20mph limits coming

Ben C wrote:

On 2007-06-03, Marc Brett wrote:
Car drivers have an obligation to drive at a speed which enables them to
stop for any hazard in the road.

Now that's ********. What speed would that be? Less than 5mph I
estimate. If such an obligation existed no-one would ever be able to
drive a car at all.

You need to get your brakes checked. Urgently.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire http://www.shrimper.org.uk

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 13:20:06 +0100 someone who may be Simon Dean
wrote this:-

Trees, animals, humans and cycles don't have bright headlamps.
Assuming that everything on the road does have bright headlamps is
not the sign of a good driver.

Phew. Good job he made the distinction that you can get a warning of
OTHER CARS with HEADLAMPS.

That is true, but only useful to the discussion if cars (and other
motor vehicles) are the only things on the road.

Not reading and understanding what someone
else says is the sign of a self absorbed p*ick.

Excellent, personal abuse. Usually the resort of those without
better arguments, for example party politicians, journalists and
some academics.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Ben C wrote:

On 2007-06-03, Nick wrote:
Simon Dean wrote:
TheMgt wrote:
But then a 20mph limit at times when it's say middle of the night, or
there's excellent visibility, 20mph could well feel incorrect.

Can you explain the logic behind the middle of the night comment. I
maybe an exception but I find my visibility is much better in the light
or day.

At night you get advance warning of other cars coming towards you
because you can see the light from their headlamps before there is a
line of sight to the actual car. This is a significant factor on some
roads.

and noise in the lanes, together with the lights mean that you can tell
a cars coming some way off at night. at night in a car you don't have to
worry so much about can another car stop but can you. which means it is
possible to drive a little faster, not much but a touch faster.

But speed is not just about visibility, like it or not it's about
probability of whether you're going to hit something or someone, and it
doesn't much matter whose fault it is or what "right" anyone has to be
anywhere.

During the day there might be lots of people milling around on the
pavement and a high probability of them stepping into the road making a
lower speed appropriate. At night you should watch out for cats. Good
drivers think of these things.

indeed they should be thinking what if..

roger

Ekul Namsob wrote:
Simon Dean wrote:

Simon Brooke wrote:

hand your driving licence in at the
nearest police station;
So if I leap into your path unannounced, you can cope with that?

Hazard perception is part of the driving test these days. Good drivers
slow down when they see a potential hazard. You did not, you had to
swerve (in your own words 'to avoid a speed bump'!) therefore your
driving was substandard.

That is and always has been a minority viewpoint outside the halls of
the driving standards agency.

I remember being told on this group it was a wonder I ever went anywhere
at all (and I think that it was intended to say that I was hyper
risk-avoiding, not just scared to drive) when I mentioned that I found
it less stressful to drive along dedicated car paths (the M6 & M5 in
this case) for urban journeys because you didn't have to look out for
all the people potentially behind parked cars, on the pavements, etc.

I think also my point of view that when passing a pavement cyclist you
need to leave at least as much room as you would overtaking one on the
road (either by car or by bike) was pooh-poohed, too.

I've watched, in particularly nihilistic voyeuristic moods (matched, it
would seem by approximately 10% of the population, given that it's prime
time TV) the "Traffic Cops" show, where police officers seem perfectly
happy to call occasions where a motorist crashes into a stranded vehicle
'just an accident'.

And I've mentioned occasions when I thought it prudent to do an
emergency stop in a car to a friend, and they've failed to believe that
I knew that there was no-one following my car before I hit the brakes.

And so on, and so on.

And getting back to vulnerable road users, you can bet that when I walk
round my (20mph) neighbourhood, if the opportunity arises, I'll happily
feint the kind of move that so upset Mr Dean if I see people driving
like that.

--
A

Ben C wrote:
On 2007-06-03, Marc Brett wrote:
and at night may be drunk. Many bikes have inadequate lights or none
at all. Cars drivers don't always switch them on. Car drivers have
an obligation to drive at a speed which enables them to stop for any
hazard in the road.

