the bumps, I end up travelling the whole 600 yards at 20. [I don't mind this at all - and would indeed be happy to do the same if there was a bump-less 20 limit.] However, I then often end up with a procession of vehicles following me at 20mph. There are occasions when one vehicle will suddenly break rank, and tear off furiously to the front of the procession at a hell of a lot more than the 30 limit. As the road with the bumps ends at a 'Give Way' sign at a T-junction with another road, I usually reach the end immediately behind the vehicle that couldn't wait behind me, waiting at the Give Way sign. The whole thing is crazy. If you take the humps at the sharpest angle you can, then one wheel at a time goes up and the overall shock is massively reduced. |
Reducing speed to 20mph 'created more deaths than injuries' but council can't afford to scrap them
James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 21:54:16 -0000, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote: James Wilkinson Sword wrote: On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:03:39 -0000, Brian Reay wrote: On 18/12/2017 09:59, Bod wrote: On 18/12/2017 09:41, Bod wrote: A council has said that 20mph zones recently introduced in its area will stay despite a rise in the number of deaths and injuries. Bath and North East Somerset Council spent £871,000 bringing in the 13 new speed zones just 12 months ago. Woman openly admits she loves her dog more than her only child But one year on, a report has found that the rate of people killed or seriously injured has gone up in seven out of the 13 new 20mph zones. The report, published in May 2017 by Bath and North East Somerset Council, says this is a national trend. The council suggests people are 'less diligent' when walking and crossing roads within the zones, because they think they are safer. Deputy council leader Councillor Patrick Anketell-Jones has admitted there simply isn't the money available to reverse the 20mph zones. http://metro.co.uk/2017/12/18/reduci...8/?ito=cbshare The Council said "it would cost £800,000 to remove the signs" That's a ridiculous amount! The findings won't stop 'pressure groups' demanding more such zones or councils introducing them- leading to more unnecessary injuries and deaths. Obviously there are instances of bad driving- including of course driving under the influence etc.- and no one is suggesting they shouldn't be dealt with. However, introducing measures which are not only known to fail but be harmful is more than ridiculous. Especially speedbumps which cause criminal damage to the spines of the elderly and disabled. I want to see council employees jailed. Hucker's psychopathic views on road safety are below. What a ******! Mr Pounder advocates damaging disabled people. You are beyond a joke. "I have driven a Ford Sierra 1.6 at 90mph on single track roads with passing places in the NW of Scotland. ****ing great fun"! "I am proud of being nicked 10 times, and even prouder of talking my way out of twice that number of offences". "Make that 12. 9 speeding offences, 2 seatbelts, and 1 unroadworthy vehicle". Make that 3 seatbelt offences, "I don't give a **** about the law". "**** the law". "It's only illegal is you get caught". "Something being illegal does not matter". "The law is irrelevant". I see nothing wrong with the above, and neither do the 3 million a year caught for speeding. Not my fault if you're a slow driver. Thus you are a prick. |
Reducing speed to 20mph ‘created more deaths
On Friday, December 22, 2017 at 10:27:18 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:
On 22/12/2017 20:40, Ian Jackson wrote: In message , writes On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 19:42:28 +0000 Ian Jackson wrote: In message , Nightjar writes On 21-Dec-17 11:09 AM, wrote: ... I doubt anyone expects cars to stick to 20 anyway. I imagine the thinking behind it is that at 30 cars do anything up to 40 so put 20 signs up and they'll do 25-30 which is acceptable. The aim really is to reduce speeds to 20mph, or not much above it. This is based upon the 1979 findings that pedestrians struck by a car doing 30mph have a 20% risk of dying, as compared to 2.5% at 20mph. More recently, this has been revised down to 8% and 1.5%, which may be due to improvements in vehicle design since the first report. However, it is the most ignored limit of all, with 84% of cars exceeding 20mph, as compared to 46% exceeding 70mph on motorways. One problem is that if there is an accident because of 'speeding', there is often an immediate call to lower the speed limit - with little reference to how fast the offending vehicle was actually going. I recall near here there was fatal accident on a 50mph limit main road. Some people wanted a 40 limit - despite the vehicle's estimated speed being at least 80mph. The obvious answer might be simply be to enforce the existing limits. Unfortunately a lot of councils do that with speed humps which limit your speed to far lower than the posted limit (which is probably deliberate) unless you want to pay for expensive suspension repairs. If you even did 20 over some speedhumps you'd **** one or more struts, never mind 30. I find I have to crawl over some at not much more than 10 or my car risks bumping its stops. In my local town, there are 13 speed bumps in a 30 limit, all in a distance