Campaign for widespread 20mph zones on Worcestershire roads

Malvern Gazette: Campaign for widespread 20mph zones on Worcester roads Campaign for widespread 20mph zones on Worcester roads

CALLS are being made for 20mph zones on half of Worcestershire’s roads – with plans to implement a pilot in the city.

During a passionate county council debate, members of the 20’s Plenty for Worcester campaign group argued why speeds of 30mph in urban areas are too fast.

Despite concerns the move could cost over £10m to fully implement, your Worcester News can reveal that six people have been killed on 30mph roads in the county since 2010 – as well as 184 people getting serious injuries.

Lyndon Bracewell, from 20’s Plenty for Worcester, told councillors the change would improve people’s health, potentially save lives and reduce the risk of serious injuries.

Speaking to the economy, environment and communities scrutiny panel, he said: “At 30mph you’ve got a seven times greater chance of being killed or injured.

“And when a car breaks at 30mph, as opposed to 20mph, the stopping distance is twice as long.

“If we went to 20mph it would reduce injuries and deaths.

“The interesting thing is that road crashes have dropped a lot in recent years, but that’s not the case for injuries to cyclists and pedestrians, that’s actually going up in the UK.

“A lot of cities have gone to 20mph, the government is encouraging it, and the biggest benefit is to people’s health.”

A report before the panel said the costs for Worcestershire would be £10m, assuming 50 per cent of the roads network would be suitable for the new limit.

Urban roads are defined as ones in or around residential areas, where the current default limits are generally 30mph.

It does not include major link roads, carriageways, or roads leading towards estates where speed limits are set higher.

But if the county council wanted to introduce traffic calming measures along them, like speed humps, it could reach just under £25m.

Some of the biggest costs would be consultations with the public, and new signage along the affected routes.

Councillor Ken Pollock, chairman of the panel, said he hoped the campaigners would not expect that sort of bill to fall on the council.

But Mr Bracewell said the costs can be disputed, pointing to the example of Lancashire.

When the county moved to adopt 20mph zones, the original cost was estimated at £9.3m, but it came in at under £5m.

The panel agreed to back proposals to have a consultation over launching a trial in Warndon, which is being called for by the parish council.

The model could then be rolled out to other areas if it gets public support.

Ray Warndon, from Warndon Parish Council, was at the meeting to say the area is “unique”, alongside Councillor Andy Roberts.

“We want Warndon [Villages] to launch a pilot of this, to see what people think,” he said.

“A lot of people see 30mph as the speed to reach, they don’t take it as a maximum, and we’ve had a lot of near misses in the past.”

The panel agreed to support the Warndon Villages proposal, and use it as a possible model for future roll-outs.

At the moment 20mph limits apply outside schools in Worcestershire.

Comments (95)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:34am Mon 16 Dec 13

voledog says...

A great idea and well overdue, but at a very questionable financial cost. Can I suggest the County Council just buys a few thousand 20 mph stickers and gets their existing workforce to just stick them up on every 30mph sign as they happen to pass them during their normal working day? This would cost no more than a few thousand pounds and maybe someone with half a brain could then divert the £25 million I've just saved them into keeping the buses running for the elderly and disadvantaged around the county for the next 8 years?
A great idea and well overdue, but at a very questionable financial cost. Can I suggest the County Council just buys a few thousand 20 mph stickers and gets their existing workforce to just stick them up on every 30mph sign as they happen to pass them during their normal working day? This would cost no more than a few thousand pounds and maybe someone with half a brain could then divert the £25 million I've just saved them into keeping the buses running for the elderly and disadvantaged around the county for the next 8 years? voledog

7:50am Mon 16 Dec 13

Vox populi says...

Enter stage left I-cyclist....
Enter stage left I-cyclist.... Vox populi

8:13am Mon 16 Dec 13

Red Baron says...

Why not go the whole way and ban cars altogether and take the city back to the Dark Ages.
Even consider getting a man to walk in front of the car with a red flag - solves the unemployment problem as well!!

Education of ALL road users is what is needed.

I have had experiences of pedestrians just walking out into the road thinking that they have some magical powers that would prevent a tonne plus of car hitting them.
Children seem to think that roads are playgrounds.
Some cyclists completely ignore the Highway Code and cycle of pavements; ignore red traffic lights; ride the wrong way down one-way streets and so forth.

What happened to the Cycle Proficiency system and the likes of the Green Cross Code that were once part of school life and helped us all become better road users.

Yes, a car hitting a person inevitably results in the person coming off worse but ask why they chose to put themselves in that danger in the first place.

A more cynical view could be that with the traffic congestion in and around Worcester then travel times are already too slow (which does result in more congestion) so introducing a lower speed limit may be the way forward.
Why not go the whole way and ban cars altogether and take the city back to the Dark Ages. Even consider getting a man to walk in front of the car with a red flag - solves the unemployment problem as well!! Education of ALL road users is what is needed. I have had experiences of pedestrians just walking out into the road thinking that they have some magical powers that would prevent a tonne plus of car hitting them. Children seem to think that roads are playgrounds. Some cyclists completely ignore the Highway Code and cycle of pavements; ignore red traffic lights; ride the wrong way down one-way streets and so forth. What happened to the Cycle Proficiency system and the likes of the Green Cross Code that were once part of school life and helped us all become better road users. Yes, a car hitting a person inevitably results in the person coming off worse but ask why they chose to put themselves in that danger in the first place. A more cynical view could be that with the traffic congestion in and around Worcester then travel times are already too slow (which does result in more congestion) so introducing a lower speed limit may be the way forward. Red Baron

9:54am Mon 16 Dec 13

CYNIC_AL says...

People drive at 40 in in 30 zones so will drive at 30 in 20 zones. So why even bother trying to reduce the limit?
People drive at 40 in in 30 zones so will drive at 30 in 20 zones. So why even bother trying to reduce the limit? CYNIC_AL

10:01am Mon 16 Dec 13

norman73 says...

i went to look at house to buy in warden. after driving over those nasty rubber speed humps i decided not to bother.

just so its very clear i don't speed.
i went to look at house to buy in warden. after driving over those nasty rubber speed humps i decided not to bother. just so its very clear i don't speed. norman73

10:28am Mon 16 Dec 13

Flagman says...

"Ray Warndon" from Warndon. What a coincidence.
"Ray Warndon" from Warndon. What a coincidence. Flagman

10:31am Mon 16 Dec 13

philcollins says...

"... when a car breaks at 30mph ... ". That's always annoying, isn't it?
"... when a car breaks at 30mph ... ". That's always annoying, isn't it? philcollins

10:34am Mon 16 Dec 13

THE FACTS says...

Some points and facts...

Road humps are a jaw droppingly expensive attempt to solve the problem a speed camera will stop in its tracks.

Travelling at 20 instead of 30 mph will make little difference to the time it takes to get from one urban place to the next.

We should be making it harder to drive then people will see taking the bus or walking is almost as good... then the buses wouldnt be getting cancelled.

Perhaps I can incite the debate by suggesting car owners check how much it costs to own and operate their car ... Its over £3000 pa .... and guess what ? most families have 2 or even 3 cars.

If a family sat down and tried to justify £6000 pa for their 2 cars most would rapidly find that they can save a lot of money.

30% will save nothing but that shouldnt get in the way of the other 70% benefiting.

To drive one mile costs 60p if your car is 3 years old.... more if it is newer
If you leave your car on your driveway when you fly abroad it stills costs ... To not use your car for a week costs you over £80 ... more if it is newer. Let me say that again ...to NOT use your car for a week costs you over £80.

Let me be clear ... many people have to have a car ...but equally many more do not. £3000 gets a lot of taxis ... thats £60 per week for cabs.
Some points and facts... Road humps are a jaw droppingly expensive attempt to solve the problem a speed camera will stop in its tracks. Travelling at 20 instead of 30 mph will make little difference to the time it takes to get from one urban place to the next. We should be making it harder to drive then people will see taking the bus or walking is almost as good... then the buses wouldnt be getting cancelled. Perhaps I can incite the debate by suggesting car owners check how much it costs to own and operate their car ... Its over £3000 pa .... and guess what ? most families have 2 or even 3 cars. If a family sat down and tried to justify £6000 pa for their 2 cars most would rapidly find that they can save a lot of money. 30% will save nothing but that shouldnt get in the way of the other 70% benefiting. To drive one mile costs 60p if your car is 3 years old.... more if it is newer If you leave your car on your driveway when you fly abroad it stills costs ... To not use your car for a week costs you over £80 ... more if it is newer. Let me say that again ...to NOT use your car for a week costs you over £80. Let me be clear ... many people have to have a car ...but equally many more do not. £3000 gets a lot of taxis ... thats £60 per week for cabs. THE FACTS

11:10am Mon 16 Dec 13

Vox populi says...

Amazing how you seem to forget the way in which a car can improve people's quality of life in so many ways...

Getting to work or back in an hour rather than 2 hours by public transport PLUS taxi enabling me to spend time with my family is worth way more than £6k a year!!!

Get a reality check!!
Amazing how you seem to forget the way in which a car can improve people's quality of life in so many ways... Getting to work or back in an hour rather than 2 hours by public transport PLUS taxi enabling me to spend time with my family is worth way more than £6k a year!!! Get a reality check!! Vox populi

11:15am Mon 16 Dec 13

THE FACTS says...

You are a little forward when obviously part of the 30% I mentioned.... So you havent moved the discussion forward...wonder why you felt the need to comment ?
You are a little forward when obviously part of the 30% I mentioned.... So you havent moved the discussion forward...wonder why you felt the need to comment ? THE FACTS

11:37am Mon 16 Dec 13

orla nutting says...

Who'd want a use some of the shabby cabs in Worcester. Last one had no working seat belts and was long past it's sell by date ... and that was from one of the main firms. As for buses, aside from the City there ain't going to be any.
Who'd want a use some of the shabby cabs in Worcester. Last one had no working seat belts and was long past it's sell by date ... and that was from one of the main firms. As for buses, aside from the City there ain't going to be any. orla nutting

12:06pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Andy_R says...

Slowing cars down means they spend longer on the road, and that means more congestion, and more pollution. Hands up who wants more road congestion and pollution?
Slowing cars down means they spend longer on the road, and that means more congestion, and more pollution. Hands up who wants more road congestion and pollution? Andy_R

12:08pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Hwicce says...

THE FACTS wrote:
Some points and facts...

Road humps are a jaw droppingly expensive attempt to solve the problem a speed camera will stop in its tracks.

Travelling at 20 instead of 30 mph will make little difference to the time it takes to get from one urban place to the next.

We should be making it harder to drive then people will see taking the bus or walking is almost as good... then the buses wouldnt be getting cancelled.

Perhaps I can incite the debate by suggesting car owners check how much it costs to own and operate their car ... Its over £3000 pa .... and guess what ? most families have 2 or even 3 cars.

If a family sat down and tried to justify £6000 pa for their 2 cars most would rapidly find that they can save a lot of money.

30% will save nothing but that shouldnt get in the way of the other 70% benefiting.

To drive one mile costs 60p if your car is 3 years old.... more if it is newer
If you leave your car on your driveway when you fly abroad it stills costs ... To not use your car for a week costs you over £80 ... more if it is newer. Let me say that again ...to NOT use your car for a week costs you over £80.

Let me be clear ... many people have to have a car ...but equally many more do not. £3000 gets a lot of taxis ... thats £60 per week for cabs.
You must have a blinking expensive car!

Mine costs me about £500 a year, so £10 a week. For the convienence that provides (go where I want, when I want) it is an absolute bargain.
[quote][p][bold]THE FACTS[/bold] wrote: Some points and facts... Road humps are a jaw droppingly expensive attempt to solve the problem a speed camera will stop in its tracks. Travelling at 20 instead of 30 mph will make little difference to the time it takes to get from one urban place to the next. We should be making it harder to drive then people will see taking the bus or walking is almost as good... then the buses wouldnt be getting cancelled. Perhaps I can incite the debate by suggesting car owners check how much it costs to own and operate their car ... Its over £3000 pa .... and guess what ? most families have 2 or even 3 cars. If a family sat down and tried to justify £6000 pa for their 2 cars most would rapidly find that they can save a lot of money. 30% will save nothing but that shouldnt get in the way of the other 70% benefiting. To drive one mile costs 60p if your car is 3 years old.... more if it is newer If you leave your car on your driveway when you fly abroad it stills costs ... To not use your car for a week costs you over £80 ... more if it is newer. Let me say that again ...to NOT use your car for a week costs you over £80. Let me be clear ... many people have to have a car ...but equally many more do not. £3000 gets a lot of taxis ... thats £60 per week for cabs.[/p][/quote]You must have a blinking expensive car! Mine costs me about £500 a year, so £10 a week. For the convienence that provides (go where I want, when I want) it is an absolute bargain. Hwicce

12:25pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Gerry Taggart says...

It's a great idea to follow the lead of those cities where 20 mph has been welcomed. Injury reduction is the biggest cost saving of all.

We should go for it.
It's a great idea to follow the lead of those cities where 20 mph has been welcomed. Injury reduction is the biggest cost saving of all. We should go for it. Gerry Taggart

12:29pm Mon 16 Dec 13

bikepacker says...

Red Baron wrote:
Why not go the whole way and ban cars altogether and take the city back to the Dark Ages.
Even consider getting a man to walk in front of the car with a red flag - solves the unemployment problem as well!!

Education of ALL road users is what is needed.

I have had experiences of pedestrians just walking out into the road thinking that they have some magical powers that would prevent a tonne plus of car hitting them.
Children seem to think that roads are playgrounds.
Some cyclists completely ignore the Highway Code and cycle of pavements; ignore red traffic lights; ride the wrong way down one-way streets and so forth.

What happened to the Cycle Proficiency system and the likes of the Green Cross Code that were once part of school life and helped us all become better road users.

Yes, a car hitting a person inevitably results in the person coming off worse but ask why they chose to put themselves in that danger in the first place.

A more cynical view could be that with the traffic congestion in and around Worcester then travel times are already too slow (which does result in more congestion) so introducing a lower speed limit may be the way forward.
The first half of your opening sentence is the best idea I have heard for a long time. Just imagine how brilliant it would be to have a fitter, healthier and more active society.
[quote][p][bold]Red Baron[/bold] wrote: Why not go the whole way and ban cars altogether and take the city back to the Dark Ages. Even consider getting a man to walk in front of the car with a red flag - solves the unemployment problem as well!! Education of ALL road users is what is needed. I have had experiences of pedestrians just walking out into the road thinking that they have some magical powers that would prevent a tonne plus of car hitting them. Children seem to think that roads are playgrounds. Some cyclists completely ignore the Highway Code and cycle of pavements; ignore red traffic lights; ride the wrong way down one-way streets and so forth. What happened to the Cycle Proficiency system and the likes of the Green Cross Code that were once part of school life and helped us all become better road users. Yes, a car hitting a person inevitably results in the person coming off worse but ask why they chose to put themselves in that danger in the first place. A more cynical view could be that with the traffic congestion in and around Worcester then travel times are already too slow (which does result in more congestion) so introducing a lower speed limit may be the way forward.[/p][/quote]The first half of your opening sentence is the best idea I have heard for a long time. Just imagine how brilliant it would be to have a fitter, healthier and more active society. bikepacker

12:38pm Mon 16 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

CYNIC_AL wrote:
People drive at 40 in in 30 zones so will drive at 30 in 20 zones. So why even bother trying to reduce the limit?
Your comment assumes drivers ignore speed limits. Lots do. Many don't.

However based on your comment the reason is obvious. People would be driving on residential streets 10mph slower.

If a residential street (no one is suggesting reducing speeds on the main roads into and around the city) currently has a 30mph limit and people drive at 40mph and its then reduced to 20mph and they drive at 30mph cars will be travelling slower on streets where most road injuries occur.
[quote][p][bold]CYNIC_AL[/bold] wrote: People drive at 40 in in 30 zones so will drive at 30 in 20 zones. So why even bother trying to reduce the limit?[/p][/quote]Your comment assumes drivers ignore speed limits. Lots do. Many don't. However based on your comment the reason is obvious. People would be driving on residential streets 10mph slower. If a residential street (no one is suggesting reducing speeds on the main roads into and around the city) currently has a 30mph limit and people drive at 40mph and its then reduced to 20mph and they drive at 30mph cars will be travelling slower on streets where most road injuries occur. i-cycle

12:40pm Mon 16 Dec 13

psychoflump says...

How about pedestrians pay attention when they're walking along the roads? I'm a car driver as well as a pedestrian, when I'm walking I look both ways rather than just jump into the road. Maybe getting hit by a car traveling at 30mph should be considered a deterant. What next, ban cars? Ban anything but first gear? It's already difficult to drive anywhere in town without some idiot stepping off the kerb without looking, why are we pandering to these morons?

Sorry "The Facts" but busses are useless unless you live in a big town or city, and no I don't want to ******* cycle or walk everywhere. I walk to work rather than drive but I'm **** well gonna drive to the shops because it's easier and quicker.
How about pedestrians pay attention when they're walking along the roads? I'm a car driver as well as a pedestrian, when I'm walking I look both ways rather than just jump into the road. Maybe getting hit by a car traveling at 30mph should be considered a deterant. What next, ban cars? Ban anything but first gear? It's already difficult to drive anywhere in town without some idiot stepping off the kerb without looking, why are we pandering to these morons? Sorry "The Facts" but busses are useless unless you live in a big town or city, and no I don't want to ******* cycle or walk everywhere. I walk to work rather than drive but I'm **** well gonna drive to the shops because it's easier and quicker. psychoflump

12:47pm Mon 16 Dec 13

New Kid on the Block says...

I am well aware of the figures saying you are much more likely to survive if you are hit by a car at twenty rather than thirty mph. But in what percentage of car v pedestrian accidents is the pedestrian to blame.
If the car driver keeps to the road it is difficult to hit a pedestrian unless they are doing something stupid, and in my experience there are plenty of pedestrians who don't bother to look for cars (or bikes) turning into side roads and walk straight across into your path expecting you to stop for them.
I am well aware of the figures saying you are much more likely to survive if you are hit by a car at twenty rather than thirty mph. But in what percentage of car v pedestrian accidents is the pedestrian to blame. If the car driver keeps to the road it is difficult to hit a pedestrian unless they are doing something stupid, and in my experience there are plenty of pedestrians who don't bother to look for cars (or bikes) turning into side roads and walk straight across into your path expecting you to stop for them. New Kid on the Block

12:55pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Hwicce says...

New Kid on the Block wrote:
I am well aware of the figures saying you are much more likely to survive if you are hit by a car at twenty rather than thirty mph. But in what percentage of car v pedestrian accidents is the pedestrian to blame.
If the car driver keeps to the road it is difficult to hit a pedestrian unless they are doing something stupid, and in my experience there are plenty of pedestrians who don't bother to look for cars (or bikes) turning into side roads and walk straight across into your path expecting you to stop for them.
Highway Code 170 - You should watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way.
[quote][p][bold]New Kid on the Block[/bold] wrote: I am well aware of the figures saying you are much more likely to survive if you are hit by a car at twenty rather than thirty mph. But in what percentage of car v pedestrian accidents is the pedestrian to blame. If the car driver keeps to the road it is difficult to hit a pedestrian unless they are doing something stupid, and in my experience there are plenty of pedestrians who don't bother to look for cars (or bikes) turning into side roads and walk straight across into your path expecting you to stop for them.[/p][/quote]Highway Code 170 - You should watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way. Hwicce

12:56pm Mon 16 Dec 13

THE FACTS says...

"..... and in my experience there are plenty of pedestrians who don't bother to look for cars (or bikes) turning into side roads and walk straight across into your path expecting you to stop for them."

That is the answer give priority to pedestrians in urban areas so they CAN step out whenever they want...so drivers will travel slower and with more space between each car.

If you dont like that idea you need to have the final solution installed. The 10 inch spike in the centre of the steering wheel. That creates a very safe driver.

Everyone's a winner...
"..... and in my experience there are plenty of pedestrians who don't bother to look for cars (or bikes) turning into side roads and walk straight across into your path expecting you to stop for them." That is the answer give priority to pedestrians in urban areas so they CAN step out whenever they want...so drivers will travel slower and with more space between each car. If you dont like that idea you need to have the final solution installed. The 10 inch spike in the centre of the steering wheel. That creates a very safe driver. Everyone's a winner... THE FACTS

1:14pm Mon 16 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

Vox populi wrote:
Enter stage left I-cyclist....
I assume from your comment that you obviously don't support measures that reduce injury and death on the roads on the grounds that its a left wing idea.

The actual fact is that wider use of low cost 'sign only' 20mph is being encouraged by they Conservative Government. Boris in London is supporting more 20mph. Lancashire when Conservative controlled introduced it to the majority of its residential streets and is already seeing substantial reductions in injuries and deaths. Its conservative councillor Andy Roberts who's promoting it for his Warndon Villages patch. Previously the Conservative County Council rolled it out on Ronkswood and other parts of the City.