Now that's ********. What speed would that be? Less than 5mph I
estimate. If such an obligation existed no-one would ever be able to
drive a car at all.

I think Mr Brett meant any reasonably forseeable hazard in the road. As
such, with the available sightlines, and speeds of movement of
pedestrians and (utterly condemnable) pavement cyclists, most 20mph
zones are safe for driving at 15-20mph in most parts.

They are not safe for overtaking cyclists riding down them at 15-20mph,
contrary to popular received opinion.

--
A

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 08:24:17 -0500, Ben C wrote:

On 2007-06-03, Marc Brett wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 05:36:43 -0500, Ben C wrote:

********. Peds don't have headlights,

They have eyes, generally speaking.

Which retro-reflect like cat's eyes?

and at night may be drunk. Many bikes have inadequate lights or none
at all. Cars drivers don't always switch them on. Car drivers have
an obligation to drive at a speed which enables them to stop for any
hazard in the road.

Now that's ********. What speed would that be? Less than 5mph I
estimate. If such an obligation existed no-one would ever be able to
drive a car at all.

Highway code, Rule 105

Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance
you can see to be clear.

I don't make the rules. I just follow 'em.

On 2007-06-03, Marc Brett wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 08:24:17 -0500, Ben C wrote:

On 2007-06-03, Marc Brett wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 05:36:43 -0500, Ben C wrote:

********. Peds don't have headlights,

They have eyes, generally speaking.

Which retro-reflect like cat's eyes?

Not very well, but the ped can use them to detect the light from the
headlamps of oncoming cars providing advance warning of his imminent
destruction.

Ekul Namsob wrote:
Simon Dean wrote:

Simon Brooke wrote:
in message , Simon Dean
') wrote:

Simon Dean wrote:
Bloody woman and her brood include a kid in a pushchair, [...]
These people deserve to be killed.

How am I driving without due care and attention?

Somebody decides right when Im on top of them to swing 90 degrees right
and walk into my path?

I think you'll find the police will chalk that upto an accident and not
dangerous driving.

Would you pass a driving test if you collided with a pedestrian? If not,
then your driving was substandard.


In the case of no fault and you did everything you could to avoid the
collision, then you might well pass the driving test.

Cya
Simon

Marc Brett wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 13:12:32 +0100, Simon Dean
wrote:

Of course the motorist has a responsibility on the road.

Doesn't alter the fact seems some people are saying even if someone
leaps into your path from behind a parked car, or without looking at the
last minute, then the car user could still have avoided it and is
responsible? The police won't see it that way! The police will see it as
an accident. Pure and simple, with no blame on the driver.

I must say, I didn't know you were all clairvoyants, able to sense the
unexpected. Woooooo.

UK motorists are overprotected by the legal system. Over the channel,
many countries will expect a motorist to anticipate bone-headed moves by
cyclists and pedestrians, and presume the driver to be liable in all
such collisions, or "accidents" as wee Brits like to call them.
Equivalent laws should be implemented here ASAP, IMHO.


Does that mean that upon seeing a pedestrian on the pavement, one should
slow down to five mph just on the off chance the pedestrian might
decide, whether by inspiration from god, who total ignorance, to run
across the road?

Cya
Simon

David Hansen wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 13:20:06 +0100 someone who may be Simon Dean
wrote this:-

Trees, animals, humans and cycles don't have bright headlamps.
Assuming that everything on the road does have bright headlamps is
not the sign of a good driver.
Phew. Good job he made the distinction that you can get a warning of
OTHER CARS with HEADLAMPS.

That is true, but only useful to the discussion if cars (and other
motor vehicles) are the only things on the road.

He never suggested that they were only the exclusive users. That's a
position you're trying to steer this conversation to.


Not reading and understanding what someone
else says is the sign of a self absorbed p*ick.

Excellent, personal abuse. Usually the resort of those without
better arguments, for example party politicians, journalists and
some academics.

Good, I must be fairly well educated then if you think Im capable of
mixing with politiicians, journalists and some academics on their level.

Cya
Simon