of about 600 yards. They are the individual, rectangular type, in pairs - one on each half of the road. Motor bikes can pass between the bumps, or on either side. Chelsea Tractors (which comprise at least half the vehicles in this affluent part of the world) can usually completely straddle one the bumps. It's really only those with 'ordinary' cars with a 'normal' wheel width that really suffer. You have the choice of having either the left side or the right side of the car experiencing the full lift of centre of the a bump, or partially straddling it -Â* with both sides of the car getting only a partial lift as the wheels pass simultaneously over both of the sloping shoulders. Despite it being a 30 limit, I wouldn't dream of passing over any of the 13 bumps at more than about 20mph. As I resist the temptation to accelerate between the bumps, I end up travelling the whole 600 yards at 20. [I don't mind this at all - and would indeed be happy to do the same if there was a bump-less 20 limit.] However, I then often end up with a procession of vehicles following me at 20mph. There are occasions when one vehicle will suddenly break rank, and tear off furiously to the front of the procession at a hell of a lot more than the 30 limit. As the road with the bumps ends at a 'Give Way' sign at a T-junction with another road, I usually reach the end immediately behind the vehicle that couldn't wait behind me, waiting at the Give Way sign. The whole thing is crazy. If you take the humps at the sharpest angle you can, then one wheel at a time goes up and the overall shock is massively reduced. If motorists obeyed speed limits, speed humps would not be necessary. |
Reducing speed to 20mph
Ian Jackson posted
In my local town, there are 13 speed bumps in a 30 limit, all in a distance of about 600 yards. They are the individual, rectangular type, in pairs - one on each half of the road. Motor bikes can pass between the bumps, or on either side. Chelsea Tractors (which comprise at least half the vehicles in this affluent part of the world) can usually completely straddle one the bumps. Yes, that sort of bumps are stupid. You need the continuous ones right across the road. I really don't understand why local authorities put in the square type. Perhaps because of their cycling fetish. It's really only those with 'ordinary' cars with a 'normal' wheel width that really suffer. You have the choice of having either the left side or the right side of the car experiencing the full lift of centre of the a bump, or partially straddling it - with both sides of the car getting only a partial lift as the wheels pass simultaneously over both of the sloping shoulders. Despite it being a 30 limit, I wouldn't dream of passing over any of the 13 bumps at more than about 20mph. As I resist the temptation to accelerate between the bumps, I end up travelling the whole 600 yards at 20. [I don't mind this at all - and would indeed be happy to do the same if there was a bump-less 20 limit.] However, I then often end up with a procession of vehicles following me at 20mph. There are occasions when one vehicle will suddenly break rank, and tear off furiously to the front of the procession at a hell of a lot more than the 30 limit. Very rare, I would think. Few drivers are as ****witted as all that. I've driven in an area with those speed bumps for 25 years now and have never seen anyone do it. As the road with the bumps ends at a 'Give Way' sign at a T-junction with another road, I usually reach the end immediately behind the vehicle that couldn't wait behind me, waiting at the Give Way sign. The whole thing is crazy. There are no traffic measures that give complete protection against utter imbeciles. The best you can do is deter them doing the most dangerous things, like driving down residential roads at 50. -- Jack |
Reducing speed to 20mph ‘created more deaths
On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 20:40:33 +0000
Ian Jackson wrote: bump, or partially straddling it - with both sides of the car getting only a partial lift as the wheels pass simultaneously over both of the sloping shoulders. The problem with doing that is it badly wears the inside of the tyre tread though admittedly its better to wear out a tyre than knacker a shock absorber or spring. |
Reducing speed to 20mph ‘created more deaths
|
Reducing speed to 20mph ‘created more deaths
On Sun, 24 Dec 2017 20:45:26 +0000
Ian Jackson wrote: In message , writes On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 20:40:33 +0000 Ian Jackson wrote: bump, or partially straddling it - with both sides of the car getting only a partial lift as the wheels pass simultaneously over both of the sloping shoulders. The problem with doing that is it badly wears the inside of the tyre tread though admittedly its better to wear out a tyre than knacker a shock absorber or spring. Nah! It's not like you're doing it continuously. But as you say.... You don't need to do it much to see significant wear on the inside of the tread. |
Reducing speed to 20mph ‘created more deaths than injuries’ but council can’t afford to scrap them
On 22/12/2017 10:04, Nightjar wrote:
On 21-Dec-17 11:36 PM, Nick Finnigan wrote: On 21/12/2017 12:47, Nightjar wrote: On 20-Dec-17 6:22 PM, Nick Finnigan wrote: On 18/12/2017 17:36, Nightjar wrote: They are talking of 20mph zones. A 20mph speed limit can be reversed simply by issuing the necessary traffic order and removing the signs. A 20mph zone has to be designed to be self-enforcing, which means lots of traffic calming measures. Â*Â*It doesn't have to be: all of the recent 20mph zones in Lancashire just have new signs on poles.... Are you sure they are 20mph zones, which have the word ZONE under the 20mph speed limit sign at the start of the zone, and not simply areas with a 20mph limit, which don't have the word ZONE and, if long enough, will have 20mph repeater signs? Â*Â*Most people, including metro reporters would refer to them as zones. Lancashire refer to them as areas; BathNES refer to them as rural areas. Which is why I asked. If they are not officially designated as 20mph zones, but simply have a 20mph limit, traffic calming measures are optional. According to the 2013 circular ... "These new arrangements should significantly reduce the requirement for signing and traffic calming features. Traffic authorities can now incorporate wider areas within a 20 mph zone, by effectively signing 20mph speed limits on distributor roads where traffic calming features are not suitable, or for small individual roads or stretches of road, where mean speeds are already at or below 24 mph. " |
Reducing speed to 20mph 'created more deaths than injuries' but council can't afford to scrap them
James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 19:28:57 -0000, Nightjar wrote: On 18-Dec-17 6:12 PM, tim... wrote: "Nightjar" wrote in message ... ... They are talking of 20mph zones. A 20mph speed limit can be reversed simply by issuing the necessary traffic order and removing the signs. A 20mph zone has to be designed to be self-enforcing, which means lots of traffic calming measures. Those would also need to be removed and the roads restored to their former condition to reverse a 20mph zone. but do they absolutely need to be? the road outside my estate has speed calming humps, but the speed limit is still 30 mph Some measures are not considered to be effective in a 30mph limit and would probably need to be removed. If humps are retained, they would need lit warning signs (not required in a 20mph zone) and appropriate road markings (also not a requirement in a 20mph zone) to be added. There are no rules, the councils do what they like. There's a 20mph limit here with a bump which will disable your vehicle completely if you go more than 5mph over it. Worse still, it's in the middle of several others which would allow up to 30 mph. Councils operate above the law and don't give a **** about criminal damage to your car, or to the spines of the elderly and disabled. They should all go to jail immediately. Pillock |
Reducing speed to 20mph
James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 09:46:28 -0000, Handsome Jack wrote: Ian Jackson posted In my local town, there are 13 speed bumps in a 30 limit, all in a distance of about 600 yards. They are the individual, rectangular type, in pairs - one on each half of the road. Motor bikes can pass between the bumps, or on either side. Chelsea Tractors (which comprise at least half the vehicles in this affluent part of the world) can usually completely straddle one the bumps. Yes, that sort of bumps are stupid. You need the continuous ones right across the road. I really don't understand why local authorities put in the square type. Perhaps because of their cycling fetish. It's really only those with 'ordinary' cars with a 'normal' wheel width that really suffer. You have the choice of having either the left side or the right side of the car experiencing the full lift of centre of the a bump, or partially straddling it - with both sides of the car getting only a partial lift as the wheels pass simultaneously over both of the sloping shoulders. Despite it being a 30 limit, I wouldn't dream of passing over any of the 13 bumps at more than about 20mph. As I resist the temptation to accelerate between the bumps, I end up travelling the whole 600 yards at 20. [I don't mind this at all - and would indeed be happy to do the same if there was a bump-less 20 limit.] However, I then often end up with a procession of vehicles following me at 20mph. There are occasions when one vehicle will suddenly break rank, and tear off furiously to the front of the procession at a hell of a lot more than the 30 limit. Very rare, I would think. Few drivers are as ****witted as all that. I've driven in an area with those speed bumps for 25 years now and have never seen anyone do it. I overtake people on bumps all the time, it's far easier to get past someone when they slow to 10mph. As the road with the bumps ends at a 'Give Way' sign at a T-junction with another road, I usually reach the end immediately behind the vehicle that couldn't wait behind me, waiting at the Give Way sign. The whole thing is crazy. There are no traffic measures that give complete protection against utter imbeciles. The best you can do is deter them doing the most dangerous things, like driving down residential roads at 50. You can't stop me doing that. More bumps and more limits just make me more angry. All they're doing is slowing down the slow drivers. The fast ones just raise their middle finger. Pillock |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:46 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com