The main point you're missing by seeing everything in stereotypes is that saving lives and educing injury isn't an anti-motoring policy and certainly isn't a left wing plot. If it was its difficult to explain why 72% of the UK population support 20mph for the streets around where they live.
[quote][p][bold]Vox populi[/bold] wrote: Enter stage left I-cyclist....[/p][/quote]I assume from your comment that you obviously don't support measures that reduce injury and death on the roads on the grounds that its a left wing idea. The actual fact is that wider use of low cost 'sign only' 20mph is being encouraged by they Conservative Government. Boris in London is supporting more 20mph. Lancashire when Conservative controlled introduced it to the majority of its residential streets and is already seeing substantial reductions in injuries and deaths. Its conservative councillor Andy Roberts who's promoting it for his Warndon Villages patch. Previously the Conservative County Council rolled it out on Ronkswood and other parts of the City. The main point you're missing by seeing everything in stereotypes is that saving lives and educing injury isn't an anti-motoring policy and certainly isn't a left wing plot. If it was its difficult to explain why 72% of the UK population support 20mph for the streets around where they live. i-cycle

1:26pm Mon 16 Dec 13

psychoflump says...

THE FACTS wrote:
"..... and in my experience there are plenty of pedestrians who don't bother to look for cars (or bikes) turning into side roads and walk straight across into your path expecting you to stop for them."

That is the answer give priority to pedestrians in urban areas so they CAN step out whenever they want...so drivers will travel slower and with more space between each car.

If you dont like that idea you need to have the final solution installed. The 10 inch spike in the centre of the steering wheel. That creates a very safe driver.

Everyone's a winner...
Pedestrians have right of way crossing a junction IF THEY'VE ALREADY STARTED CROSSING, simple self preservation seems lacking however when twerps march out into the road when a car is six feet away from them.

You can't give pedestrians priority in a mixed traffic space. A lot of them have no concept of car stopping distances, there's also no organisation to foot traffic, those "look right" signs only mean something because you generally know which direction cars travel on a given side of the road.

I would argue a 10 inch spike on the front of cars might also make pedestrians pay attention to their surroundings.
[quote][p][bold]THE FACTS[/bold] wrote: "..... and in my experience there are plenty of pedestrians who don't bother to look for cars (or bikes) turning into side roads and walk straight across into your path expecting you to stop for them." That is the answer give priority to pedestrians in urban areas so they CAN step out whenever they want...so drivers will travel slower and with more space between each car. If you dont like that idea you need to have the final solution installed. The 10 inch spike in the centre of the steering wheel. That creates a very safe driver. Everyone's a winner...[/p][/quote]Pedestrians have right of way crossing a junction IF THEY'VE ALREADY STARTED CROSSING, simple self preservation seems lacking however when twerps march out into the road when a car is six feet away from them. You can't give pedestrians priority in a mixed traffic space. A lot of them have no concept of car stopping distances, there's also no organisation to foot traffic, those "look right" signs only mean something because you generally know which direction cars travel on a given side of the road. I would argue a 10 inch spike on the front of cars might also make pedestrians pay attention to their surroundings. psychoflump

1:29pm Mon 16 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

voledog wrote:
A great idea and well overdue, but at a very questionable financial cost. Can I suggest the County Council just buys a few thousand 20 mph stickers and gets their existing workforce to just stick them up on every 30mph sign as they happen to pass them during their normal working day? This would cost no more than a few thousand pounds and maybe someone with half a brain could then divert the £25 million I've just saved them into keeping the buses running for the elderly and disadvantaged around the county for the next 8 years?
Other areas have rolled out 'wide area sign only 20mph' at a one off cost of £2-3 per head of population. If the costs for rolling 20mph out on Worcester's residential streets are similar to other cities the cost would be the same as putting in a Toucan crossing on the southern link.

DfT estimate one serious injury as costing society £189,519 and a death £1,686, 532. When 20mph is proven to reduce injuries its easy to see why its one of the best road safety investments that can be made and especially when other areas have seen an increase in people increasing their own health by walking and cycling more and therefore saving even more costs for the NHS and Social Services.

Lanacashire has a population 2.5 times the size of Worcestershire. It cost them £5M to implement their sign only 20mph limits. Its therefore difficult to see why it would cost £10M for Worcestershire to implement. That said it is undoubtedly very difficult for Worcestershire to find any cash for new initiatives when its having to make such massive cuts elsewhere on important public services.
[quote][p][bold]voledog[/bold] wrote: A great idea and well overdue, but at a very questionable financial cost. Can I suggest the County Council just buys a few thousand 20 mph stickers and gets their existing workforce to just stick them up on every 30mph sign as they happen to pass them during their normal working day? This would cost no more than a few thousand pounds and maybe someone with half a brain could then divert the £25 million I've just saved them into keeping the buses running for the elderly and disadvantaged around the county for the next 8 years?[/p][/quote]Other areas have rolled out 'wide area sign only 20mph' at a one off cost of £2-3 per head of population. If the costs for rolling 20mph out on Worcester's residential streets are similar to other cities the cost would be the same as putting in a Toucan crossing on the southern link. DfT estimate one serious injury as costing society £189,519 and a death £1,686, 532. When 20mph is proven to reduce injuries its easy to see why its one of the best road safety investments that can be made and especially when other areas have seen an increase in people increasing their own health by walking and cycling more and therefore saving even more costs for the NHS and Social Services. Lanacashire has a population 2.5 times the size of Worcestershire. It cost them £5M to implement their sign only 20mph limits. Its therefore difficult to see why it would cost £10M for Worcestershire to implement. That said it is undoubtedly very difficult for Worcestershire to find any cash for new initiatives when its having to make such massive cuts elsewhere on important public services. i-cycle

1:35pm Mon 16 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

Red Baron wrote:
Why not go the whole way and ban cars altogether and take the city back to the Dark Ages.
Even consider getting a man to walk in front of the car with a red flag - solves the unemployment problem as well!!

Education of ALL road users is what is needed.

I have had experiences of pedestrians just walking out into the road thinking that they have some magical powers that would prevent a tonne plus of car hitting them.
Children seem to think that roads are playgrounds.
Some cyclists completely ignore the Highway Code and cycle of pavements; ignore red traffic lights; ride the wrong way down one-way streets and so forth.

What happened to the Cycle Proficiency system and the likes of the Green Cross Code that were once part of school life and helped us all become better road users.

Yes, a car hitting a person inevitably results in the person coming off worse but ask why they chose to put themselves in that danger in the first place.

A more cynical view could be that with the traffic congestion in and around Worcester then travel times are already too slow (which does result in more congestion) so introducing a lower speed limit may be the way forward.
I quite agree. All road users need to be 'educated' to obey the law and just as importantly treat there and particularly vulnerable road users with respect and consideration.

Unfortunately its all too obvious from comments in the WN that blaming deaths and injuries on other road users is getting in the way of a rational debate about how we all learn to share our congested roads better and more safely.
[quote][p][bold]Red Baron[/bold] wrote: Why not go the whole way and ban cars altogether and take the city back to the Dark Ages. Even consider getting a man to walk in front of the car with a red flag - solves the unemployment problem as well!! Education of ALL road users is what is needed. I have had experiences of pedestrians just walking out into the road thinking that they have some magical powers that would prevent a tonne plus of car hitting them. Children seem to think that roads are playgrounds. Some cyclists completely ignore the Highway Code and cycle of pavements; ignore red traffic lights; ride the wrong way down one-way streets and so forth. What happened to the Cycle Proficiency system and the likes of the Green Cross Code that were once part of school life and helped us all become better road users. Yes, a car hitting a person inevitably results in the person coming off worse but ask why they chose to put themselves in that danger in the first place. A more cynical view could be that with the traffic congestion in and around Worcester then travel times are already too slow (which does result in more congestion) so introducing a lower speed limit may be the way forward.[/p][/quote]I quite agree. All road users need to be 'educated' to obey the law and just as importantly treat there and particularly vulnerable road users with respect and consideration. Unfortunately its all too obvious from comments in the WN that blaming deaths and injuries on other road users is getting in the way of a rational debate about how we all learn to share our congested roads better and more safely. i-cycle

1:39pm Mon 16 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

norman73 wrote:
i went to look at house to buy in warden. after driving over those nasty rubber speed humps i decided not to bother.

just so its very clear i don't speed.
I wouldn't let the plans for Warndon Villages put you off from buying a house there. What is planned is 'sign only' 20mph on the residential 'side roads' and without expensive and unpopular speed bumps.

In other areas that have gone 20mph they have become more popular places to live. I'm not sure this has been reflected in increased house values.
[quote][p][bold]norman73[/bold] wrote: i went to look at house to buy in warden. after driving over those nasty rubber speed humps i decided not to bother. just so its very clear i don't speed.[/p][/quote]I wouldn't let the plans for Warndon Villages put you off from buying a house there. What is planned is 'sign only' 20mph on the residential 'side roads' and without expensive and unpopular speed bumps. In other areas that have gone 20mph they have become more popular places to live. I'm not sure this has been reflected in increased house values. i-cycle

1:43pm Mon 16 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

THE FACTS wrote:
Some points and facts...

Road humps are a jaw droppingly expensive attempt to solve the problem a speed camera will stop in its tracks.

Travelling at 20 instead of 30 mph will make little difference to the time it takes to get from one urban place to the next.

We should be making it harder to drive then people will see taking the bus or walking is almost as good... then the buses wouldnt be getting cancelled.

Perhaps I can incite the debate by suggesting car owners check how much it costs to own and operate their car ... Its over £3000 pa .... and guess what ? most families have 2 or even 3 cars.

If a family sat down and tried to justify £6000 pa for their 2 cars most would rapidly find that they can save a lot of money.

30% will save nothing but that shouldnt get in the way of the other 70% benefiting.

To drive one mile costs 60p if your car is 3 years old.... more if it is newer
If you leave your car on your driveway when you fly abroad it stills costs ... To not use your car for a week costs you over £80 ... more if it is newer. Let me say that again ...to NOT use your car for a week costs you over £80.

Let me be clear ... many people have to have a car ...but equally many more do not. £3000 gets a lot of taxis ... thats £60 per week for cabs.
There's also the wider health benefits of when more are encouraged to walk and cycle for more of the 65% of car journeys that are under 5 miles. This will also help to reduce congestion, air and noise pollution for the wider community.
[quote][p][bold]THE FACTS[/bold] wrote: Some points and facts... Road humps are a jaw droppingly expensive attempt to solve the problem a speed camera will stop in its tracks. Travelling at 20 instead of 30 mph will make little difference to the time it takes to get from one urban place to the next. We should be making it harder to drive then people will see taking the bus or walking is almost as good... then the buses wouldnt be getting cancelled. Perhaps I can incite the debate by suggesting car owners check how much it costs to own and operate their car ... Its over £3000 pa .... and guess what ? most families have 2 or even 3 cars. If a family sat down and tried to justify £6000 pa for their 2 cars most would rapidly find that they can save a lot of money. 30% will save nothing but that shouldnt get in the way of the other 70% benefiting. To drive one mile costs 60p if your car is 3 years old.... more if it is newer If you leave your car on your driveway when you fly abroad it stills costs ... To not use your car for a week costs you over £80 ... more if it is newer. Let me say that again ...to NOT use your car for a week costs you over £80. Let me be clear ... many people have to have a car ...but equally many more do not. £3000 gets a lot of taxis ... thats £60 per week for cabs.[/p][/quote]There's also the wider health benefits of when more are encouraged to walk and cycle for more of the 65% of car journeys that are under 5 miles. This will also help to reduce congestion, air and noise pollution for the wider community. i-cycle

1:55pm Mon 16 Dec 13

THE FACTS says...

It would be useful to see the costs associated with the 163 injured persons NHS treatment.

Might even shorten the waiting times in the hospitals.
It would be useful to see the costs associated with the 163 injured persons NHS treatment. Might even shorten the waiting times in the hospitals. THE FACTS

1:57pm Mon 16 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

psychoflump wrote:
How about pedestrians pay attention when they're walking along the roads? I'm a car driver as well as a pedestrian, when I'm walking I look both ways rather than just jump into the road. Maybe getting hit by a car traveling at 30mph should be considered a deterant. What next, ban cars? Ban anything but first gear? It's already difficult to drive anywhere in town without some idiot stepping off the kerb without looking, why are we pandering to these morons?

Sorry "The Facts" but busses are useless unless you live in a big town or city, and no I don't want to ******* cycle or walk everywhere. I walk to work rather than drive but I'm **** well gonna drive to the shops because it's easier and quicker.
But nobody is saying you will have to way and cycle to the shops.

Reducing speed limits on residential roads is a very low cost way of improving road safety and bringing about a whole range of other benefits which save the tax payer money and make our residential areas better places to live.

20mph elsewhere has increased walking and cycling by over 20% as it gives those that want to use their cars less the opportunity to think its safer to do so.

In doing so those that still want to drive everywhere may find 20mph adds 40 secs to their commute, but they'll also be traveling on roads where there is reduced accident risk, fewer cars than there would otherwise be and more free parking spaces when they get to their destination.

Its easy and understandable that some drivers should see 20mph as an infringement on their personal rights to decide what they think as an appropriate speed to drive down your street at. The same was true when seat belts and ant-drink drive measures were introduced.

Hopefully if more start to look at things objective they will see there are lots of benefits to themselves and their own families which more than offset the (as they see it) infringement on their civicl liberties.
[quote][p][bold]psychoflump[/bold] wrote: How about pedestrians pay attention when they're walking along the roads? I'm a car driver as well as a pedestrian, when I'm walking I look both ways rather than just jump into the road. Maybe getting hit by a car traveling at 30mph should be considered a deterant. What next, ban cars? Ban anything but first gear? It's already difficult to drive anywhere in town without some idiot stepping off the kerb without looking, why are we pandering to these morons? Sorry "The Facts" but busses are useless unless you live in a big town or city, and no I don't want to ******* cycle or walk everywhere. I walk to work rather than drive but I'm **** well gonna drive to the shops because it's easier and quicker.[/p][/quote]But nobody is saying you will have to way and cycle to the shops. Reducing speed limits on residential roads is a very low cost way of improving road safety and bringing about a whole range of other benefits which save the tax payer money and make our residential areas better places to live. 20mph elsewhere has increased walking and cycling by over 20% as it gives those that want to use their cars less the opportunity to think its safer to do so. In doing so those that still want to drive everywhere may find 20mph adds 40 secs to their commute, but they'll also be traveling on roads where there is reduced accident risk, fewer cars than there would otherwise be and more free parking spaces when they get to their destination. Its easy and understandable that some drivers should see 20mph as an infringement on their personal rights to decide what they think as an appropriate speed to drive down your street at. The same was true when seat belts and ant-drink drive measures were introduced. Hopefully if more start to look at things objective they will see there are lots of benefits to themselves and their own families which more than offset the (as they see it) infringement on their civicl liberties. i-cycle

2:05pm Mon 16 Dec 13

THE FACTS says...

Wise words icycle
Wise words icycle THE FACTS

2:10pm Mon 16 Dec 13

psychoflump says...

i-cycle wrote:
psychoflump wrote:
How about pedestrians pay attention when they're walking along the roads? I'm a car driver as well as a pedestrian, when I'm walking I look both ways rather than just jump into the road. Maybe getting hit by a car traveling at 30mph should be considered a deterant. What next, ban cars? Ban anything but first gear? It's already difficult to drive anywhere in town without some idiot stepping off the kerb without looking, why are we pandering to these morons?

Sorry "The Facts" but busses are useless unless you live in a big town or city, and no I don't want to ******* cycle or walk everywhere. I walk to work rather than drive but I'm **** well gonna drive to the shops because it's easier and quicker.
But nobody is saying you will have to way and cycle to the shops.

Reducing speed limits on residential roads is a very low cost way of improving road safety and bringing about a whole range of other benefits which save the tax payer money and make our residential areas better places to live.

20mph elsewhere has increased walking and cycling by over 20% as it gives those that want to use their cars less the opportunity to think its safer to do so.

In doing so those that still want to drive everywhere may find 20mph adds 40 secs to their commute, but they'll also be traveling on roads where there is reduced accident risk, fewer cars than there would otherwise be and more free parking spaces when they get to their destination.

Its easy and understandable that some drivers should see 20mph as an infringement on their personal rights to decide what they think as an appropriate speed to drive down your street at. The same was true when seat belts and ant-drink drive measures were introduced.

Hopefully if more start to look at things objective they will see there are lots of benefits to themselves and their own families which more than offset the (as they see it) infringement on their civicl liberties.
Somebody definitely suggested in one of the comments that making it more difficult for car drivers might "encourage" them to walk / cycle. If cycling or walking is oh so much fun then we wouldn't need the stick, carrots would be enough.

I'm objecting to dropping the speed to 20mph less because of the time element or civil liberties argument and more because I see it as pandering to the brainless who expect everyone else to do their thinking (or in this case looking) for them. I know that when I'm driving in a 20mph area I spend a lot more time looking at my speedo than the road. How can that be safer?
[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]psychoflump[/bold] wrote: How about pedestrians pay attention when they're walking along the roads? I'm a car driver as well as a pedestrian, when I'm walking I look both ways rather than just jump into the road. Maybe getting hit by a car traveling at 30mph should be considered a deterant. What next, ban cars? Ban anything but first gear? It's already difficult to drive anywhere in town without some idiot stepping off the kerb without looking, why are we pandering to these morons? Sorry "The Facts" but busses are useless unless you live in a big town or city, and no I don't want to ******* cycle or walk everywhere. I walk to work rather than drive but I'm **** well gonna drive to the shops because it's easier and quicker.[/p][/quote]But nobody is saying you will have to way and cycle to the shops. Reducing speed limits on residential roads is a very low cost way of improving road safety and bringing about a whole range of other benefits which save the tax payer money and make our residential areas better places to live. 20mph elsewhere has increased walking and cycling by over 20% as it gives those that want to use their cars less the opportunity to think its safer to do so. In doing so those that still want to drive everywhere may find 20mph adds 40 secs to their commute, but they'll also be traveling on roads where there is reduced accident risk, fewer cars than there would otherwise be and more free parking spaces when they get to their destination. Its easy and understandable that some drivers should see 20mph as an infringement on their personal rights to decide what they think as an appropriate speed to drive down your street at. The same was true when seat belts and ant-drink drive measures were introduced. Hopefully if more start to look at things objective they will see there are lots of benefits to themselves and their own families which more than offset the (as they see it) infringement on their civicl liberties.[/p][/quote]Somebody definitely suggested in one of the comments that making it more difficult for car drivers might "encourage" them to walk / cycle. If cycling or walking is oh so much fun then we wouldn't need the stick, carrots would be enough. I'm objecting to dropping the speed to 20mph less because of the time element or civil liberties argument and more because I see it as pandering to the brainless who expect everyone else to do their thinking (or in this case looking) for them. I know that when I'm driving in a 20mph area I spend a lot more time looking at my speedo than the road. How can that be safer? psychoflump

2:11pm Mon 16 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

Hwicce wrote:
New Kid on the Block wrote:
I am well aware of the figures saying you are much more likely to survive if you are hit by a car at twenty rather than thirty mph. But in what percentage of car v pedestrian accidents is the pedestrian to blame.
If the car driver keeps to the road it is difficult to hit a pedestrian unless they are doing something stupid, and in my experience there are plenty of pedestrians who don't bother to look for cars (or bikes) turning into side roads and walk straight across into your path expecting you to stop for them.
Highway Code 170 - You should watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way.
Thanks for pointing this out.

I'm sure we can all agree that there is lots more than can be done to reduce road casualties, but drivers are always expected to give way to more vulnerable road users such as pedestrians no matter what the circumstances.

At 20mph its a lot easier to brake in time and avoid a collision altogether. Even if a pedestrian is hit their chances of surviving death or serious injury are massively increased.
[quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]New Kid on the Block[/bold] wrote: I am well aware of the figures saying you are much more likely to survive if you are hit by a car at twenty rather than thirty mph. But in what percentage of car v pedestrian accidents is the pedestrian to blame. If the car driver keeps to the road it is difficult to hit a pedestrian unless they are doing something stupid, and in my experience there are plenty of pedestrians who don't bother to look for cars (or bikes) turning into side roads and walk straight across into your path expecting you to stop for them.[/p][/quote]Highway Code 170 - You should watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way.[/p][/quote]Thanks for pointing this out. I'm sure we can all agree that there is lots more than can be done to reduce road casualties, but drivers are always expected to give way to more vulnerable road users such as pedestrians no matter what the circumstances. At 20mph its a lot easier to brake in time and avoid a collision altogether. Even if a pedestrian is hit their chances of surviving death or serious injury are massively increased. i-cycle

2:18pm Mon 16 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

Vox populi wrote:
Amazing how you seem to forget the way in which a car can improve people's quality of life in so many ways...

Getting to work or back in an hour rather than 2 hours by public transport PLUS taxi enabling me to spend time with my family is worth way more than £6k a year!!!

Get a reality check!!
There are obviously lots of advantages to having a car.

There are also disadvantages. Increased road congestion, pollution and accidents. Less time spent getting daily exercise. More shops and services out of reach of the young, elderly and poorer households that don't have access to a car. Fewer using public transport because so ore services are cut and communities isolated.

No one is saying cars are a bad thing. Its just that it would be better if more used other means for more of those shorter journeys.
[quote][p][bold]Vox populi[/bold] wrote: Amazing how you seem to forget the way in which a car can improve people's quality of life in so many ways... Getting to work or back in an hour rather than 2 hours by public transport PLUS taxi enabling me to spend time with my family is worth way more than £6k a year!!! Get a reality check!![/p][/quote]There are obviously lots of advantages to having a car. There are also disadvantages. Increased road congestion, pollution and accidents. Less time spent getting daily exercise. More shops and services out of reach of the young, elderly and poorer households that don't have access to a car. Fewer using public transport because so ore services are cut and communities isolated. No one is saying cars are a bad thing. Its just that it would be better if more used other means for more of those shorter journeys. i-cycle

2:23pm Mon 16 Dec 13

New Kid on the Block says...

i-cycle wrote:
Hwicce wrote:
New Kid on the Block wrote:
I am well aware of the figures saying you are much more likely to survive if you are hit by a car at twenty rather than thirty mph. But in what percentage of car v pedestrian accidents is the pedestrian to blame.
If the car driver keeps to the road it is difficult to hit a pedestrian unless they are doing something stupid, and in my experience there are plenty of pedestrians who don't bother to look for cars (or bikes) turning into side roads and walk straight across into your path expecting you to stop for them.
Highway Code 170 - You should watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way.
Thanks for pointing this out.

I'm sure we can all agree that there is lots more than can be done to reduce road casualties, but drivers are always expected to give way to more vulnerable road users such as pedestrians no matter what the circumstances.

At 20mph its a lot easier to brake in time and avoid a collision altogether. Even if a pedestrian is hit their chances of surviving death or serious injury are massively increased.
It still doesn't absolve pedestrians of all responsibility for their activities. If drivers are expected to keep their eyes open so should pedestrians. Or are you claiming that pedestrians have a god given right to walk around in a daze crossing roads without looking.

What I mean is we all should take responsibility for our own actions. It is sheer stupidity to cross a road without looking but a lot of people seem to do it.
[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]New Kid on the Block[/bold] wrote: I am well aware of the figures saying you are much more likely to survive if you are hit by a car at twenty rather than thirty mph. But in what percentage of car v pedestrian accidents is the pedestrian to blame. If the car driver keeps to the road it is difficult to hit a pedestrian unless they are doing something stupid, and in my experience there are plenty of pedestrians who don't bother to look for cars (or bikes) turning into side roads and walk straight across into your path expecting you to stop for them.[/p][/quote]Highway Code 170 - You should watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way.[/p][/quote]Thanks for pointing this out. I'm sure we can all agree that there is lots more than can be done to reduce road casualties, but drivers are always expected to give way to more vulnerable road users such as pedestrians no matter what the circumstances. At 20mph its a lot easier to brake in time and avoid a collision altogether. Even if a pedestrian is hit their chances of surviving death or serious injury are massively increased.[/p][/quote]It still doesn't absolve pedestrians of all responsibility for their activities. If drivers are expected to keep their eyes open so should pedestrians. Or are you claiming that pedestrians have a god given right to walk around in a daze crossing roads without looking. What I mean is we all should take responsibility for our own actions. It is sheer stupidity to cross a road without looking but a lot of people seem to do it. New Kid on the Block

2:26pm Mon 16 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

Andy_R wrote:
Slowing cars down means they spend longer on the road, and that means more congestion, and more pollution. Hands up who wants more road congestion and pollution?
Wrong.

Its an urban myth that cars are more fuel efficient at certain speeds.

Reducing car speeds to 20mph reduces stopping distances and increases road capacity. This is why variable speed limits have been applied to the most congested parts of our motorway network.

It also makes it easier to filter at junctions. It smooths traffic flow and reduces the need for stop start and braking (the main cause of increased fuel consumption).

By making roads safer for cyclists to cycle on and pedestrians to walk besides and cross it also encourages more to leave their cars at home for those shorter journeys. (Bristol saw a 20% + increase in walk/cycle journeys after they rolled out their 20mph).
[quote][p][bold]Andy_R[/bold] wrote: Slowing cars down means they spend longer on the road, and that means more congestion, and more pollution. Hands up who wants more road congestion and pollution?[/p][/quote]Wrong. Its an urban myth that cars are more fuel efficient at certain speeds. Reducing car speeds to 20mph reduces stopping distances and increases road capacity. This is why variable speed limits have been applied to the most congested parts of our motorway network. It also makes it easier to filter at junctions. It smooths traffic flow and reduces the need for stop start and braking (the main cause of increased fuel consumption). By making roads safer for cyclists to cycle on and pedestrians to walk besides and cross it also encourages more to leave their cars at home for those shorter journeys. (Bristol saw a 20% + increase in walk/cycle journeys after they rolled out their 20mph). i-cycle

2:33pm Mon 16 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

New Kid on the Block wrote:
i-cycle wrote:
Hwicce wrote:
New Kid on the Block wrote:
I am well aware of the figures saying you are much more likely to survive if you are hit by a car at twenty rather than thirty mph. But in what percentage of car v pedestrian accidents is the pedestrian to blame.
If the car driver keeps to the road it is difficult to hit a pedestrian unless they are doing something stupid, and in my experience there are plenty of pedestrians who don't bother to look for cars (or bikes) turning into side roads and walk straight across into your path expecting you to stop for them.
Highway Code 170 - You should watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way.
Thanks for pointing this out.

I'm sure we can all agree that there is lots more than can be done to reduce road casualties, but drivers are always expected to give way to more vulnerable road users such as pedestrians no matter what the circumstances.

At 20mph its a lot easier to brake in time and avoid a collision altogether. Even if a pedestrian is hit their chances of surviving death or serious injury are massively increased.
It still doesn't absolve pedestrians of all responsibility for their activities. If drivers are expected to keep their eyes open so should pedestrians. Or are you claiming that pedestrians have a god given right to walk around in a daze crossing roads without looking.

What I mean is we all should take responsibility for our own actions. It is sheer stupidity to cross a road without looking but a lot of people seem to do it.
Nobody is disagreeing with you. All road users including pedestrians and cyclists need to be using the roads more safely and not putting others at risk.

Think of it this way.

As a decent human being are you going to carry on at the same speed and knock down a pedestrian simply because its their fault they stepped in front of you without looking? Of course not.

That said a significant proportion of pedestrian road deaths and injuries are children. Its a fact that up to a certain age the human brain finds it difficult to judge speed. Another reason why slower speeds make sense on roads where families live, but also more of a childs journey to school rather than a few hundred meters either side of the school gate where traffic congestion at the start and end of each school day often means you can't drive at 20mph anyway.
[quote][p][bold]New Kid on the Block[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]New Kid on the Block[/bold] wrote: I am well aware of the figures saying you are much more likely to survive if you are hit by a car at twenty rather than thirty mph. But in what percentage of car v pedestrian accidents is the pedestrian to blame. If the car driver keeps to the road it is difficult to hit a pedestrian unless they are doing something stupid, and in my experience there are plenty of pedestrians who don't bother to look for cars (or bikes) turning into side roads and walk straight across into your path expecting you to stop for them.[/p][/quote]Highway Code 170 - You should watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way.[/p][/quote]Thanks for pointing this out. I'm sure we can all agree that there is lots more than can be done to reduce road casualties, but drivers are always expected to give way to more vulnerable road users such as pedestrians no matter what the circumstances. At 20mph its a lot easier to brake in time and avoid a collision altogether. Even if a pedestrian is hit their chances of surviving death or serious injury are massively increased.[/p][/quote]It still doesn't absolve pedestrians of all responsibility for their activities. If drivers are expected to keep their eyes open so should pedestrians. Or are you claiming that pedestrians have a god given right to walk around in a daze crossing roads without looking. What I mean is we all should take responsibility for our own actions. It is sheer stupidity to cross a road without looking but a lot of people seem to do it.[/p][/quote]Nobody is disagreeing with you. All road users including pedestrians and cyclists need to be using the roads more safely and not putting others at risk. Think of it this way. As a decent human being are you going to carry on at the same speed and knock down a pedestrian simply because its their fault they stepped in front of you without looking? Of course not. That said a significant proportion of pedestrian road deaths and injuries are children. Its a fact that up to a certain age the human brain finds it difficult to judge speed. Another reason why slower speeds make sense on roads where families live, but also more of a childs journey to school rather than a few hundred meters either side of the school gate where traffic congestion at the start and end of each school day often means you can't drive at 20mph anyway. i-cycle

2:39pm Mon 16 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

voledog wrote:
A great idea and well overdue, but at a very questionable financial cost. Can I suggest the County Council just buys a few thousand 20 mph stickers and gets their existing workforce to just stick them up on every 30mph sign as they happen to pass them during their normal working day? This would cost no more than a few thousand pounds and maybe someone with half a brain could then divert the £25 million I've just saved them into keeping the buses running for the elderly and disadvantaged around the county for the next 8 years?
Hi Voledog

Good point. Well made.

This is exactly what is being advocated. Low cost, wide area, sign only 20mph on residential streets.

Councils with a total population exceeding 12 million have or will be rolling this out in their communities.

A typical cost in other cities is a one off £2-3 per head. If Worcester is similar this would cost about £200-300k for the city and especially when quite large areas are already 20mph (something many drivers are probably not aware of as it doesn't apply and no one is suggesting it for the main arterial roads in the city.

Conservative Lancashire has a population 2.5 times that of Worcestershire. they allocated £9.3M and were pleasantly surprised to find it only cost £5M to introduce. Our local County Council's estimate of £10m therefore seems excessively high.
[quote][p][bold]voledog[/bold] wrote: A great idea and well overdue, but at a very questionable financial cost. Can I suggest the County Council just buys a few thousand 20 mph stickers and gets their existing workforce to just stick them up on every 30mph sign as they happen to pass them during their normal working day? This would cost no more than a few thousand pounds and maybe someone with half a brain could then divert the £25 million I've just saved them into keeping the buses running for the elderly and disadvantaged around the county for the next 8 years?[/p][/quote]Hi Voledog Good point. Well made. This is exactly what is being advocated. Low cost, wide area, sign only 20mph on residential streets. Councils with a total population exceeding 12 million have or will be rolling this out in their communities. A typical cost in other cities is a one off £2-3 per head. If Worcester is similar this would cost about £200-300k for the city and especially when quite large areas are already 20mph (something many drivers are probably not aware of as it doesn't apply and no one is suggesting it for the main arterial roads in the city. Conservative Lancashire has a population 2.5 times that of Worcestershire. they allocated £9.3M and were pleasantly surprised to find it only cost £5M to introduce. Our local County Council's estimate of £10m therefore seems excessively high. i-cycle

2:41pm Mon 16 Dec 13

IGeoTre says...

Have to say, I think I can be persuaded on this one. The reality is that lots of accelerating a bit beyond 30 and nipping through ambers, overtaking cars doing just about the speed limit or a little less etc doesn't actually save you very much time. Not when compared to the extra risk involved with some of that, and that includes driving brainlessly at whatever the speed limit is regardless of the actual road.

The road my parents live on is very narrow at points, and people park down both sides. 30mph is very fast, particularly when you can't see cars pulling out of driveways ahead of you, and they can't see you. Doesn't stop people.

You get used to what certain speeds feel like pretty quickly, I know what 30 feels like in lots of circumstances, even when the road is wide and quiet and it feels ludicrously slow.

Would like to see any change accompanied by fairly aggressive policing of behaviour, driving at the limit 30/40 in some areas can bring you in to conflict with other drivers. Reality is, judging by consultations like Future Lives, there isn't the money to spend now, even if there are savings to be had in the future.
Have to say, I think I can be persuaded on this one. The reality is that lots of accelerating a bit beyond 30 and nipping through ambers, overtaking cars doing just about the speed limit or a little less etc doesn't actually save you very much time. Not when compared to the extra risk involved with some of that, and that includes driving brainlessly at whatever the speed limit is regardless of the actual road. The road my parents live on is very narrow at points, and people park down both sides. 30mph is very fast, particularly when you can't see cars pulling out of driveways ahead of you, and they can't see you. Doesn't stop people. You get used to what certain speeds feel like pretty quickly, I know what 30 feels like in lots of circumstances, even when the road is wide and quiet and it feels ludicrously slow. Would like to see any change accompanied by fairly aggressive policing of behaviour, driving at the limit 30/40 in some areas can bring you in to conflict with other drivers. Reality is, judging by consultations like Future Lives, there isn't the money to spend now, even if there are savings to be had in the future. IGeoTre

2:49pm Mon 16 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

Vox populi wrote:
Enter stage left I-cyclist....
Hi right wing Vox Populi

The Conservative Government are encouraging all Councils to consider adopting 20mph as the default speed for their residential streets.

Boris is rolling it out in London. Conservative Lancashire were the first County to go 20mph on all their residential streets. Conservative Worcestershire have already rolled out 20mph on large areas in Worcester City. The Councillor asking for 20mph on Warndon Villages is a leading Conservative on the City and County Councils.

Ironically Labour nationally didn't support 20mph until their national conference this year. Locally the Labour Group on the County Council have advised me they do not support sign only 20mph.

In national polls 72% support (and only 11% are against) 20mph for their own residential streets.

Not exactly a left wing plot eh? ;)
[quote][p][bold]Vox populi[/bold] wrote: Enter stage left I-cyclist....[/p][/quote]Hi right wing Vox Populi The Conservative Government are encouraging all Councils to consider adopting 20mph as the default speed for their residential streets. Boris is rolling it out in London. Conservative Lancashire were the first County to go 20mph on all their residential streets. Conservative Worcestershire have already rolled out 20mph on large areas in Worcester City. The Councillor asking for 20mph on Warndon Villages is a leading Conservative on the City and County Councils. Ironically Labour nationally didn't support 20mph until their national conference this year. Locally the Labour Group on the County Council have advised me they do not support sign only 20mph. In national polls 72% support (and only 11% are against) 20mph for their own residential streets. Not exactly a left wing plot eh? ;) i-cycle

3:05pm Mon 16 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

New Kid on the Block wrote:
I am well aware of the figures saying you are much more likely to survive if you are hit by a car at twenty rather than thirty mph. But in what percentage of car v pedestrian accidents is the pedestrian to blame.
If the car driver keeps to the road it is difficult to hit a pedestrian unless they are doing something stupid, and in my experience there are plenty of pedestrians who don't bother to look for cars (or bikes) turning into side roads and walk straight across into your path expecting you to stop for them.
All road users need to be better educated in how to look after their own safety and be considerate to others.

In all collisions blame can be attributed to one or both road users involved. However the simple fact is that a car should always give way to a more vulnerable road users such as a pedestrian no matter who's fault it is.

As drivers we all need to use the roads on the assumption that others (car drivers included) will do things they shouldn't. the problem with some is that they see it as their god given right to drive at whatever speed they think fit.

I'm sure you're not in that camp.
[quote][p][bold]New Kid on the Block[/bold] wrote: I am well aware of the figures saying you are much more likely to survive if you are hit by a car at twenty rather than thirty mph. But in what percentage of car v pedestrian accidents is the pedestrian to blame. If the car driver keeps to the road it is difficult to hit a pedestrian unless they are doing something stupid, and in my experience there are plenty of pedestrians who don't bother to look for cars (or bikes) turning into side roads and walk straight across into your path expecting you to stop for them.[/p][/quote]All road users need to be better educated in how to look after their own safety and be considerate to others. In all collisions blame can be attributed to one or both road users involved. However the simple fact is that a car should always give way to a more vulnerable road users such as a pedestrian no matter who's fault it is. As drivers we all need to use the roads on the assumption that others (car drivers included) will do things they shouldn't. the problem with some is that they see it as their god given right to drive at whatever speed they think fit. I'm sure you're not in that camp. i-cycle

3:08pm Mon 16 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

Gerry Taggart wrote:
It's a great idea to follow the lead of those cities where 20 mph has been welcomed. Injury reduction is the biggest cost saving of all.

We should go for it.
I see there are those out there that don't agree with you. Its probably the usual crowd that suggest enforcing or introducing speed limits aren't needed because not enough people have been injured or killed on that stretch of road recently!
[quote][p][bold]Gerry Taggart[/bold] wrote: It's a great idea to follow the lead of those cities where 20 mph has been welcomed. Injury reduction is the biggest cost saving of all. We should go for it.[/p][/quote]I see there are those out there that don't agree with you. Its probably the usual crowd that suggest enforcing or introducing speed limits aren't needed because not enough people have been injured or killed on that stretch of road recently! i-cycle

3:12pm Mon 16 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

psychoflump wrote:
THE FACTS wrote:
"..... and in my experience there are plenty of pedestrians who don't bother to look for cars (or bikes) turning into side roads and walk straight across into your path expecting you to stop for them."

That is the answer give priority to pedestrians in urban areas so they CAN step out whenever they want...so drivers will travel slower and with more space between each car.

If you dont like that idea you need to have the final solution installed. The 10 inch spike in the centre of the steering wheel. That creates a very safe driver.

Everyone's a winner...
Pedestrians have right of way crossing a junction IF THEY'VE ALREADY STARTED CROSSING, simple self preservation seems lacking however when twerps march out into the road when a car is six feet away from them.

You can't give pedestrians priority in a mixed traffic space. A lot of them have no concept of car stopping distances, there's also no organisation to foot traffic, those "look right" signs only mean something because you generally know which direction cars travel on a given side of the road.

I would argue a 10 inch spike on the front of cars might also make pedestrians pay attention to their surroundings.
Shared space solutions where all types of road user use the same 'highway' at lower speeds can and do work.

You probably visited one this week in your car.

Its that bit of tarmac outside most supermarkets and retail parks.
[quote][p][bold]psychoflump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]THE FACTS[/bold] wrote: "..... and in my experience there are plenty of pedestrians who don't bother to look for cars (or bikes) turning into side roads and walk straight across into your path expecting you to stop for them." That is the answer give priority to pedestrians in urban areas so they CAN step out whenever they want...so drivers will travel slower and with more space between each car. If you dont like that idea you need to have the final solution installed. The 10 inch spike in the centre of the steering wheel. That creates a very safe driver. Everyone's a winner...[/p][/quote]Pedestrians have right of way crossing a junction IF THEY'VE ALREADY STARTED CROSSING, simple self preservation seems lacking however when twerps march out into the road when a car is six feet away from them. You can't give pedestrians priority in a mixed traffic space. A lot of them have no concept of car stopping distances, there's also no organisation to foot traffic, those "look right" signs only mean something because you generally know which direction cars travel on a given side of the road. I would argue a 10 inch spike on the front of cars might also make pedestrians pay attention to their surroundings.[/p][/quote]Shared space solutions where all types of road user use the same 'highway' at lower speeds can and do work. You probably visited one this week in your car. Its that bit of tarmac outside most supermarkets and retail parks. i-cycle

3:20pm Mon 16 Dec 13

psychoflump says...

i-cycle wrote:
psychoflump wrote:
THE FACTS wrote:
"..... and in my experience there are plenty of pedestrians who don't bother to look for cars (or bikes) turning into side roads and walk straight across into your path expecting you to stop for them."

That is the answer give priority to pedestrians in urban areas so they CAN step out whenever they want...so drivers will travel slower and with more space between each car.

If you dont like that idea you need to have the final solution installed. The 10 inch spike in the centre of the steering wheel. That creates a very safe driver.

Everyone's a winner...
Pedestrians have right of way crossing a junction IF THEY'VE ALREADY STARTED CROSSING, simple self preservation seems lacking however when twerps march out into the road when a car is six feet away from them.

You can't give pedestrians priority in a mixed traffic space. A lot of them have no concept of car stopping distances, there's also no organisation to foot traffic, those "look right" signs only mean something because you generally know which direction cars travel on a given side of the road.

I would argue a 10 inch spike on the front of cars might also make pedestrians pay attention to their surroundings.
Shared space solutions where all types of road user use the same 'highway' at lower speeds can and do work.

You probably visited one this week in your car.

Its that bit of tarmac outside most supermarkets and retail parks.
Driving around in a car park is completely different to driving from A to B. I wouldn't think of driving at 30mph in that situation, the roads are different. Frankly, if car users are going to see a degradation in how we can use the roads (and having to peer at my speedo to keep my car below 20mph qualifies in my book) then I expect a reduction in the car tax I'm expected to pay.
[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]psychoflump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]THE FACTS[/bold] wrote: "..... and in my experience there are plenty of pedestrians who don't bother to look for cars (or bikes) turning into side roads and walk straight across into your path expecting you to stop for them." That is the answer give priority to pedestrians in urban areas so they CAN step out whenever they want...so drivers will travel slower and with more space between each car. If you dont like that idea you need to have the final solution installed. The 10 inch spike in the centre of the steering wheel. That creates a very safe driver. Everyone's a winner...[/p][/quote]Pedestrians have right of way crossing a junction IF THEY'VE ALREADY STARTED CROSSING, simple self preservation seems lacking however when twerps march out into the road when a car is six feet away from them. You can't give pedestrians priority in a mixed traffic space. A lot of them have no concept of car stopping distances, there's also no organisation to foot traffic, those "look right" signs only mean something because you generally know which direction cars travel on a given side of the road. I would argue a 10 inch spike on the front of cars might also make pedestrians pay attention to their surroundings.[/p][/quote]Shared space solutions where all types of road user use the same 'highway' at lower speeds can and do work. You probably visited one this week in your car. Its that bit of tarmac outside most supermarkets and retail parks.[/p][/quote]Driving around in a car park is completely different to driving from A to B. I wouldn't think of driving at 30mph in that situation, the roads are different. Frankly, if car users are going to see a degradation in how we can use the roads (and having to peer at my speedo to keep my car below 20mph qualifies in my book) then I expect a reduction in the car tax I'm expected to pay. psychoflump

3:22pm Mon 16 Dec 13

IGeoTre says...

You don't pay car tax. Before someone else gets there.
You don't pay car tax. Before someone else gets there. IGeoTre

3:24pm Mon 16 Dec 13

IGeoTre says...

Wish you could edit. What I mean is, your tax disc is not a road fund.

As I said above anyway, it doesn't take long to adapt to knowing how to maintain a certain speed, you won't be peering at your speedo.
Wish you could edit. What I mean is, your tax disc is not a road fund. As I said above anyway, it doesn't take long to adapt to knowing how to maintain a certain speed, you won't be peering at your speedo. IGeoTre

3:26pm Mon 16 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

IGeoTre wrote:
Have to say, I think I can be persuaded on this one. The reality is that lots of accelerating a bit beyond 30 and nipping through ambers, overtaking cars doing just about the speed limit or a little less etc doesn't actually save you very much time. Not when compared to the extra risk involved with some of that, and that includes driving brainlessly at whatever the speed limit is regardless of the actual road.

The road my parents live on is very narrow at points, and people park down both sides. 30mph is very fast, particularly when you can't see cars pulling out of driveways ahead of you, and they can't see you. Doesn't stop people.

You get used to what certain speeds feel like pretty quickly, I know what 30 feels like in lots of circumstances, even when the road is wide and quiet and it feels ludicrously slow.

Would like to see any change accompanied by fairly aggressive policing of behaviour, driving at the limit 30/40 in some areas can bring you in to conflict with other drivers. Reality is, judging by consultations like Future Lives, there isn't the money to spend now, even if there are savings to be had in the future.
Thanks for taking the time to see what's proposed more objectively.

To be honest current West Mercia police attitudes to the enforcement of 20mph isn't helpful.

Lots of other police forces support the enforcement of 20mph, but Bill Longmore is sticking by the line that he won't unless expensive and unpopular traffic calming measures are introduced to force drivers to slow down. That's despite West Mercia having the reduction of deaths and injuries on local roads as a priority.

Enforcement certainly does have a bigger impact on reducing average speeds. However speed reduction in other areas has been achieved by better consultation and explanation of the reasons and benefits for reducing speed on our residential streets. Some times local residents have bee given speed guns to record those who don't comply and with a polite note being sent from the police.

At least ACPO guidance changed in October to bring in a specific range of penalties for 20mph areas. Before that the police would only take enforcement action if drivers exceeded 30mph limits in residential areas.

As we don't live in a police state, more of our elected councils are adopting 20mph and there is overwhelming public support (at least for streets down where they live) I doubt it will be long before either national guidance changes or the police respond in a more positive way to public and democratic will.

Perhaps something that needs to be raised more assertively by local politicians or when Bill is up for re-election!
[quote][p][bold]IGeoTre[/bold] wrote: Have to say, I think I can be persuaded on this one. The reality is that lots of accelerating a bit beyond 30 and nipping through ambers, overtaking cars doing just about the speed limit or a little less etc doesn't actually save you very much time. Not when compared to the extra risk involved with some of that, and that includes driving brainlessly at whatever the speed limit is regardless of the actual road. The road my parents live on is very narrow at points, and people park down both sides. 30mph is very fast, particularly when you can't see cars pulling out of driveways ahead of you, and they can't see you. Doesn't stop people. You get used to what certain speeds feel like pretty quickly, I know what 30 feels like in lots of circumstances, even when the road is wide and quiet and it feels ludicrously slow. Would like to see any change accompanied by fairly aggressive policing of behaviour, driving at the limit 30/40 in some areas can bring you in to conflict with other drivers. Reality is, judging by consultations like Future Lives, there isn't the money to spend now, even if there are savings to be had in the future.[/p][/quote]Thanks for taking the time to see what's proposed more objectively. To be honest current West Mercia police attitudes to the enforcement of 20mph isn't helpful. Lots of other police forces support the enforcement of 20mph, but Bill Longmore is sticking by the line that he won't unless expensive and unpopular traffic calming measures are introduced to force drivers to slow down. That's despite West Mercia having the reduction of deaths and injuries on local roads as a priority. Enforcement certainly does have a bigger impact on reducing average speeds. However speed reduction in other areas has been achieved by better consultation and explanation of the reasons and benefits for reducing speed on our residential streets. Some times local residents have bee given speed guns to record those who don't comply and with a polite note being sent from the police. At least ACPO guidance changed in October to bring in a specific range of penalties for 20mph areas. Before that the police would only take enforcement action if drivers exceeded 30mph limits in residential areas. As we don't live in a police state, more of our elected councils are adopting 20mph and there is overwhelming public support (at least for streets down where they live) I doubt it will be long before either national guidance changes or the police respond in a more positive way to public and democratic will. Perhaps something that needs to be raised more assertively by local politicians or when Bill is up for re-election! i-cycle

3:37pm Mon 16 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

psychoflump wrote:
i-cycle wrote:
psychoflump wrote:
THE FACTS wrote:
"..... and in my experience there are plenty of pedestrians who don't bother to look for cars (or bikes) turning into side roads and walk straight across into your path expecting you to stop for them."

That is the answer give priority to pedestrians in urban areas so they CAN step out whenever they want...so drivers will travel slower and with more space between each car.

If you dont like that idea you need to have the final solution installed. The 10 inch spike in the centre of the steering wheel. That creates a very safe driver.

Everyone's a winner...
Pedestrians have right of way crossing a junction IF THEY'VE ALREADY STARTED CROSSING, simple self preservation seems lacking however when twerps march out into the road when a car is six feet away from them.

You can't give pedestrians priority in a mixed traffic space. A lot of them have no concept of car stopping distances, there's also no organisation to foot traffic, those "look right" signs only mean something because you generally know which direction cars travel on a given side of the road.

I would argue a 10 inch spike on the front of cars might also make pedestrians pay attention to their surroundings.
Shared space solutions where all types of road user use the same 'highway' at lower speeds can and do work.

You probably visited one this week in your car.

Its that bit of tarmac outside most supermarkets and retail parks.
Driving around in a car park is completely different to driving from A to B. I wouldn't think of driving at 30mph in that situation, the roads are different. Frankly, if car users are going to see a degradation in how we can use the roads (and having to peer at my speedo to keep my car below 20mph qualifies in my book) then I expect a reduction in the car tax I'm expected to pay.
There's no such thing as car tax anyway. We all pay for the roads through general taxation. You pay VED which reflects how environmentally you car is. Its easy enough for you to reduce this cost to nil yourself.

No one is promoting 20mph on the main roads anyway. Its the estate roads which probably form only a small part of any the journey most of us take in getting to work or the shops. All that's really being asked is that drivers are more considerate when driving through the neighbourhoods where the majority of us live and where most deaths and injuries occur.

I don't know here you live or your family circumstances, but I'd hazard a guess that you'd prefer cars to drive at slower speeds around where you live? It makes it safer for you and yours, reduces air and noise pollution and makes it easier to cross the road to local shops and facilities and especially for the young and elderly.
[quote][p][bold]psychoflump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]psychoflump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]THE FACTS[/bold] wrote: "..... and in my experience there are plenty of pedestrians who don't bother to look for cars (or bikes) turning into side roads and walk straight across into your path expecting you to stop for them." That is the answer give priority to pedestrians in urban areas so they CAN step out whenever they want...so drivers will travel slower and with more space between each car. If you dont like that idea you need to have the final solution installed. The 10 inch spike in the centre of the steering wheel. That creates a very safe driver. Everyone's a winner...[/p][/quote]Pedestrians have right of way crossing a junction IF THEY'VE ALREADY STARTED CROSSING, simple self preservation seems lacking however when twerps march out into the road when a car is six feet away from them. You can't give pedestrians priority in a mixed traffic space. A lot of them have no concept of car stopping distances, there's also no organisation to foot traffic, those "look right" signs only mean something because you generally know which direction cars travel on a given side of the road. I would argue a 10 inch spike on the front of cars might also make pedestrians pay attention to their surroundings.[/p][/quote]Shared space solutions where all types of road user use the same 'highway' at lower speeds can and do work. You probably visited one this week in your car. Its that bit of tarmac outside most supermarkets and retail parks.[/p][/quote]Driving around in a car park is completely different to driving from A to B. I wouldn't think of driving at 30mph in that situation, the roads are different. Frankly, if car users are going to see a degradation in how we can use the roads (and having to peer at my speedo to keep my car below 20mph qualifies in my book) then I expect a reduction in the car tax I'm expected to pay.[/p][/quote]There's no such thing as car tax anyway. We all pay for the roads through general taxation. You pay VED which reflects how environmentally you car is. Its easy enough for you to reduce this cost to nil yourself. No one is promoting 20mph on the main roads anyway. Its the estate roads which probably form only a small part of any the journey most of us take in getting to work or the shops. All that's really being asked is that drivers are more considerate when driving through the neighbourhoods where the majority of us live and where most deaths and injuries occur. I don't know here you live or your family circumstances, but I'd hazard a guess that you'd prefer cars to drive at slower speeds around where you live? It makes it safer for you and yours, reduces air and noise pollution and makes it easier to cross the road to local shops and facilities and especially for the young and elderly. i-cycle

3:48pm Mon 16 Dec 13

imustbeoldiwearacap says...

For those who have to constantly look at their speedos to see if they are keeping to 20mph - should you be driving if you are unable to judge your speed? I expect it of a learner/just passed their test, but experienced drivers should have a good idea of their speed. And in residential areas some of the pedestrians are children who are not quite traffic aware - so 20 mph seems reasonable to me!
For those who have to constantly look at their speedos to see if they are keeping to 20mph - should you be driving if you are unable to judge your speed? I expect it of a learner/just passed their test, but experienced drivers should have a good idea of their speed. And in residential areas some of the pedestrians are children who are not quite traffic aware - so 20 mph seems reasonable to me! imustbeoldiwearacap

3:52pm Mon 16 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

psychoflump wrote:
i-cycle wrote:
psychoflump wrote:
THE FACTS wrote:
"..... and in my experience there are plenty of pedestrians who don't bother to look for cars (or bikes) turning into side roads and walk straight across into your path expecting you to stop for them."

That is the answer give priority to pedestrians in urban areas so they CAN step out whenever they want...so drivers will travel slower and with more space between each car.

If you dont like that idea you need to have the final solution installed. The 10 inch spike in the centre of the steering wheel. That creates a very safe driver.

Everyone's a winner...
Pedestrians have right of way crossing a junction IF THEY'VE ALREADY STARTED CROSSING, simple self preservation seems lacking however when twerps march out into the road when a car is six feet away from them.

You can't give pedestrians priority in a mixed traffic space. A lot of them have no concept of car stopping distances, there's also no organisation to foot traffic, those "look right" signs only mean something because you generally know which direction cars travel on a given side of the road.

I would argue a 10 inch spike on the front of cars might also make pedestrians pay attention to their surroundings.
Shared space solutions where all types of road user use the same 'highway' at lower speeds can and do work.

You probably visited one this week in your car.

Its that bit of tarmac outside most supermarkets and retail parks.
Driving around in a car park is completely different to driving from A to B. I wouldn't think of driving at 30mph in that situation, the roads are different. Frankly, if car users are going to see a degradation in how we can use the roads (and having to peer at my speedo to keep my car below 20mph qualifies in my book) then I expect a reduction in the car tax I'm expected to pay.
As others have pointed out.

Isn't it a bit ironic when drivers complain about speed limits because it means they have to constantly watch their speedo. Yet they expect other road users to be 'educated' to judge traffic speed without the benefit of a speed gun.
[quote][p][bold]psychoflump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]psychoflump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]THE FACTS[/bold] wrote: "..... and in my experience there are plenty of pedestrians who don't bother to look for cars (or bikes) turning into side roads and walk straight across into your path expecting you to stop for them." That is the answer give priority to pedestrians in urban areas so they CAN step out whenever they want...so drivers will travel slower and with more space between each car. If you dont like that idea you need to have the final solution installed. The 10 inch spike in the centre of the steering wheel. That creates a very safe driver. Everyone's a winner...[/p][/quote]Pedestrians have right of way crossing a junction IF THEY'VE ALREADY STARTED CROSSING, simple self preservation seems lacking however when twerps march out into the road when a car is six feet away from them. You can't give pedestrians priority in a mixed traffic space. A lot of them have no concept of car stopping distances, there's also no organisation to foot traffic, those "look right" signs only mean something because you generally know which direction cars travel on a given side of the road. I would argue a 10 inch spike on the front of cars might also make pedestrians pay attention to their surroundings.[/p][/quote]Shared space solutions where all types of road user use the same 'highway' at lower speeds can and do work. You probably visited one this week in your car. Its that bit of tarmac outside most supermarkets and retail parks.[/p][/quote]Driving around in a car park is completely different to driving from A to B. I wouldn't think of driving at 30mph in that situation, the roads are different. Frankly, if car users are going to see a degradation in how we can use the roads (and having to peer at my speedo to keep my car below 20mph qualifies in my book) then I expect a reduction in the car tax I'm expected to pay.[/p][/quote]As others have pointed out. Isn't it a bit ironic when drivers complain about speed limits because it means they have to constantly watch their speedo. Yet they expect other road users to be 'educated' to judge traffic speed without the benefit of a speed gun. i-cycle

5:12pm Mon 16 Dec 13

dropkick55 says...

norman73 wrote:
i went to look at house to buy in warden. after driving over those nasty rubber speed humps i decided not to bother.

just so its very clear i don't speed.
Or spell
[quote][p][bold]norman73[/bold] wrote: i went to look at house to buy in warden. after driving over those nasty rubber speed humps i decided not to bother. just so its very clear i don't speed.[/p][/quote]Or spell dropkick55

5:42pm Mon 16 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

Hwicce wrote:
THE FACTS wrote:
Some points and facts...

Road humps are a jaw droppingly expensive attempt to solve the problem a speed camera will stop in its tracks.

Travelling at 20 instead of 30 mph will make little difference to the time it takes to get from one urban place to the next.

We should be making it harder to drive then people will see taking the bus or walking is almost as good... then the buses wouldnt be getting cancelled.

Perhaps I can incite the debate by suggesting car owners check how much it costs to own and operate their car ... Its over £3000 pa .... and guess what ? most families have 2 or even 3 cars.

If a family sat down and tried to justify £6000 pa for their 2 cars most would rapidly find that they can save a lot of money.

30% will save nothing but that shouldnt get in the way of the other 70% benefiting.

To drive one mile costs 60p if your car is 3 years old.... more if it is newer
If you leave your car on your driveway when you fly abroad it stills costs ... To not use your car for a week costs you over £80 ... more if it is newer. Let me say that again ...to NOT use your car for a week costs you over £80.

Let me be clear ... many people have to have a car ...but equally many more do not. £3000 gets a lot of taxis ... thats £60 per week for cabs.
You must have a blinking expensive car!

Mine costs me about £500 a year, so £10 a week. For the convienence that provides (go where I want, when I want) it is an absolute bargain.
Most underestimate the true cost of car ownership.

According to the RAC the average cost is £5,000 per annum. About a third of average net income.

Typically 50% of the cost is depreciation.

Even assuming no finance costs there's the opportunity cost of not having the original sum paid invested.

Add insurance, VED, MOT, Servicing, repairs, fuel, parking, tolls, car wash and I find it very difficult to believe that you're running your car for only £500 per year.
[quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]THE FACTS[/bold] wrote: Some points and facts... Road humps are a jaw droppingly expensive attempt to solve the problem a speed camera will stop in its tracks. Travelling at 20 instead of 30 mph will make little difference to the time it takes to get from one urban place to the next. We should be making it harder to drive then people will see taking the bus or walking is almost as good... then the buses wouldnt be getting cancelled. Perhaps I can incite the debate by suggesting car owners check how much it costs to own and operate their car ... Its over £3000 pa .... and guess what ? most families have 2 or even 3 cars. If a family sat down and tried to justify £6000 pa for their 2 cars most would rapidly find that they can save a lot of money. 30% will save nothing but that shouldnt get in the way of the other 70% benefiting. To drive one mile costs 60p if your car is 3 years old.... more if it is newer If you leave your car on your driveway when you fly abroad it stills costs ... To not use your car for a week costs you over £80 ... more if it is newer. Let me say that again ...to NOT use your car for a week costs you over £80. Let me be clear ... many people have to have a car ...but equally many more do not. £3000 gets a lot of taxis ... thats £60 per week for cabs.[/p][/quote]You must have a blinking expensive car! Mine costs me about £500 a year, so £10 a week. For the convienence that provides (go where I want, when I want) it is an absolute bargain.[/p][/quote]Most underestimate the true cost of car ownership. According to the RAC the average cost is £5,000 per annum. About a third of average net income. Typically 50% of the cost is depreciation. Even assuming no finance costs there's the opportunity cost of not having the original sum paid invested. Add insurance, VED, MOT, Servicing, repairs, fuel, parking, tolls, car wash and I find it very difficult to believe that you're running your car for only £500 per year. i-cycle

6:00pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Hwicce says...

i-cycle wrote:
Hwicce wrote:
THE FACTS wrote:
Some points and facts...

Road humps are a jaw droppingly expensive attempt to solve the problem a speed camera will stop in its tracks.

Travelling at 20 instead of 30 mph will make little difference to the time it takes to get from one urban place to the next.

We should be making it harder to drive then people will see taking the bus or walking is almost as good... then the buses wouldnt be getting cancelled.

Perhaps I can incite the debate by suggesting car owners check how much it costs to own and operate their car ... Its over £3000 pa .... and guess what ? most families have 2 or even 3 cars.

If a family sat down and tried to justify £6000 pa for their 2 cars most would rapidly find that they can save a lot of money.

30% will save nothing but that shouldnt get in the way of the other 70% benefiting.

To drive one mile costs 60p if your car is 3 years old.... more if it is newer
If you leave your car on your driveway when you fly abroad it stills costs ... To not use your car for a week costs you over £80 ... more if it is newer. Let me say that again ...to NOT use your car for a week costs you over £80.

Let me be clear ... many people have to have a car ...but equally many more do not. £3000 gets a lot of taxis ... thats £60 per week for cabs.
You must have a blinking expensive car!

Mine costs me about £500 a year, so £10 a week. For the convienence that provides (go where I want, when I want) it is an absolute bargain.
Most underestimate the true cost of car ownership.

According to the RAC the average cost is £5,000 per annum. About a third of average net income.

Typically 50% of the cost is depreciation.

Even assuming no finance costs there's the opportunity cost of not having the original sum paid invested.

Add insurance, VED, MOT, Servicing, repairs, fuel, parking, tolls, car wash and I find it very difficult to believe that you're running your car for only £500 per year.
That's the problem with you, you don't know the facts but you always spout some sanctimonious gibberish to support your case.

Tax, Insurance and a service/MOT comes in at less than £500. Depreciation doesn't matter as it has no real value in the first place (it's that old). Car wash I do it myself. Parking I don't pay for, tolls!!

So, I'm sorry if I don't fit you stereotype but tough!!
[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]THE FACTS[/bold] wrote: Some points and facts... Road humps are a jaw droppingly expensive attempt to solve the problem a speed camera will stop in its tracks. Travelling at 20 instead of 30 mph will make little difference to the time it takes to get from one urban place to the next. We should be making it harder to drive then people will see taking the bus or walking is almost as good... then the buses wouldnt be getting cancelled. Perhaps I can incite the debate by suggesting car owners check how much it costs to own and operate their car ... Its over £3000 pa .... and guess what ? most families have 2 or even 3 cars. If a family sat down and tried to justify £6000 pa for their 2 cars most would rapidly find that they can save a lot of money. 30% will save nothing but that shouldnt get in the way of the other 70% benefiting. To drive one mile costs 60p if your car is 3 years old.... more if it is newer If you leave your car on your driveway when you fly abroad it stills costs ... To not use your car for a week costs you over £80 ... more if it is newer. Let me say that again ...to NOT use your car for a week costs you over £80. Let me be clear ... many people have to have a car ...but equally many more do not. £3000 gets a lot of taxis ... thats £60 per week for cabs.[/p][/quote]You must have a blinking expensive car! Mine costs me about £500 a year, so £10 a week. For the convienence that provides (go where I want, when I want) it is an absolute bargain.[/p][/quote]Most underestimate the true cost of car ownership. According to the RAC the average cost is £5,000 per annum. About a third of average net income. Typically 50% of the cost is depreciation. Even assuming no finance costs there's the opportunity cost of not having the original sum paid invested. Add insurance, VED, MOT, Servicing, repairs, fuel, parking, tolls, car wash and I find it very difficult to believe that you're running your car for only £500 per year.[/p][/quote]That's the problem with you, you don't know the facts but you always spout some sanctimonious gibberish to support your case. Tax, Insurance and a service/MOT comes in at less than £500. Depreciation doesn't matter as it has no real value in the first place (it's that old). Car wash I do it myself. Parking I don't pay for, tolls!! So, I'm sorry if I don't fit you stereotype but tough!! Hwicce

6:05pm Mon 16 Dec 13

DarrenM says...

You have to discount the views of the majority of these people who are very lonely and spend a lot of time on the Internet.
They have limited understanding and no qualifications in road safety, none in accident investigation, none in driving and none in statistical analysis.

Its the equivalent of them reading an article on the internet on brain surgery and then telling a consultant how to do his job.

As for a pilot on Warndon Villages, when you have exluded the feeder roads mentioned just how many roads do they think you practically drive at 30mph on? I can think of about 4.
Have they even driven round any of the side roads on the villages?

The fact that the supposedly hard up coucil are even considering spending 10 million pounds of taxpayers money on this nonsense is just further evidence they haven't been cut back enough.
You have to discount the views of the majority of these people who are very lonely and spend a lot of time on the Internet. They have limited understanding and no qualifications in road safety, none in accident investigation, none in driving and none in statistical analysis. Its the equivalent of them reading an article on the internet on brain surgery and then telling a consultant how to do his job. As for a pilot on Warndon Villages, when you have exluded the feeder roads mentioned just how many roads do they think you practically drive at 30mph on? I can think of about 4. Have they even driven round any of the side roads on the villages? The fact that the supposedly hard up coucil are even considering spending 10 million pounds of taxpayers money on this nonsense is just further evidence they haven't been cut back enough. DarrenM

6:12pm Mon 16 Dec 13

DarrenM says...

"Its an urban myth that cars are more fuel efficient at certain speeds"

Right so a car traveling at a constant 100mph uses the same amount of fuel to travel the same distance as when it travels at 30mph then?
"Its an urban myth that cars are more fuel efficient at certain speeds" Right so a car traveling at a constant 100mph uses the same amount of fuel to travel the same distance as when it travels at 30mph then? DarrenM

6:28pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Andy_R says...

i-cycle wrote:
Andy_R wrote:
Slowing cars down means they spend longer on the road, and that means more congestion, and more pollution. Hands up who wants more road congestion and pollution?
Wrong.

Its an urban myth that cars are more fuel efficient at certain speeds.

Reducing car speeds to 20mph reduces stopping distances and increases road capacity. This is why variable speed limits have been applied to the most congested parts of our motorway network.

It also makes it easier to filter at junctions. It smooths traffic flow and reduces the need for stop start and braking (the main cause of increased fuel consumption).

By making roads safer for cyclists to cycle on and pedestrians to walk besides and cross it also encourages more to leave their cars at home for those shorter journeys. (Bristol saw a 20% + increase in walk/cycle journeys after they rolled out their 20mph).
Where do you get this nonsense from?

Go look at any car advert printed in the last 30 years, and you'll see different fuel consumption figures for 56mph and for urban driving. if every single car advert has an 'urban myth' in it, why hasn't anyone noticed?

Secondly, it's obvious that if a car goes slower but travels the same distance, it spends more time on the road. If everyone spends more time on the road, that inevitably means more congestion.

Pretending facts are 'urban myths' just makes people ignore you when you when you do have something sensible to say.
[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy_R[/bold] wrote: Slowing cars down means they spend longer on the road, and that means more congestion, and more pollution. Hands up who wants more road congestion and pollution?[/p][/quote]Wrong. Its an urban myth that cars are more fuel efficient at certain speeds. Reducing car speeds to 20mph reduces stopping distances and increases road capacity. This is why variable speed limits have been applied to the most congested parts of our motorway network. It also makes it easier to filter at junctions. It smooths traffic flow and reduces the need for stop start and braking (the main cause of increased fuel consumption). By making roads safer for cyclists to cycle on and pedestrians to walk besides and cross it also encourages more to leave their cars at home for those shorter journeys. (Bristol saw a 20% + increase in walk/cycle journeys after they rolled out their 20mph).[/p][/quote]Where do you get this nonsense from? Go look at any car advert printed in the last 30 years, and you'll see different fuel consumption figures for 56mph and for urban driving. if every single car advert has an 'urban myth' in it, why hasn't anyone noticed? Secondly, it's obvious that if a car goes slower but travels the same distance, it spends more time on the road. If everyone spends more time on the road, that inevitably means more congestion. Pretending facts are 'urban myths' just makes people ignore you when you when you do have something sensible to say. Andy_R

6:56pm Mon 16 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

Hwicce wrote:
i-cycle wrote:
Hwicce wrote:
THE FACTS wrote:
Some points and facts...

Road humps are a jaw droppingly expensive attempt to solve the problem a speed camera will stop in its tracks.

Travelling at 20 instead of 30 mph will make little difference to the time it takes to get from one urban place to the next.

We should be making it harder to drive then people will see taking the bus or walking is almost as good... then the buses wouldnt be getting cancelled.

Perhaps I can incite the debate by suggesting car owners check how much it costs to own and operate their car ... Its over £3000 pa .... and guess what ? most families have 2 or even 3 cars.

If a family sat down and tried to justify £6000 pa for their 2 cars most would rapidly find that they can save a lot of money.

30% will save nothing but that shouldnt get in the way of the other 70% benefiting.

To drive one mile costs 60p if your car is 3 years old.... more if it is newer
If you leave your car on your driveway when you fly abroad it stills costs ... To not use your car for a week costs you over £80 ... more if it is newer. Let me say that again ...to NOT use your car for a week costs you over £80.

Let me be clear ... many people have to have a car ...but equally many more do not. £3000 gets a lot of taxis ... thats £60 per week for cabs.
You must have a blinking expensive car!

Mine costs me about £500 a year, so £10 a week. For the convienence that provides (go where I want, when I want) it is an absolute bargain.
Most underestimate the true cost of car ownership.

According to the RAC the average cost is £5,000 per annum. About a third of average net income.

Typically 50% of the cost is depreciation.

Even assuming no finance costs there's the opportunity cost of not having the original sum paid invested.

Add insurance, VED, MOT, Servicing, repairs, fuel, parking, tolls, car wash and I find it very difficult to believe that you're running your car for only £500 per year.
That's the problem with you, you don't know the facts but you always spout some sanctimonious gibberish to support your case.

Tax, Insurance and a service/MOT comes in at less than £500. Depreciation doesn't matter as it has no real value in the first place (it's that old). Car wash I do it myself. Parking I don't pay for, tolls!!

So, I'm sorry if I don't fit you stereotype but tough!!
Shall we have a closer look at what I actually said?

FACT - MOST people underestimate the true cost of car ownership

FACT - the RAC east mates and what's included.

Its great that you can run an old banger for only £500 a year.

I'm not against motorists. I am one myself.
[quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]THE FACTS[/bold] wrote: Some points and facts... Road humps are a jaw droppingly expensive attempt to solve the problem a speed camera will stop in its tracks. Travelling at 20 instead of 30 mph will make little difference to the time it takes to get from one urban place to the next. We should be making it harder to drive then people will see taking the bus or walking is almost as good... then the buses wouldnt be getting cancelled. Perhaps I can incite the debate by suggesting car owners check how much it costs to own and operate their car ... Its over £3000 pa .... and guess what ? most families have 2 or even 3 cars. If a family sat down and tried to justify £6000 pa for their 2 cars most would rapidly find that they can save a lot of money. 30% will save nothing but that shouldnt get in the way of the other 70% benefiting. To drive one mile costs 60p if your car is 3 years old.... more if it is newer If you leave your car on your driveway when you fly abroad it stills costs ... To not use your car for a week costs you over £80 ... more if it is newer. Let me say that again ...to NOT use your car for a week costs you over £80. Let me be clear ... many people have to have a car ...but equally many more do not. £3000 gets a lot of taxis ... thats £60 per week for cabs.[/p][/quote]You must have a blinking expensive car! Mine costs me about £500 a year, so £10 a week. For the convienence that provides (go where I want, when I want) it is an absolute bargain.[/p][/quote]Most underestimate the true cost of car ownership. According to the RAC the average cost is £5,000 per annum. About a third of average net income. Typically 50% of the cost is depreciation. Even assuming no finance costs there's the opportunity cost of not having the original sum paid invested. Add insurance, VED, MOT, Servicing, repairs, fuel, parking, tolls, car wash and I find it very difficult to believe that you're running your car for only £500 per year.[/p][/quote]That's the problem with you, you don't know the facts but you always spout some sanctimonious gibberish to support your case. Tax, Insurance and a service/MOT comes in at less than £500. Depreciation doesn't matter as it has no real value in the first place (it's that old). Car wash I do it myself. Parking I don't pay for, tolls!! So, I'm sorry if I don't fit you stereotype but tough!![/p][/quote]Shall we have a closer look at what I actually said? FACT - MOST people underestimate the true cost of car ownership FACT - the RAC east mates and what's included. Its great that you can run an old banger for only £500 a year. I'm not against motorists. I am one myself. i-cycle

7:03pm Mon 16 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

DarrenM wrote:
You have to discount the views of the majority of these people who are very lonely and spend a lot of time on the Internet.
They have limited understanding and no qualifications in road safety, none in accident investigation, none in driving and none in statistical analysis.

Its the equivalent of them reading an article on the internet on brain surgery and then telling a consultant how to do his job.

As for a pilot on Warndon Villages, when you have exluded the feeder roads mentioned just how many roads do they think you practically drive at 30mph on? I can think of about 4.
Have they even driven round any of the side roads on the villages?

The fact that the supposedly hard up coucil are even considering spending 10 million pounds of taxpayers money on this nonsense is just further evidence they haven't been cut back enough.
Thanks Darren for your erudite view on those who express their own views.

From what you say I assume you do have qualifications and experience in road safety, accident investigation and statistical analysis?
[quote][p][bold]DarrenM[/bold] wrote: You have to discount the views of the majority of these people who are very lonely and spend a lot of time on the Internet. They have limited understanding and no qualifications in road safety, none in accident investigation, none in driving and none in statistical analysis. Its the equivalent of them reading an article on the internet on brain surgery and then telling a consultant how to do his job. As for a pilot on Warndon Villages, when you have exluded the feeder roads mentioned just how many roads do they think you practically drive at 30mph on? I can think of about 4. Have they even driven round any of the side roads on the villages? The fact that the supposedly hard up coucil are even considering spending 10 million pounds of taxpayers money on this nonsense is just further evidence they haven't been cut back enough.[/p][/quote]Thanks Darren for your erudite view on those who express their own views. From what you say I assume you do have qualifications and experience in road safety, accident investigation and statistical analysis? i-cycle

7:21pm Mon 16 Dec 13

grumpy woman says...

Personally it would be great to travel as fast as 20 mph in Worcester, particularly on the southern link road and surrounding overspill roads.
Personally it would be great to travel as fast as 20 mph in Worcester, particularly on the southern link road and surrounding overspill roads. grumpy woman

7:26pm Mon 16 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

DarrenM wrote:
"Its an urban myth that cars are more fuel efficient at certain speeds"

Right so a car traveling at a constant 100mph uses the same amount of fuel to travel the same distance as when it travels at 30mph then?
Of course not.
[quote][p][bold]DarrenM[/bold] wrote: "Its an urban myth that cars are more fuel efficient at certain speeds" Right so a car traveling at a constant 100mph uses the same amount of fuel to travel the same distance as when it travels at 30mph then?[/p][/quote]Of course not. i-cycle

8:01pm Mon 16 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

Andy_R wrote:
i-cycle wrote:
Andy_R wrote:
Slowing cars down means they spend longer on the road, and that means more congestion, and more pollution. Hands up who wants more road congestion and pollution?
Wrong.

Its an urban myth that cars are more fuel efficient at certain speeds.

Reducing car speeds to 20mph reduces stopping distances and increases road capacity. This is why variable speed limits have been applied to the most congested parts of our motorway network.

It also makes it easier to filter at junctions. It smooths traffic flow and reduces the need for stop start and braking (the main cause of increased fuel consumption).

By making roads safer for cyclists to cycle on and pedestrians to walk besides and cross it also encourages more to leave their cars at home for those shorter journeys. (Bristol saw a 20% + increase in walk/cycle journeys after they rolled out their 20mph).
Where do you get this nonsense from?

Go look at any car advert printed in the last 30 years, and you'll see different fuel consumption figures for 56mph and for urban driving. if every single car advert has an 'urban myth' in it, why hasn't anyone noticed?

Secondly, it's obvious that if a car goes slower but travels the same distance, it spends more time on the road. If everyone spends more time on the road, that inevitably means more congestion.

Pretending facts are 'urban myths' just makes people ignore you when you when you do have something sensible to say.
Car manufacturers have to quote fuel efficiency for certain standards to allow meaningful comparison.

Manufacturers suggest optimum efficiency between 50 and 60 mph.

Two thirds of drivers believe this.

A What Car? found the most fuel efficient speeds were below 40mph for all 5 cars tested and as low as 20mph for two of them.

On road capacity DfT's Design for Roads and Bridges states that urban traffic flows improve at slower speeds. Others transport experts have modelled traffic flows and come to the same conclusion.
[quote][p][bold]Andy_R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy_R[/bold] wrote: Slowing cars down means they spend longer on the road, and that means more congestion, and more pollution. Hands up who wants more road congestion and pollution?[/p][/quote]Wrong. Its an urban myth that cars are more fuel efficient at certain speeds. Reducing car speeds to 20mph reduces stopping distances and increases road capacity. This is why variable speed limits have been applied to the most congested parts of our motorway network. It also makes it easier to filter at junctions. It smooths traffic flow and reduces the need for stop start and braking (the main cause of increased fuel consumption). By making roads safer for cyclists to cycle on and pedestrians to walk besides and cross it also encourages more to leave their cars at home for those shorter journeys. (Bristol saw a 20% + increase in walk/cycle journeys after they rolled out their 20mph).[/p][/quote]Where do you get this nonsense from? Go look at any car advert printed in the last 30 years, and you'll see different fuel consumption figures for 56mph and for urban driving. if every single car advert has an 'urban myth' in it, why hasn't anyone noticed? Secondly, it's obvious that if a car goes slower but travels the same distance, it spends more time on the road. If everyone spends more time on the road, that inevitably means more congestion. Pretending facts are 'urban myths' just makes people ignore you when you when you do have something sensible to say.[/p][/quote]Car manufacturers have to quote fuel efficiency for certain standards to allow meaningful comparison. Manufacturers suggest optimum efficiency between 50 and 60 mph. Two thirds of drivers believe this. A What Car? found the most fuel efficient speeds were below 40mph for all 5 cars tested and as low as 20mph for two of them. On road capacity DfT's Design for Roads and Bridges states that urban traffic flows improve at slower speeds. Others transport experts have modelled traffic flows and come to the same conclusion. i-cycle

8:24pm Mon 16 Dec 13

liketoknow says...

i was driving to work one day at 30 when a young lad ran out from behind a parked car it was only because his dad shouted at him that he stopped. it was nearly a very bad day. you don't want one like that .believe me . so yeah they're a pain but until something better comes along ,needed.
i was driving to work one day at 30 when a young lad ran out from behind a parked car it was only because his dad shouted at him that he stopped. it was nearly a very bad day. you don't want one like that .believe me . so yeah they're a pain but until something better comes along ,needed. liketoknow

8:34pm Mon 16 Dec 13

THE FACTS says...

liketoknow wrote:
i was driving to work one day at 30 when a young lad ran out from behind a parked car it was only because his dad shouted at him that he stopped. it was nearly a very bad day. you don't want one like that .believe me . so yeah they're a pain but until something better comes along ,needed.
You mean young lads are a pain ?

Tell us something new !

Happy Xmas
[quote][p][bold]liketoknow[/bold] wrote: i was driving to work one day at 30 when a young lad ran out from behind a parked car it was only because his dad shouted at him that he stopped. it was nearly a very bad day. you don't want one like that .believe me . so yeah they're a pain but until something better comes along ,needed.[/p][/quote]You mean young lads are a pain ? Tell us something new ! Happy Xmas THE FACTS

9:35pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Andy_R says...

i-cycle wrote:
Andy_R wrote:
i-cycle wrote:
Andy_R wrote:
Slowing cars down means they spend longer on the road, and that means more congestion, and more pollution. Hands up who wants more road congestion and pollution?
Wrong.

Its an urban myth that cars are more fuel efficient at certain speeds.

Reducing car speeds to 20mph reduces stopping distances and increases road capacity. This is why variable speed limits have been applied to the most congested parts of our motorway network.

It also makes it easier to filter at junctions. It smooths traffic flow and reduces the need for stop start and braking (the main cause of increased fuel consumption).

By making roads safer for cyclists to cycle on and pedestrians to walk besides and cross it also encourages more to leave their cars at home for those shorter journeys. (Bristol saw a 20% + increase in walk/cycle journeys after they rolled out their 20mph).
Where do you get this nonsense from?

Go look at any car advert printed in the last 30 years, and you'll see different fuel consumption figures for 56mph and for urban driving. if every single car advert has an 'urban myth' in it, why hasn't anyone noticed?

Secondly, it's obvious that if a car goes slower but travels the same distance, it spends more time on the road. If everyone spends more time on the road, that inevitably means more congestion.

Pretending facts are 'urban myths' just makes people ignore you when you when you do have something sensible to say.
Car manufacturers have to quote fuel efficiency for certain standards to allow meaningful comparison.

Manufacturers suggest optimum efficiency between 50 and 60 mph.

Two thirds of drivers believe this.

A What Car? found the most fuel efficient speeds were below 40mph for all 5 cars tested and as low as 20mph for two of them.

On road capacity DfT's Design for Roads and Bridges states that urban traffic flows improve at slower speeds. Others transport experts have modelled traffic flows and come to the same conclusion.
I'll ask again, as you haven't answered... where do you get this nonsense from?

A few seconds with Google found a *genuine* quote from What Car: "maintaining a steady 55-60mph cruise is the most fuel-efficient way to drive". Notice how it's completely different to the nonsense you've written?

Guess what happens when googling DfT "Design for Roads and Bridges" "urban traffic flows improve at slower speeds"?

"Your search did not match any documents." The only thing that's even close to what you are presenting as fact is on the crackpot "20splentyforus" website, which takes a graph from COBA out of context and reads the axes the wrong way round!
[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy_R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy_R[/bold] wrote: Slowing cars down means they spend longer on the road, and that means more congestion, and more pollution. Hands up who wants more road congestion and pollution?[/p][/quote]Wrong. Its an urban myth that cars are more fuel efficient at certain speeds. Reducing car speeds to 20mph reduces stopping distances and increases road capacity. This is why variable speed limits have been applied to the most congested parts of our motorway network. It also makes it easier to filter at junctions. It smooths traffic flow and reduces the need for stop start and braking (the main cause of increased fuel consumption). By making roads safer for cyclists to cycle on and pedestrians to walk besides and cross it also encourages more to leave their cars at home for those shorter journeys. (Bristol saw a 20% + increase in walk/cycle journeys after they rolled out their 20mph).[/p][/quote]Where do you get this nonsense from? Go look at any car advert printed in the last 30 years, and you'll see different fuel consumption figures for 56mph and for urban driving. if every single car advert has an 'urban myth' in it, why hasn't anyone noticed? Secondly, it's obvious that if a car goes slower but travels the same distance, it spends more time on the road. If everyone spends more time on the road, that inevitably means more congestion. Pretending facts are 'urban myths' just makes people ignore you when you when you do have something sensible to say.[/p][/quote]Car manufacturers have to quote fuel efficiency for certain standards to allow meaningful comparison. Manufacturers suggest optimum efficiency between 50 and 60 mph. Two thirds of drivers believe this. A What Car? found the most fuel efficient speeds were below 40mph for all 5 cars tested and as low as 20mph for two of them. On road capacity DfT's Design for Roads and Bridges states that urban traffic flows improve at slower speeds. Others transport experts have modelled traffic flows and come to the same conclusion.[/p][/quote]I'll ask again, as you haven't answered... where do you get this nonsense from? A few seconds with Google found a *genuine* quote from What Car: "maintaining a steady 55-60mph cruise is the most fuel-efficient way to drive". Notice how it's completely different to the nonsense you've written? Guess what happens when googling DfT "Design for Roads and Bridges" "urban traffic flows improve at slower speeds"? "Your search did not match any documents." The only thing that's even close to what you are presenting as fact is on the crackpot "20splentyforus" website, which takes a graph from COBA out of context and reads the axes the wrong way round! Andy_R

10:50pm Mon 16 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

Andy_R wrote:
i-cycle wrote:
Andy_R wrote:
i-cycle wrote:
Andy_R wrote:
Slowing cars down means they spend longer on the road, and that means more congestion, and more pollution. Hands up who wants more road congestion and pollution?
Wrong.

Its an urban myth that cars are more fuel efficient at certain speeds.

Reducing car speeds to 20mph reduces stopping distances and increases road capacity. This is why variable speed limits have been applied to the most congested parts of our motorway network.

It also makes it easier to filter at junctions. It smooths traffic flow and reduces the need for stop start and braking (the main cause of increased fuel consumption).

By making roads safer for cyclists to cycle on and pedestrians to walk besides and cross it also encourages more to leave their cars at home for those shorter journeys. (Bristol saw a 20% + increase in walk/cycle journeys after they rolled out their 20mph).
Where do you get this nonsense from?

Go look at any car advert printed in the last 30 years, and you'll see different fuel consumption figures for 56mph and for urban driving. if every single car advert has an 'urban myth' in it, why hasn't anyone noticed?

Secondly, it's obvious that if a car goes slower but travels the same distance, it spends more time on the road. If everyone spends more time on the road, that inevitably means more congestion.

Pretending facts are 'urban myths' just makes people ignore you when you when you do have something sensible to say.
Car manufacturers have to quote fuel efficiency for certain standards to allow meaningful comparison.

Manufacturers suggest optimum efficiency between 50 and 60 mph.

Two thirds of drivers believe this.

A What Car? found the most fuel efficient speeds were below 40mph for all 5 cars tested and as low as 20mph for two of them.

On road capacity DfT's Design for Roads and Bridges states that urban traffic flows improve at slower speeds. Others transport experts have modelled traffic flows and come to the same conclusion.
I'll ask again, as you haven't answered... where do you get this nonsense from?

A few seconds with Google found a *genuine* quote from What Car: "maintaining a steady 55-60mph cruise is the most fuel-efficient way to drive". Notice how it's completely different to the nonsense you've written?

Guess what happens when googling DfT "Design for Roads and Bridges" "urban traffic flows improve at slower speeds"?

"Your search did not match any documents." The only thing that's even close to what you are presenting as fact is on the crackpot "20splentyforus" website, which takes a graph from COBA out of context and reads the axes the wrong way round!
Your What Car quote is correct, but for some reason you found it appropriate to miss out the important final two words of the sentence. The full quote is: "…maintaining a steady 55-60mph cruise is the most fuel-efficient way to drive ON MOTORWAYS"

I assume you're not recommending people drive at 55-60mph through our residential streets or suggesting anything like a steady cruising speed of 55-60 can be maintained.

The reference to the What Car study was on the Pistonheads website and also in this link http://www.transport
policy.org.uk/Future
/20mph/20mph.htm which also looks in more detail at the impacts of 20mph. It appears the original study may no longer be available on the What Car website which probably explains why you couldn't find it on google.

Here's a link to the DfT report > http://www.leics.gov
.uk/part_5.pdf
[quote][p][bold]Andy_R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy_R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy_R[/bold] wrote: Slowing cars down means they spend longer on the road, and that means more congestion, and more pollution. Hands up who wants more road congestion and pollution?[/p][/quote]Wrong. Its an urban myth that cars are more fuel efficient at certain speeds. Reducing car speeds to 20mph reduces stopping distances and increases road capacity. This is why variable speed limits have been applied to the most congested parts of our motorway network. It also makes it easier to filter at junctions. It smooths traffic flow and reduces the need for stop start and braking (the main cause of increased fuel consumption). By making roads safer for cyclists to cycle on and pedestrians to walk besides and cross it also encourages more to leave their cars at home for those shorter journeys. (Bristol saw a 20% + increase in walk/cycle journeys after they rolled out their 20mph).[/p][/quote]Where do you get this nonsense from? Go look at any car advert printed in the last 30 years, and you'll see different fuel consumption figures for 56mph and for urban driving. if every single car advert has an 'urban myth' in it, why hasn't anyone noticed? Secondly, it's obvious that if a car goes slower but travels the same distance, it spends more time on the road. If everyone spends more time on the road, that inevitably means more congestion. Pretending facts are 'urban myths' just makes people ignore you when you when you do have something sensible to say.[/p][/quote]Car manufacturers have to quote fuel efficiency for certain standards to allow meaningful comparison. Manufacturers suggest optimum efficiency between 50 and 60 mph. Two thirds of drivers believe this. A What Car? found the most fuel efficient speeds were below 40mph for all 5 cars tested and as low as 20mph for two of them. On road capacity DfT's Design for Roads and Bridges states that urban traffic flows improve at slower speeds. Others transport experts have modelled traffic flows and come to the same conclusion.[/p][/quote]I'll ask again, as you haven't answered... where do you get this nonsense from? A few seconds with Google found a *genuine* quote from What Car: "maintaining a steady 55-60mph cruise is the most fuel-efficient way to drive". Notice how it's completely different to the nonsense you've written? Guess what happens when googling DfT "Design for Roads and Bridges" "urban traffic flows improve at slower speeds"? "Your search did not match any documents." The only thing that's even close to what you are presenting as fact is on the crackpot "20splentyforus" website, which takes a graph from COBA out of context and reads the axes the wrong way round![/p][/quote]Your What Car quote is correct, but for some reason you found it appropriate to miss out the important final two words of the sentence. The full quote is: "…maintaining a steady 55-60mph cruise is the most fuel-efficient way to drive ON MOTORWAYS" I assume you're not recommending people drive at 55-60mph through our residential streets or suggesting anything like a steady cruising speed of 55-60 can be maintained. The reference to the What Car study was on the Pistonheads website and also in this link http://www.transport policy.org.uk/Future /20mph/20mph.htm which also looks in more detail at the impacts of 20mph. It appears the original study may no longer be available on the What Car website which probably explains why you couldn't find it on google. Here's a link to the DfT report > http://www.leics.gov .uk/part_5.pdf i-cycle

10:55pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Green Olive says...

A car driven along a flat straight road at 50 mph would use less fuel than at 20mph. Driving along residential roads and streets the car will brake, accelerate, negotiate bends, stop and start so the difference between 20 and 30 mph will be negligable. The figures quoted for mpg in car adverts are done under very standardised conditions and bear little relation to the real life situation.
Slowing traffic down increases capacity and dies not increase congestion.It may seem illogical but this is the reasoning behind the use of variable speed limits on motorways.
A car driven along a flat straight road at 50 mph would use less fuel than at 20mph. Driving along residential roads and streets the car will brake, accelerate, negotiate bends, stop and start so the difference between 20 and 30 mph will be negligable. The figures quoted for mpg in car adverts are done under very standardised conditions and bear little relation to the real life situation. Slowing traffic down increases capacity and dies not increase congestion.It may seem illogical but this is the reasoning behind the use of variable speed limits on motorways. Green Olive

11:25pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Jabbadad says...

I wish that all if not most car manufacturers fitted, or Accessories were available for SPEED LIMITERS. One of my mates had a jaguar which had a speed limiter and was set by the driver as he entered a particular speed limit. So no distraction watching speedometers as mentioned. Plus we are now in a technolgical age whereby car speed Limiters would respond to speed limit signal Satalite sensors, which would enforce speed controls even on those who maintain that they are the safest drivers around. And for any smart Alec who disconected them would be heavily fined and Points awarded. JOB DONE.
As to pedestrians I worry and fret when at the Crossings in Croft Road and Pheasant Street the pedestrians just march up to the crossings, NO PAUSE and stride out across the road. I thought that Pedestrians were expected to approached crossings, pause, and only crossed when traffic came to a stand still? With both crossings, cars are pulling up when they see pedestrians approaching the crossings from several yards away.
And the crossing in Pheasant Street is badly sited and a cause of the traffic queues back up Rainbow Hill, Tolladine Road, Shrub Hill Road and back to City Walls road. God Bless our caring Pedestrians.
I wish that all if not most car manufacturers fitted, or Accessories were available for SPEED LIMITERS. One of my mates had a jaguar which had a speed limiter and was set by the driver as he entered a particular speed limit. So no distraction watching speedometers as mentioned. Plus we are now in a technolgical age whereby car speed Limiters would respond to speed limit signal Satalite sensors, which would enforce speed controls even on those who maintain that they are the safest drivers around. And for any smart Alec who disconected them would be heavily fined and Points awarded. JOB DONE. As to pedestrians I worry and fret when at the Crossings in Croft Road and Pheasant Street the pedestrians just march up to the crossings, NO PAUSE and stride out across the road. I thought that Pedestrians were expected to approached crossings, pause, and only crossed when traffic came to a stand still? With both crossings, cars are pulling up when they see pedestrians approaching the crossings from several yards away. And the crossing in Pheasant Street is badly sited and a cause of the traffic queues back up Rainbow Hill, Tolladine Road, Shrub Hill Road and back to City Walls road. God Bless our caring Pedestrians. Jabbadad

2:32am Tue 17 Dec 13

Andy_R says...

Nice try, I-cycle. One source you quoted conveniently vanishes (and not just from the web, but also from google's cache, and archive.org. too!), another turns out to be a crackpot car-hater's site who does website design in notepad, and that big complicated DfT document you're trying to baffle us with doesn't say actually anything even remotely similar to the quote you made up that "urban traffic flows improve at slower speeds", and What Car actually say something totally different and almost exactly opposite to pretended they said.

Will you retract your lie that "It's an urban myth that cars are more fuel efficient at certain speeds." now that you admit that the source you referred to actually says that 55-60 is the most fuel efficient speed on motorways?

No matter how many sources you and your car-hating friends make up, that slowing cars down will inevitably mean they spend longer on the road, and cars spending longer on the road means more congestion and more pollution.
Nice try, I-cycle. One source you quoted conveniently vanishes (and not just from the web, but also from google's cache, and archive.org. too!), another turns out to be a crackpot car-hater's site who does website design in notepad, and that big complicated DfT document you're trying to baffle us with doesn't say actually anything even remotely similar to the quote you made up that "urban traffic flows improve at slower speeds", and What Car actually say something totally different and almost exactly opposite to pretended they said. Will you retract your lie that "It's an urban myth that cars are more fuel efficient at certain speeds." now that you admit that the source you referred to actually says that 55-60 is the most fuel efficient speed on motorways? No matter how many sources you and your car-hating friends make up, that slowing cars down will inevitably mean they spend longer on the road, and cars spending longer on the road means more congestion and more pollution. Andy_R

9:00am Tue 17 Dec 13

MulsanneChap says...

20mph zones are very commendable and I can certainly see why there are calls for these to be implemented. However, there are some issues and practicalities that need to be considered as 20mph speed limits are not all that easy or as clear cut as so many people make them out to be.

All speed limits are supported by a legal traffic order. It's not simply a case of changing or moving speed limit signs. A statutory, legal process needs to be undertaken by the highways department before any changes can be made, while the process itself takes a minimum of 6 months from start to finish depending on what feedback is received when the proposals are advertised publicly. Some of the feedback can result in some proposals being shelved, meaning no changes to speed limits can be made. If every urban road requires 20mph speed limits, this will take time and money, more so if extra staff are needed to try and introduce changes on the thousands of residential roads in a timescale acceptable to residents. And there is the cost of changing or installing new signs.

20mph speed limits on their own are very rarely self-enforcing and that has been proven in 20mph areas throughout the country where supplementary traffic calming measures do not exist. The Police, in Worcestershire at least, will not enforce 20mph area without traffic calming.

If traffic calming measures like speed humps or chicanes need to be introduced, they need to be constructed to current specifications. Therefore, to accommodate such features may require changes to a road layout, particularly on narrow roads, while some properties may be affected too when trying to install traffic calming features, while driveways could be impeded. Also, I think traffic calming features require illumination, so further signs and lighting may be necessary. Some vehicles like 4x4s are immune to some traffic calming like speed humps, while there are noise, traffic and pollution implications too. In some areas, traffic calming can increase accidents, especially where motorists become impatient and take risks. Lets not forget maintenance costs, which will increase. So before any traffic calming features are considered, an impact assessment needs to be undertaken, while some residents may be resistant to traffic calming measures with these issue considered. And the cost of traffic calming can run in to thousands, so if that is needed on every residential road to try and ensure the 20mph speed limit is adhered too, it'll cost more than just an extra couple of quid per household. And if traffic calming is in place, will the speed limit be enforced?

Generally, the majority of people who speed on a road are actually the road's residents. And that's proven too. These resident's will quite happily ignore their own environment, but will drive tentatively while elsewhere, especially if they're in an unfamiliar location. And as for 20mph speed limits around schools, many of the parents who have dropped their children off are the culprits for speeding. So, education and a change in habits are needed too.

I'm not against 20mph speed limits, but just a few pointers, while other options could be considered which may be as equally as effective, and perhaps at a lower cost too.
20mph zones are very commendable and I can certainly see why there are calls for these to be implemented. However, there are some issues and practicalities that need to be considered as 20mph speed limits are not all that easy or as clear cut as so many people make them out to be. All speed limits are supported by a legal traffic order. It's not simply a case of changing or moving speed limit signs. A statutory, legal process needs to be undertaken by the highways department before any changes can be made, while the process itself takes a minimum of 6 months from start to finish depending on what feedback is received when the proposals are advertised publicly. Some of the feedback can result in some proposals being shelved, meaning no changes to speed limits can be made. If every urban road requires 20mph speed limits, this will take time and money, more so if extra staff are needed to try and introduce changes on the thousands of residential roads in a timescale acceptable to residents. And there is the cost of changing or installing new signs. 20mph speed limits on their own are very rarely self-enforcing and that has been proven in 20mph areas throughout the country where supplementary traffic calming measures do not exist. The Police, in Worcestershire at least, will not enforce 20mph area without traffic calming. If traffic calming measures like speed humps or chicanes need to be introduced, they need to be constructed to current specifications. Therefore, to accommodate such features may require changes to a road layout, particularly on narrow roads, while some properties may be affected too when trying to install traffic calming features, while driveways could be impeded. Also, I think traffic calming features require illumination, so further signs and lighting may be necessary. Some vehicles like 4x4s are immune to some traffic calming like speed humps, while there are noise, traffic and pollution implications too. In some areas, traffic calming can increase accidents, especially where motorists become impatient and take risks. Lets not forget maintenance costs, which will increase. So before any traffic calming features are considered, an impact assessment needs to be undertaken, while some residents may be resistant to traffic calming measures with these issue considered. And the cost of traffic calming can run in to thousands, so if that is needed on every residential road to try and ensure the 20mph speed limit is adhered too, it'll cost more than just an extra couple of quid per household. And if traffic calming is in place, will the speed limit be enforced? Generally, the majority of people who speed on a road are actually the road's residents. And that's proven too. These resident's will quite happily ignore their own environment, but will drive tentatively while elsewhere, especially if they're in an unfamiliar location. And as for 20mph speed limits around schools, many of the parents who have dropped their children off are the culprits for speeding. So, education and a change in habits are needed too. I'm not against 20mph speed limits, but just a few pointers, while other options could be considered which may be as equally as effective, and perhaps at a lower cost too. MulsanneChap

9:14am Tue 17 Dec 13

THE FACTS says...

MulsanneChap .. good info.

So it is a can of worms.

Can you comment on the generally held view that road humps are a very inefficient way of slowing traffic, I wont rehearse the reasons because you will know them.

And also comment on the costs of mobile camera/camera installation as a speed enforcer ?

On the surface looking at teh costs of road calming it seems cameras my have a cost neutral role to play in teh solution somewhere?
MulsanneChap .. good info. So it is a can of worms. Can you comment on the generally held view that road humps are a very inefficient way of slowing traffic, I wont rehearse the reasons because you will know them. And also comment on the costs of mobile camera/camera installation as a speed enforcer ? On the surface looking at teh costs of road calming it seems cameras my have a cost neutral role to play in teh solution somewhere? THE FACTS

10:02am Tue 17 Dec 13

Vox populi says...

Same old dull argument.

I mean who needs progress or even to get anywhere. I guess travel only broadens the horizons if you can do it by bicycle.

The modern motorist is not Toad of Toad Hall, its merely a human trying to get somewhere to make ends meet.

Resources, oil, pollution all quoted and everyone misses the biggest resource lacking in most working peoples life…...Time.

Wooo hooo lets put a 20mph speed limit in…. Afterall laws and prohibition solve everything don't they, I mean isn't that what history tells us…? Oh hang on a minute…

Not sure what you expect to achieve with a 20mph limit, the dangerous drivers refered to by some here will always be dangerous and will always speed in inappropriate places unless they are educated properly….but that sits in the "too difficult to do box" doesn't it?

Want to really save some lives? Ban religion! Speed doesn't kill, bad judgement, poor decisions, mistakes and often stupidity does.

Oh and by the way i-cycle I am somewhat confused by your "left wing, right wing" comments. I have always been a midfield player myself. I believe you are refering to my political views, I have none, only common sense and life experience.

All good info Mulsanne, as I have mentioned before to the derision of hard core safety campaigners many road designers actually introduce danger/risk to control traffic flow and reduce speed. Residents are often the most vocal but the worst offenders: familiarity breeds contempt...
Same old dull argument. I mean who needs progress or even to get anywhere. I guess travel only broadens the horizons if you can do it by bicycle. The modern motorist is not Toad of Toad Hall, its merely a human trying to get somewhere to make ends meet. Resources, oil, pollution all quoted and everyone misses the biggest resource lacking in most working peoples life…...Time. Wooo hooo lets put a 20mph speed limit in…. Afterall laws and prohibition solve everything don't they, I mean isn't that what history tells us…? Oh hang on a minute… Not sure what you expect to achieve with a 20mph limit, the dangerous drivers refered to by some here will always be dangerous and will always speed in inappropriate places unless they are educated properly….but that sits in the "too difficult to do box" doesn't it? Want to really save some lives? Ban religion! Speed doesn't kill, bad judgement, poor decisions, mistakes and often stupidity does. Oh and by the way i-cycle I am somewhat confused by your "left wing, right wing" comments. I have always been a midfield player myself. I believe you are refering to my political views, I have none, only common sense and life experience. All good info Mulsanne, as I have mentioned before to the derision of hard core safety campaigners many road designers actually introduce danger/risk to control traffic flow and reduce speed. Residents are often the most vocal but the worst offenders: familiarity breeds contempt... Vox populi

10:24am Tue 17 Dec 13

farmeralan1963 says...

MulsanneChap wrote:
20mph zones are very commendable and I can certainly see why there are calls for these to be implemented. However, there are some issues and practicalities that need to be considered as 20mph speed limits are not all that easy or as clear cut as so many people make them out to be.

All speed limits are supported by a legal traffic order. It's not simply a case of changing or moving speed limit signs. A statutory, legal process needs to be undertaken by the highways department before any changes can be made, while the process itself takes a minimum of 6 months from start to finish depending on what feedback is received when the proposals are advertised publicly. Some of the feedback can result in some proposals being shelved, meaning no changes to speed limits can be made. If every urban road requires 20mph speed limits, this will take time and money, more so if extra staff are needed to try and introduce changes on the thousands of residential roads in a timescale acceptable to residents. And there is the cost of changing or installing new signs.

20mph speed limits on their own are very rarely self-enforcing and that has been proven in 20mph areas throughout the country where supplementary traffic calming measures do not exist. The Police, in Worcestershire at least, will not enforce 20mph area without traffic calming.

If traffic calming measures like speed humps or chicanes need to be introduced, they need to be constructed to current specifications. Therefore, to accommodate such features may require changes to a road layout, particularly on narrow roads, while some properties may be affected too when trying to install traffic calming features, while driveways could be impeded. Also, I think traffic calming features require illumination, so further signs and lighting may be necessary. Some vehicles like 4x4s are immune to some traffic calming like speed humps, while there are noise, traffic and pollution implications too. In some areas, traffic calming can increase accidents, especially where motorists become impatient and take risks. Lets not forget maintenance costs, which will increase. So before any traffic calming features are considered, an impact assessment needs to be undertaken, while some residents may be resistant to traffic calming measures with these issue considered. And the cost of traffic calming can run in to thousands, so if that is needed on every residential road to try and ensure the 20mph speed limit is adhered too, it'll cost more than just an extra couple of quid per household. And if traffic calming is in place, will the speed limit be enforced?

Generally, the majority of people who speed on a road are actually the road's residents. And that's proven too. These resident's will quite happily ignore their own environment, but will drive tentatively while elsewhere, especially if they're in an unfamiliar location. And as for 20mph speed limits around schools, many of the parents who have dropped their children off are the culprits for speeding. So, education and a change in habits are needed too.

I'm not against 20mph speed limits, but just a few pointers, while other options could be considered which may be as equally as effective, and perhaps at a lower cost too.
Excellent information, it was about time some people knew about the real world issues and practicalities of 20mph speed limits and traffic calming features. As for enforcing speed limits, the Police have categorically said they will not support any proposals for introducing 20mph speed limits or carry out enforcement, even if there are traffic calming features. I know this because where I live, some people wanted a 20mph speed limit on one road, but the Police were against any such proposals. In fact, the Police refuse to enforce many other restrictions like weight limits, restricted access etc.
[quote][p][bold]MulsanneChap[/bold] wrote: 20mph zones are very commendable and I can certainly see why there are calls for these to be implemented. However, there are some issues and practicalities that need to be considered as 20mph speed limits are not all that easy or as clear cut as so many people make them out to be. All speed limits are supported by a legal traffic order. It's not simply a case of changing or moving speed limit signs. A statutory, legal process needs to be undertaken by the highways department before any changes can be made, while the process itself takes a minimum of 6 months from start to finish depending on what feedback is received when the proposals are advertised publicly. Some of the feedback can result in some proposals being shelved, meaning no changes to speed limits can be made. If every urban road requires 20mph speed limits, this will take time and money, more so if extra staff are needed to try and introduce changes on the thousands of residential roads in a timescale acceptable to residents. And there is the cost of changing or installing new signs. 20mph speed limits on their own are very rarely self-enforcing and that has been proven in 20mph areas throughout the country where supplementary traffic calming measures do not exist. The Police, in Worcestershire at least, will not enforce 20mph area without traffic calming. If traffic calming measures like speed humps or chicanes need to be introduced, they need to be constructed to current specifications. Therefore, to accommodate such features may require changes to a road layout, particularly on narrow roads, while some properties may be affected too when trying to install traffic calming features, while driveways could be impeded. Also, I think traffic calming features require illumination, so further signs and lighting may be necessary. Some vehicles like 4x4s are immune to some traffic calming like speed humps, while there are noise, traffic and pollution implications too. In some areas, traffic calming can increase accidents, especially where motorists become impatient and take risks. Lets not forget maintenance costs, which will increase. So before any traffic calming features are considered, an impact assessment needs to be undertaken, while some residents may be resistant to traffic calming measures with these issue considered. And the cost of traffic calming can run in to thousands, so if that is needed on every residential road to try and ensure the 20mph speed limit is adhered too, it'll cost more than just an extra couple of quid per household. And if traffic calming is in place, will the speed limit be enforced? Generally, the majority of people who speed on a road are actually the road's residents. And that's proven too. These resident's will quite happily ignore their own environment, but will drive tentatively while elsewhere, especially if they're in an unfamiliar location. And as for 20mph speed limits around schools, many of the parents who have dropped their children off are the culprits for speeding. So, education and a change in habits are needed too. I'm not against 20mph speed limits, but just a few pointers, while other options could be considered which may be as equally as effective, and perhaps at a lower cost too.[/p][/quote]Excellent information, it was about time some people knew about the real world issues and practicalities of 20mph speed limits and traffic calming features. As for enforcing speed limits, the Police have categorically said they will not support any proposals for introducing 20mph speed limits or carry out enforcement, even if there are traffic calming features. I know this because where I live, some people wanted a 20mph speed limit on one road, but the Police were against any such proposals. In fact, the Police refuse to enforce many other restrictions like weight limits, restricted access etc. farmeralan1963

10:47am Tue 17 Dec 13

BadgerMash says...

If you travel at the (30, 40 or 50 mph) speed limit on most roads you will, about half the time in our county, be tailgated. Some of the time this is just due to inattention, or familiarity breeding contempt for the dangers of driving a car.

However, increasingly drivers deliberately drive very close indeed to the vehicle in front as a threat. This is a serious criminal offence, committed using an object which can easily cause many deaths in a matter of seconds. If the threat was made using some other legitimate tool, such as a hammer, axe or shotgun a police response would be immediate and prosecution inevitable.

Until police become serious about preventing routine intimidation of this sort on our roads there is little point in introducing further speed restrictions - however sensible.
If you travel at the (30, 40 or 50 mph) speed limit on most roads you will, about half the time in our county, be tailgated. Some of the time this is just due to inattention, or familiarity breeding contempt for the dangers of driving a car. However, increasingly drivers deliberately drive very close indeed to the vehicle in front as a threat. This is a serious criminal offence, committed using an object which can easily cause many deaths in a matter of seconds. If the threat was made using some other legitimate tool, such as a hammer, axe or shotgun a police response would be immediate and prosecution inevitable. Until police become serious about preventing routine intimidation of this sort on our roads there is little point in introducing further speed restrictions - however sensible. BadgerMash

11:24am Tue 17 Dec 13

Andy-Apache says...

£500 a year is amazingly cheap!

So, Insurance (cheap!) for £200, road tax (if you arent exempt) £200, that only leaves £100 for a years worth of fuel, and assumes your car isn't worth anything at all as it's not depreciating, and you don't pay anything for maintenance.

Got to get me one of them cars! :-)

I sold my commute car and move to within 10 mins walk of my work. Wife still has her car if we go anywhere. I bought a wee sporty thing for summer evenings with the money I saved. Getting rid of the commute saved me a fortune!
£500 a year is amazingly cheap! So, Insurance (cheap!) for £200, road tax (if you arent exempt) £200, that only leaves £100 for a years worth of fuel, and assumes your car isn't worth anything at all as it's not depreciating, and you don't pay anything for maintenance. Got to get me one of them cars! :-) I sold my commute car and move to within 10 mins walk of my work. Wife still has her car if we go anywhere. I bought a wee sporty thing for summer evenings with the money I saved. Getting rid of the commute saved me a fortune! Andy-Apache

12:06pm Tue 17 Dec 13

MJI says...

Traffic calming is anything but, twice in the last week I have had issues.
.
Canterbury road, dark, raining, road markings worn off, speed bumps very difficult to see.
.
Even at under 20 I was having to slam on brakes for the humps as I take them at walking pace due to getting underbody damage otherwise. Triggering ABS as well.
.
First gear all the way along there, the car never changed up, anything but relaxing trying to spot unmarked humps.
.
Was it safer due to humps no, but would I stock to 20, well I stick to around 20, that is the point to be carefull.
.
Other issue was outside Tudor Grange, watching the bumps and missed the pedestrian waiting to step onto the crossing on top of the bump. Again was not going fast but trying to take the bump carefully.
.
Speed bumps take up concentration of what is around unless you have an offroader and can just plough over them.
.
.
Now pedestrians, why do they start to cross City Walls road when the lights are green for traffic? Am I the onlypedestrian who checks the road lights as well?
.
Why do they step off the pavement without looking, straight into the path of traffic. I had this happen to me years ago, luckily I was travelling quite slowly and he got away with a sore arm from my mirror, I had NO chance of stopping. I have even had lads running across roads running into the side of my car.
.
.
Idiots on bikes (not cyclists, they are the ones with lights, and do not annoy me), a few things they need to do,

1) Use lights when it is dark, or murky, much easier to see you.
2) Flourescent tops do work.
3) Left hand lane please, we drive on the left in the UK, do not ride on the RHS of the road with no lights in the dark and wonder why you get knocked off. (Seen the after results, no injuries as the IOB bailed luckily)
4) Don't go up the inside of slow moving traffic, watch what motorcyclists do, outside. My dad has seen Moped users fall off while doing this when they ran out of room.
5) Chavs on bikes (probably somone elses) do not ride off a pavement straight across the road, stopping traffic and laughing at them, the next driver may snap.
.
.
Car drivers, too many half soaked no idea what they are doing, even saw someone drive out of a spot into my car and drive off and the Police were not interested,

If you are going to drive at 30 in a 40 expect to be overtaken and do not get ratty, people are allowed to overtake BMWs you know, If you are driving at 40 in a 60, again expect people to follow too close, they are just waiting to pass. If you build up a queue, pull over and let it past, I have been stuck behind a stupidly slow car and caravan for 30 miles through Wales, eventually I flashed them a few times, they thought caravan broken, pulled over. I drove past, followed by a LONG queue, as I pulled over a couple of miles later to let the rest pass (I was towing too), I got friendly waves from other road users.
.
.
All road users. SIGNAL!
Traffic calming is anything but, twice in the last week I have had issues. . Canterbury road, dark, raining, road markings worn off, speed bumps very difficult to see. . Even at under 20 I was having to slam on brakes for the humps as I take them at walking pace due to getting underbody damage otherwise. Triggering ABS as well. . First gear all the way along there, the car never changed up, anything but relaxing trying to spot unmarked humps. . Was it safer due to humps no, but would I stock to 20, well I stick to around 20, that is the point to be carefull. . Other issue was outside Tudor Grange, watching the bumps and missed the pedestrian waiting to step onto the crossing on top of the bump. Again was not going fast but trying to take the bump carefully. . Speed bumps take up concentration of what is around unless you have an offroader and can just plough over them. . . Now pedestrians, why do they start to cross City Walls road when the lights are green for traffic? Am I the onlypedestrian who checks the road lights as well? . Why do they step off the pavement without looking, straight into the path of traffic. I had this happen to me years ago, luckily I was travelling quite slowly and he got away with a sore arm from my mirror, I had NO chance of stopping. I have even had lads running across roads running into the side of my car. . . Idiots on bikes (not cyclists, they are the ones with lights, and do not annoy me), a few things they need to do, 1) Use lights when it is dark, or murky, much easier to see you. 2) Flourescent tops do work. 3) Left hand lane please, we drive on the left in the UK, do not ride on the RHS of the road with no lights in the dark and wonder why you get knocked off. (Seen the after results, no injuries as the IOB bailed luckily) 4) Don't go up the inside of slow moving traffic, watch what motorcyclists do, outside. My dad has seen Moped users fall off while doing this when they ran out of room. 5) Chavs on bikes (probably somone elses) do not ride off a pavement straight across the road, stopping traffic and laughing at them, the next driver may snap. . . Car drivers, too many half soaked no idea what they are doing, even saw someone drive out of a spot into my car and drive off and the Police were not interested, If you are going to drive at 30 in a 40 expect to be overtaken and do not get ratty, people are allowed to overtake BMWs you know, If you are driving at 40 in a 60, again expect people to follow too close, they are just waiting to pass. If you build up a queue, pull over and let it past, I have been stuck behind a stupidly slow car and caravan for 30 miles through Wales, eventually I flashed them a few times, they thought caravan broken, pulled over. I drove past, followed by a LONG queue, as I pulled over a couple of miles later to let the rest pass (I was towing too), I got friendly waves from other road users. . . All road users. SIGNAL! MJI

4:56pm Tue 17 Dec 13

imustbeoldiwearacap says...

BadgerMash wrote:
If you travel at the (30, 40 or 50 mph) speed limit on most roads you will, about half the time in our county, be tailgated. Some of the time this is just due to inattention, or familiarity breeding contempt for the dangers of driving a car.

However, increasingly drivers deliberately drive very close indeed to the vehicle in front as a threat. This is a serious criminal offence, committed using an object which can easily cause many deaths in a matter of seconds. If the threat was made using some other legitimate tool, such as a hammer, axe or shotgun a police response would be immediate and prosecution inevitable.

Until police become serious about preventing routine intimidation of this sort on our roads there is little point in introducing further speed restrictions - however sensible.
I find that if I use the screen wash - the overspray makes them slow down a tad whilst they clear their screen!
[quote][p][bold]BadgerMash[/bold] wrote: If you travel at the (30, 40 or 50 mph) speed limit on most roads you will, about half the time in our county, be tailgated. Some of the time this is just due to inattention, or familiarity breeding contempt for the dangers of driving a car. However, increasingly drivers deliberately drive very close indeed to the vehicle in front as a threat. This is a serious criminal offence, committed using an object which can easily cause many deaths in a matter of seconds. If the threat was made using some other legitimate tool, such as a hammer, axe or shotgun a police response would be immediate and prosecution inevitable. Until police become serious about preventing routine intimidation of this sort on our roads there is little point in introducing further speed restrictions - however sensible.[/p][/quote]I find that if I use the screen wash - the overspray makes them slow down a tad whilst they clear their screen! imustbeoldiwearacap

7:23pm Tue 17 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

MulsanneChap wrote:
20mph zones are very commendable and I can certainly see why there are calls for these to be implemented. However, there are some issues and practicalities that need to be considered as 20mph speed limits are not all that easy or as clear cut as so many people make them out to be.

All speed limits are supported by a legal traffic order. It's not simply a case of changing or moving speed limit signs. A statutory, legal process needs to be undertaken by the highways department before any changes can be made, while the process itself takes a minimum of 6 months from start to finish depending on what feedback is received when the proposals are advertised publicly. Some of the feedback can result in some proposals being shelved, meaning no changes to speed limits can be made. If every urban road requires 20mph speed limits, this will take time and money, more so if extra staff are needed to try and introduce changes on the thousands of residential roads in a timescale acceptable to residents. And there is the cost of changing or installing new signs.

20mph speed limits on their own are very rarely self-enforcing and that has been proven in 20mph areas throughout the country where supplementary traffic calming measures do not exist. The Police, in Worcestershire at least, will not enforce 20mph area without traffic calming.

If traffic calming measures like speed humps or chicanes need to be introduced, they need to be constructed to current specifications. Therefore, to accommodate such features may require changes to a road layout, particularly on narrow roads, while some properties may be affected too when trying to install traffic calming features, while driveways could be impeded. Also, I think traffic calming features require illumination, so further signs and lighting may be necessary. Some vehicles like 4x4s are immune to some traffic calming like speed humps, while there are noise, traffic and pollution implications too. In some areas, traffic calming can increase accidents, especially where motorists become impatient and take risks. Lets not forget maintenance costs, which will increase. So before any traffic calming features are considered, an impact assessment needs to be undertaken, while some residents may be resistant to traffic calming measures with these issue considered. And the cost of traffic calming can run in to thousands, so if that is needed on every residential road to try and ensure the 20mph speed limit is adhered too, it'll cost more than just an extra couple of quid per household. And if traffic calming is in place, will the speed limit be enforced?

Generally, the majority of people who speed on a road are actually the road's residents. And that's proven too. These resident's will quite happily ignore their own environment, but will drive tentatively while elsewhere, especially if they're in an unfamiliar location. And as for 20mph speed limits around schools, many of the parents who have dropped their children off are the culprits for speeding. So, education and a change in habits are needed too.

I'm not against 20mph speed limits, but just a few pointers, while other options could be considered which may be as equally as effective, and perhaps at a lower cost too.
Some well made points. Most have been overcome in other areas, but as with all speed limits a lot does depend on motorists acting responsibly.

I'm pleased you at least are willing to consider the option and potential advantages objectively.
[quote][p][bold]MulsanneChap[/bold] wrote: 20mph zones are very commendable and I can certainly see why there are calls for these to be implemented. However, there are some issues and practicalities that need to be considered as 20mph speed limits are not all that easy or as clear cut as so many people make them out to be. All speed limits are supported by a legal traffic order. It's not simply a case of changing or moving speed limit signs. A statutory, legal process needs to be undertaken by the highways department before any changes can be made, while the process itself takes a minimum of 6 months from start to finish depending on what feedback is received when the proposals are advertised publicly. Some of the feedback can result in some proposals being shelved, meaning no changes to speed limits can be made. If every urban road requires 20mph speed limits, this will take time and money, more so if extra staff are needed to try and introduce changes on the thousands of residential roads in a timescale acceptable to residents. And there is the cost of changing or installing new signs. 20mph speed limits on their own are very rarely self-enforcing and that has been proven in 20mph areas throughout the country where supplementary traffic calming measures do not exist. The Police, in Worcestershire at least, will not enforce 20mph area without traffic calming. If traffic calming measures like speed humps or chicanes need to be introduced, they need to be constructed to current specifications. Therefore, to accommodate such features may require changes to a road layout, particularly on narrow roads, while some properties may be affected too when trying to install traffic calming features, while driveways could be impeded. Also, I think traffic calming features require illumination, so further signs and lighting may be necessary. Some vehicles like 4x4s are immune to some traffic calming like speed humps, while there are noise, traffic and pollution implications too. In some areas, traffic calming can increase accidents, especially where motorists become impatient and take risks. Lets not forget maintenance costs, which will increase. So before any traffic calming features are considered, an impact assessment needs to be undertaken, while some residents may be resistant to traffic calming measures with these issue considered. And the cost of traffic calming can run in to thousands, so if that is needed on every residential road to try and ensure the 20mph speed limit is adhered too, it'll cost more than just an extra couple of quid per household. And if traffic calming is in place, will the speed limit be enforced? Generally, the majority of people who speed on a road are actually the road's residents. And that's proven too. These resident's will quite happily ignore their own environment, but will drive tentatively while elsewhere, especially if they're in an unfamiliar location. And as for 20mph speed limits around schools, many of the parents who have dropped their children off are the culprits for speeding. So, education and a change in habits are needed too. I'm not against 20mph speed limits, but just a few pointers, while other options could be considered which may be as equally as effective, and perhaps at a lower cost too.[/p][/quote]Some well made points. Most have been overcome in other areas, but as with all speed limits a lot does depend on motorists acting responsibly. I'm pleased you at least are willing to consider the option and potential advantages objectively. i-cycle

7:37pm Tue 17 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

MJI wrote:
Traffic calming is anything but, twice in the last week I have had issues.
.
Canterbury road, dark, raining, road markings worn off, speed bumps very difficult to see.
.
Even at under 20 I was having to slam on brakes for the humps as I take them at walking pace due to getting underbody damage otherwise. Triggering ABS as well.
.
First gear all the way along there, the car never changed up, anything but relaxing trying to spot unmarked humps.
.
Was it safer due to humps no, but would I stock to 20, well I stick to around 20, that is the point to be carefull.
.
Other issue was outside Tudor Grange, watching the bumps and missed the pedestrian waiting to step onto the crossing on top of the bump. Again was not going fast but trying to take the bump carefully.
.
Speed bumps take up concentration of what is around unless you have an offroader and can just plough over them.
.
.
Now pedestrians, why do they start to cross City Walls road when the lights are green for traffic? Am I the onlypedestrian who checks the road lights as well?
.
Why do they step off the pavement without looking, straight into the path of traffic. I had this happen to me years ago, luckily I was travelling quite slowly and he got away with a sore arm from my mirror, I had NO chance of stopping. I have even had lads running across roads running into the side of my car.
.
.
Idiots on bikes (not cyclists, they are the ones with lights, and do not annoy me), a few things they need to do,

1) Use lights when it is dark, or murky, much easier to see you.
2) Flourescent tops do work.
3) Left hand lane please, we drive on the left in the UK, do not ride on the RHS of the road with no lights in the dark and wonder why you get knocked off. (Seen the after results, no injuries as the IOB bailed luckily)
4) Don't go up the inside of slow moving traffic, watch what motorcyclists do, outside. My dad has seen Moped users fall off while doing this when they ran out of room.
5) Chavs on bikes (probably somone elses) do not ride off a pavement straight across the road, stopping traffic and laughing at them, the next driver may snap.
.
.
Car drivers, too many half soaked no idea what they are doing, even saw someone drive out of a spot into my car and drive off and the Police were not interested,

If you are going to drive at 30 in a 40 expect to be overtaken and do not get ratty, people are allowed to overtake BMWs you know, If you are driving at 40 in a 60, again expect people to follow too close, they are just waiting to pass. If you build up a queue, pull over and let it past, I have been stuck behind a stupidly slow car and caravan for 30 miles through Wales, eventually I flashed them a few times, they thought caravan broken, pulled over. I drove past, followed by a LONG queue, as I pulled over a couple of miles later to let the rest pass (I was towing too), I got friendly waves from other road users.
.
.
All road users. SIGNAL!
I think we can all agree with the points you make.

You'll no doubt be pleased to hear that the 20's Plenty campaign is against unpopular and expensive speed bumps.
[quote][p][bold]MJI[/bold] wrote: Traffic calming is anything but, twice in the last week I have had issues. . Canterbury road, dark, raining, road markings worn off, speed bumps very difficult to see. . Even at under 20 I was having to slam on brakes for the humps as I take them at walking pace due to getting underbody damage otherwise. Triggering ABS as well. . First gear all the way along there, the car never changed up, anything but relaxing trying to spot unmarked humps. . Was it safer due to humps no, but would I stock to 20, well I stick to around 20, that is the point to be carefull. . Other issue was outside Tudor Grange, watching the bumps and missed the pedestrian waiting to step onto the crossing on top of the bump. Again was not going fast but trying to take the bump carefully. . Speed bumps take up concentration of what is around unless you have an offroader and can just plough over them. . . Now pedestrians, why do they start to cross City Walls road when the lights are green for traffic? Am I the onlypedestrian who checks the road lights as well? . Why do they step off the pavement without looking, straight into the path of traffic. I had this happen to me years ago, luckily I was travelling quite slowly and he got away with a sore arm from my mirror, I had NO chance of stopping. I have even had lads running across roads running into the side of my car. . . Idiots on bikes (not cyclists, they are the ones with lights, and do not annoy me), a few things they need to do, 1) Use lights when it is dark, or murky, much easier to see you. 2) Flourescent tops do work. 3) Left hand lane please, we drive on the left in the UK, do not ride on the RHS of the road with no lights in the dark and wonder why you get knocked off. (Seen the after results, no injuries as the IOB bailed luckily) 4) Don't go up the inside of slow moving traffic, watch what motorcyclists do, outside. My dad has seen Moped users fall off while doing this when they ran out of room. 5) Chavs on bikes (probably somone elses) do not ride off a pavement straight across the road, stopping traffic and laughing at them, the next driver may snap. . . Car drivers, too many half soaked no idea what they are doing, even saw someone drive out of a spot into my car and drive off and the Police were not interested, If you are going to drive at 30 in a 40 expect to be overtaken and do not get ratty, people are allowed to overtake BMWs you know, If you are driving at 40 in a 60, again expect people to follow too close, they are just waiting to pass. If you build up a queue, pull over and let it past, I have been stuck behind a stupidly slow car and caravan for 30 miles through Wales, eventually I flashed them a few times, they thought caravan broken, pulled over. I drove past, followed by a LONG queue, as I pulled over a couple of miles later to let the rest pass (I was towing too), I got friendly waves from other road users. . . All road users. SIGNAL![/p][/quote]I think we can all agree with the points you make. You'll no doubt be pleased to hear that the 20's Plenty campaign is against unpopular and expensive speed bumps. i-cycle

8:04pm Tue 17 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

Andy_R wrote:
Nice try, I-cycle. One source you quoted conveniently vanishes (and not just from the web, but also from google's cache, and archive.org. too!), another turns out to be a crackpot car-hater's site who does website design in notepad, and that big complicated DfT document you're trying to baffle us with doesn't say actually anything even remotely similar to the quote you made up that "urban traffic flows improve at slower speeds", and What Car actually say something totally different and almost exactly opposite to pretended they said.

Will you retract your lie that "It's an urban myth that cars are more fuel efficient at certain speeds." now that you admit that the source you referred to actually says that 55-60 is the most fuel efficient speed on motorways?

No matter how many sources you and your car-hating friends make up, that slowing cars down will inevitably mean they spend longer on the road, and cars spending longer on the road means more congestion and more pollution.
First. I'm not anti-car. Neither is 20's Plenty. All we are trying to do is make residential roads safer and more pleasant places to live in. 20's Plenty is also a-political and enjoys support from politicians in all the main parties. this is reflected locally

Second. The What Car study is referenced in a pro car website and a website used by highway engineers and traffic planners. Neither I would suggest are anti-car. I certainly doubt What Car was either.

Third. The most fuel efficient speed varies for each car, the roads driven on and how the drive drives it. Some cars, maybe even the majority, may do best on a motorway or around a test track at between 55-60mph, but the most fuel efficient speed on urban roads with limits of 20/30/40mph will vary due to a number of factors.

Fourth. I quote DfT guidance, but there are others who also confirm lower speeds can increase road capacity.

You may not like to hear information that doesn't fit your particular view of the world but all I have done is to provide information to demonstrate that several commonly held views about reducing traffic speeds are not supported by the evidence.
[quote][p][bold]Andy_R[/bold] wrote: Nice try, I-cycle. One source you quoted conveniently vanishes (and not just from the web, but also from google's cache, and archive.org. too!), another turns out to be a crackpot car-hater's site who does website design in notepad, and that big complicated DfT document you're trying to baffle us with doesn't say actually anything even remotely similar to the quote you made up that "urban traffic flows improve at slower speeds", and What Car actually say something totally different and almost exactly opposite to pretended they said. Will you retract your lie that "It's an urban myth that cars are more fuel efficient at certain speeds." now that you admit that the source you referred to actually says that 55-60 is the most fuel efficient speed on motorways? No matter how many sources you and your car-hating friends make up, that slowing cars down will inevitably mean they spend longer on the road, and cars spending longer on the road means more congestion and more pollution.[/p][/quote]First. I'm not anti-car. Neither is 20's Plenty. All we are trying to do is make residential roads safer and more pleasant places to live in. 20's Plenty is also a-political and enjoys support from politicians in all the main parties. this is reflected locally Second. The What Car study is referenced in a pro car website and a website used by highway engineers and traffic planners. Neither I would suggest are anti-car. I certainly doubt What Car was either. Third. The most fuel efficient speed varies for each car, the roads driven on and how the drive drives it. Some cars, maybe even the majority, may do best on a motorway or around a test track at between 55-60mph, but the most fuel efficient speed on urban roads with limits of 20/30/40mph will vary due to a number of factors. Fourth. I quote DfT guidance, but there are others who also confirm lower speeds can increase road capacity. You may not like to hear information that doesn't fit your particular view of the world but all I have done is to provide information to demonstrate that several commonly held views about reducing traffic speeds are not supported by the evidence. i-cycle

7:19am Wed 18 Dec 13

THE FACTS says...

Well put icycle
Well put icycle THE FACTS

9:17am Wed 18 Dec 13

imustbeoldiwearacap says...

A bit of perspective is called for. Introducing the 20 mph will make hardly any difference in travel times/pollution etc. The volume of traffic nowadays dictates the average speed in an urban area is probably less than 20mph at certain times of day - and those are the times I imagine most of the above are in their cars and when pedestrians are about. As I have commented before, I see no problem with a 20 mph limit - as long as "feeder and through" roads are excluded (this being also dictated by the width of the road and pavement)
A bit of perspective is called for. Introducing the 20 mph will make hardly any difference in travel times/pollution etc. The volume of traffic nowadays dictates the average speed in an urban area is probably less than 20mph at certain times of day - and those are the times I imagine most of the above are in their cars and when pedestrians are about. As I have commented before, I see no problem with a 20 mph limit - as long as "feeder and through" roads are excluded (this being also dictated by the width of the road and pavement) imustbeoldiwearacap

10:14am Wed 18 Dec 13

MJI says...

Last night I saw a few POBs with no lights and only 2 lit cyclists.
.
One cyclist was riding by the kerb with a POB next to him with no lights and a small front reflector, someone passing them would have had a high chance of hitting the unlit one.
.
You can get LED lights off Ebay for £2-£3, buy the ***ing things and fit them! May be slightly cheaper materials than the Halfords ones but are good enough for everyday use in a town.
Last night I saw a few POBs with no lights and only 2 lit cyclists. . One cyclist was riding by the kerb with a POB next to him with no lights and a small front reflector, someone passing them would have had a high chance of hitting the unlit one. . You can get LED lights off Ebay for £2-£3, buy the ***ing things and fit them! May be slightly cheaper materials than the Halfords ones but are good enough for everyday use in a town. MJI

10:19am Wed 18 Dec 13

3thinker says...

MJI wrote:
Last night I saw a few POBs with no lights and only 2 lit cyclists.
.
One cyclist was riding by the kerb with a POB next to him with no lights and a small front reflector, someone passing them would have had a high chance of hitting the unlit one.
.
You can get LED lights off Ebay for £2-£3, buy the ***ing things and fit them! May be slightly cheaper materials than the Halfords ones but are good enough for everyday use in a town.
100% agree. We all need to be encouraging cyclists to make themselves visible. No excuses for not doing so.
[quote][p][bold]MJI[/bold] wrote: Last night I saw a few POBs with no lights and only 2 lit cyclists. . One cyclist was riding by the kerb with a POB next to him with no lights and a small front reflector, someone passing them would have had a high chance of hitting the unlit one. . You can get LED lights off Ebay for £2-£3, buy the ***ing things and fit them! May be slightly cheaper materials than the Halfords ones but are good enough for everyday use in a town.[/p][/quote]100% agree. We all need to be encouraging cyclists to make themselves visible. No excuses for not doing so. 3thinker

10:40am Wed 18 Dec 13

Laurie Ward says...

To I-cycle I will put my cards on the table as a member of the ABD Forum and ABD linked affairs representative for this area. In that role I am fully aware of Rod King's campaign and in the fallacious, distorting and underhand manner that his underlings conduct it. Your substantial past and present contributions to Comments supporting this anti-motorist agenda indicate that you have more than a passing interest and involvement. Forgive me if I am mistaken but if that is the case please do not hide behind a pseudonym as used by many for this light comments page but honestly reveal your name, position and true interest.
To I-cycle I will put my cards on the table as a member of the ABD Forum and ABD linked affairs representative for this area. In that role I am fully aware of Rod King's campaign and in the fallacious, distorting and underhand manner that his underlings conduct it. Your substantial past and present contributions to Comments supporting this anti-motorist agenda indicate that you have more than a passing interest and involvement. Forgive me if I am mistaken but if that is the case please do not hide behind a pseudonym as used by many for this light comments page but honestly reveal your name, position and true interest. Laurie Ward

11:01am Wed 18 Dec 13

liketoknow says...

imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:
For those who have to constantly look at their speedos to see if they are keeping to 20mph - should you be driving if you are unable to judge your speed? I expect it of a learner/just passed their test, but experienced drivers should have a good idea of their speed. And in residential areas some of the pedestrians are children who are not quite traffic aware - so 20 mph seems reasonable to me!
sounds good in theory, but modern cars are so quiet and powerful that they are just ticking over at that speed . it's so easy to stray over the limit, hence the millions of pounds earned from speed cameras .
[quote][p][bold]imustbeoldiwearacap[/bold] wrote: For those who have to constantly look at their speedos to see if they are keeping to 20mph - should you be driving if you are unable to judge your speed? I expect it of a learner/just passed their test, but experienced drivers should have a good idea of their speed. And in residential areas some of the pedestrians are children who are not quite traffic aware - so 20 mph seems reasonable to me![/p][/quote]sounds good in theory, but modern cars are so quiet and powerful that they are just ticking over at that speed . it's so easy to stray over the limit, hence the millions of pounds earned from speed cameras . liketoknow

3:25pm Wed 18 Dec 13

iamthebinman says...

MJI wrote:
Last night I saw a few POBs with no lights and only 2 lit cyclists.
.
One cyclist was riding by the kerb with a POB next to him with no lights and a small front reflector, someone passing them would have had a high chance of hitting the unlit one.
.
You can get LED lights off Ebay for £2-£3, buy the ***ing things and fit them! May be slightly cheaper materials than the Halfords ones but are good enough for everyday use in a town.
Poundland do great front and back lights for a quid. I am tempted to buy a load and give them to people who just don't seem to realize how invisible they are in the dark.

I often comment on my belief that people should make their own decisions but even if they don't mind being killed, I am sure most motorists don't want to wipe anyone out.
[quote][p][bold]MJI[/bold] wrote: Last night I saw a few POBs with no lights and only 2 lit cyclists. . One cyclist was riding by the kerb with a POB next to him with no lights and a small front reflector, someone passing them would have had a high chance of hitting the unlit one. . You can get LED lights off Ebay for £2-£3, buy the ***ing things and fit them! May be slightly cheaper materials than the Halfords ones but are good enough for everyday use in a town.[/p][/quote]Poundland do great front and back lights for a quid. I am tempted to buy a load and give them to people who just don't seem to realize how invisible they are in the dark. I often comment on my belief that people should make their own decisions but even if they don't mind being killed, I am sure most motorists don't want to wipe anyone out. iamthebinman

10:55pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Bufton Tufton says...

i-cycle wrote:
Vox populi wrote:
Enter stage left I-cyclist....
I assume from your comment that you obviously don't support measures that reduce injury and death on the roads on the grounds that its a left wing idea.

The actual fact is that wider use of low cost 'sign only' 20mph is being encouraged by they Conservative Government. Boris in London is supporting more 20mph. Lancashire when Conservative controlled introduced it to the majority of its residential streets and is already seeing substantial reductions in injuries and deaths. Its conservative councillor Andy Roberts who's promoting it for his Warndon Villages patch. Previously the Conservative County Council rolled it out on Ronkswood and other parts of the City.

The main point you're missing by seeing everything in stereotypes is that saving lives and educing injury isn't an anti-motoring policy and certainly isn't a left wing plot. If it was its difficult to explain why 72% of the UK population support 20mph for the streets around where they live.
Keep party politics out of this, its about road safety not whether the councilors involved belong to this or that party.
[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Vox populi[/bold] wrote: Enter stage left I-cyclist....[/p][/quote]I assume from your comment that you obviously don't support measures that reduce injury and death on the roads on the grounds that its a left wing idea. The actual fact is that wider use of low cost 'sign only' 20mph is being encouraged by they Conservative Government. Boris in London is supporting more 20mph. Lancashire when Conservative controlled introduced it to the majority of its residential streets and is already seeing substantial reductions in injuries and deaths. Its conservative councillor Andy Roberts who's promoting it for his Warndon Villages patch. Previously the Conservative County Council rolled it out on Ronkswood and other parts of the City. The main point you're missing by seeing everything in stereotypes is that saving lives and educing injury isn't an anti-motoring policy and certainly isn't a left wing plot. If it was its difficult to explain why 72% of the UK population support 20mph for the streets around where they live.[/p][/quote]Keep party politics out of this, its about road safety not whether the councilors involved belong to this or that party. Bufton Tufton

11:07pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Bufton Tufton says...

THE FACTS wrote:
"..... and in my experience there are plenty of pedestrians who don't bother to look for cars (or bikes) turning into side roads and walk straight across into your path expecting you to stop for them."

That is the answer give priority to pedestrians in urban areas so they CAN step out whenever they want...so drivers will travel slower and with more space between each car.

If you dont like that idea you need to have the final solution installed. The 10 inch spike in the centre of the steering wheel. That creates a very safe driver.

Everyone's a winner...
Always give way to pedestrians crossing the road into which you are turning. Pedestrians DO have right of way in the situation you describe above, although they should of course look. Drivers should also never drive so fast that they cannot stop well within the distance they can see to be clear and should watch out for children and pedestrians suddenly walking out into the road ahead. This is why 20 is plenty. Also allow the width of a car door when overtaking parked vehicles and and give as much room when overtaking a cyclist as you would to a car. Time to read your Highway Code again methinks.
[quote][p][bold]THE FACTS[/bold] wrote: "..... and in my experience there are plenty of pedestrians who don't bother to look for cars (or bikes) turning into side roads and walk straight across into your path expecting you to stop for them." That is the answer give priority to pedestrians in urban areas so they CAN step out whenever they want...so drivers will travel slower and with more space between each car. If you dont like that idea you need to have the final solution installed. The 10 inch spike in the centre of the steering wheel. That creates a very safe driver. Everyone's a winner...[/p][/quote]Always give way to pedestrians crossing the road into which you are turning. Pedestrians DO have right of way in the situation you describe above, although they should of course look. Drivers should also never drive so fast that they cannot stop well within the distance they can see to be clear and should watch out for children and pedestrians suddenly walking out into the road ahead. This is why 20 is plenty. Also allow the width of a car door when overtaking parked vehicles and and give as much room when overtaking a cyclist as you would to a car. Time to read your Highway Code again methinks. Bufton Tufton

9:27am Thu 19 Dec 13

THE FACTS says...

Finally we have the answer:

Remove all the pavements and footpaths .. convert them to roads .

Then we dont have this dangerous mix of pedestrians and vehicles.

Sorted
Finally we have the answer: Remove all the pavements and footpaths .. convert them to roads . Then we dont have this dangerous mix of pedestrians and vehicles. Sorted THE FACTS

5:15pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Pussyslimeslurper says...

20mph? I do that on a push bike! Don't bother driving cars anymore if this is put into action. Get a bike, it's cheaper and Eco friendly! Also less tax for that scumbag taxman
20mph? I do that on a push bike! Don't bother driving cars anymore if this is put into action. Get a bike, it's cheaper and Eco friendly! Also less tax for that scumbag taxman Pussyslimeslurper

7:34pm Thu 19 Dec 13

the cyclist says...

Once again we have the speed kills mantra being called out by a vociferous minority, so hoping to effect their views on the majority.
Once again we have the speed kills mantra being called out by a vociferous minority, so hoping to effect their views on the majority. the cyclist

8:22pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Pussyslimeslurper says...

psychoflump wrote:
i-cycle wrote:
psychoflump wrote:
THE FACTS wrote:
"..... and in my experience there are plenty of pedestrians who don't bother to look for cars (or bikes) turning into side roads and walk straight across into your path expecting you to stop for them."

That is the answer give priority to pedestrians in urban areas so they CAN step out whenever they want...so drivers will travel slower and with more space between each car.

If you dont like that idea you need to have the final solution installed. The 10 inch spike in the centre of the steering wheel. That creates a very safe driver.

Everyone's a winner...
Pedestrians have right of way crossing a junction IF THEY'VE ALREADY STARTED CROSSING, simple self preservation seems lacking however when twerps march out into the road when a car is six feet away from them.

You can't give pedestrians priority in a mixed traffic space. A lot of them have no concept of car stopping distances, there's also no organisation to foot traffic, those "look right" signs only mean something because you generally know which direction cars travel on a given side of the road.

I would argue a 10 inch spike on the front of cars might also make pedestrians pay attention to their surroundings.
Shared space solutions where all types of road user use the same 'highway' at lower speeds can and do work.

You probably visited one this week in your car.

Its that bit of tarmac outside most supermarkets and retail parks.
Driving around in a car park is completely different to driving from A to B. I wouldn't think of driving at 30mph in that situation, the roads are different. Frankly, if car users are going to see a degradation in how we can use the roads (and having to peer at my speedo to keep my car below 20mph qualifies in my book) then I expect a reduction in the car tax I'm expected to pay.
I like the idea of the spike.. I have in the past thought about a spike attached to a car but not on the front of it. I said to a friend that mounting a 6" spike in the centre of the steering wheel would defiantly work. A. People will 100% wear their Seatbelt B. People wouldn't speed! It's a win win solution. I'm however currently thinking of a way in which a spike could be activated for people who drink driver (or) use their phones. I'll keep you updated with any ideas.
[quote][p][bold]psychoflump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]psychoflump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]THE FACTS[/bold] wrote: "..... and in my experience there are plenty of pedestrians who don't bother to look for cars (or bikes) turning into side roads and walk straight across into your path expecting you to stop for them." That is the answer give priority to pedestrians in urban areas so they CAN step out whenever they want...so drivers will travel slower and with more space between each car. If you dont like that idea you need to have the final solution installed. The 10 inch spike in the centre of the steering wheel. That creates a very safe driver. Everyone's a winner...[/p][/quote]Pedestrians have right of way crossing a junction IF THEY'VE ALREADY STARTED CROSSING, simple self preservation seems lacking however when twerps march out into the road when a car is six feet away from them. You can't give pedestrians priority in a mixed traffic space. A lot of them have no concept of car stopping distances, there's also no organisation to foot traffic, those "look right" signs only mean something because you generally know which direction cars travel on a given side of the road. I would argue a 10 inch spike on the front of cars might also make pedestrians pay attention to their surroundings.[/p][/quote]Shared space solutions where all types of road user use the same 'highway' at lower speeds can and do work. You probably visited one this week in your car. Its that bit of tarmac outside most supermarkets and retail parks.[/p][/quote]Driving around in a car park is completely different to driving from A to B. I wouldn't think of driving at 30mph in that situation, the roads are different. Frankly, if car users are going to see a degradation in how we can use the roads (and having to peer at my speedo to keep my car below 20mph qualifies in my book) then I expect a reduction in the car tax I'm expected to pay.[/p][/quote]I like the idea of the spike.. I have in the past thought about a spike attached to a car but not on the front of it. I said to a friend that mounting a 6" spike in the centre of the steering wheel would defiantly work. A. People will 100% wear their Seatbelt B. People wouldn't speed! It's a win win solution. I'm however currently thinking of a way in which a spike could be activated for people who drink driver (or) use their phones. I'll keep you updated with any ideas. Pussyslimeslurper

8:24pm Thu 19 Dec 13

New Kid on the Block says...

MJI wrote:
Last night I saw a few POBs with no lights and only 2 lit cyclists.
.
One cyclist was riding by the kerb with a POB next to him with no lights and a small front reflector, someone passing them would have had a high chance of hitting the unlit one.
.
You can get LED lights off Ebay for £2-£3, buy the ***ing things and fit them! May be slightly cheaper materials than the Halfords ones but are good enough for everyday use in a town.
POB?
http://acronyms.thef
reedictionary.com/PO
B
Am I being particularly stupid today? Please give me and the other thickos a clue what you mean.
[quote][p][bold]MJI[/bold] wrote: Last night I saw a few POBs with no lights and only 2 lit cyclists. . One cyclist was riding by the kerb with a POB next to him with no lights and a small front reflector, someone passing them would have had a high chance of hitting the unlit one. . You can get LED lights off Ebay for £2-£3, buy the ***ing things and fit them! May be slightly cheaper materials than the Halfords ones but are good enough for everyday use in a town.[/p][/quote]POB? http://acronyms.thef reedictionary.com/PO B Am I being particularly stupid today? Please give me and the other thickos a clue what you mean. New Kid on the Block

8:28pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Pussyslimeslurper says...

Pussyslimeslurper wrote:
psychoflump wrote:
i-cycle wrote:
psychoflump wrote:
THE FACTS wrote:
"..... and in my experience there are plenty of pedestrians who don't bother to look for cars (or bikes) turning into side roads and walk straight across into your path expecting you to stop for them."

That is the answer give priority to pedestrians in urban areas so they CAN step out whenever they want...so drivers will travel slower and with more space between each car.

If you dont like that idea you need to have the final solution installed. The 10 inch spike in the centre of the steering wheel. That creates a very safe driver.

Everyone's a winner...
Pedestrians have right of way crossing a junction IF THEY'VE ALREADY STARTED CROSSING, simple self preservation seems lacking however when twerps march out into the road when a car is six feet away from them.

You can't give pedestrians priority in a mixed traffic space. A lot of them have no concept of car stopping distances, there's also no organisation to foot traffic, those "look right" signs only mean something because you generally know which direction cars travel on a given side of the road.

I would argue a 10 inch spike on the front of cars might also make pedestrians pay attention to their surroundings.
Shared space solutions where all types of road user use the same 'highway' at lower speeds can and do work.

You probably visited one this week in your car.

Its that bit of tarmac outside most supermarkets and retail parks.
Driving around in a car park is completely different to driving from A to B. I wouldn't think of driving at 30mph in that situation, the roads are different. Frankly, if car users are going to see a degradation in how we can use the roads (and having to peer at my speedo to keep my car below 20mph qualifies in my book) then I expect a reduction in the car tax I'm expected to pay.
I like the idea of the spike.. I have in the past thought about a spike attached to a car but not on the front of it. I said to a friend that mounting a 6" spike in the centre of the steering wheel would defiantly work. A. People will 100% wear their Seatbelt B. People wouldn't speed! It's a win win solution. I'm however currently thinking of a way in which a spike could be activated for people who drink driver (or) use their phones. I'll keep you updated with any ideas.
Here is an example... http://www.motoringm
e.com/features/to-dr
ive-or-let-the-car-d
o-it-that-is-the-que
stion/
[quote][p][bold]Pussyslimeslurper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]psychoflump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]psychoflump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]THE FACTS[/bold] wrote: "..... and in my experience there are plenty of pedestrians who don't bother to look for cars (or bikes) turning into side roads and walk straight across into your path expecting you to stop for them." That is the answer give priority to pedestrians in urban areas so they CAN step out whenever they want...so drivers will travel slower and with more space between each car. If you dont like that idea you need to have the final solution installed. The 10 inch spike in the centre of the steering wheel. That creates a very safe driver. Everyone's a winner...[/p][/quote]Pedestrians have right of way crossing a junction IF THEY'VE ALREADY STARTED CROSSING, simple self preservation seems lacking however when twerps march out into the road when a car is six feet away from them. You can't give pedestrians priority in a mixed traffic space. A lot of them have no concept of car stopping distances, there's also no organisation to foot traffic, those "look right" signs only mean something because you generally know which direction cars travel on a given side of the road. I would argue a 10 inch spike on the front of cars might also make pedestrians pay attention to their surroundings.[/p][/quote]Shared space solutions where all types of road user use the same 'highway' at lower speeds can and do work. You probably visited one this week in your car. Its that bit of tarmac outside most supermarkets and retail parks.[/p][/quote]Driving around in a car park is completely different to driving from A to B. I wouldn't think of driving at 30mph in that situation, the roads are different. Frankly, if car users are going to see a degradation in how we can use the roads (and having to peer at my speedo to keep my car below 20mph qualifies in my book) then I expect a reduction in the car tax I'm expected to pay.[/p][/quote]I like the idea of the spike.. I have in the past thought about a spike attached to a car but not on the front of it. I said to a friend that mounting a 6" spike in the centre of the steering wheel would defiantly work. A. People will 100% wear their Seatbelt B. People wouldn't speed! It's a win win solution. I'm however currently thinking of a way in which a spike could be activated for people who drink driver (or) use their phones. I'll keep you updated with any ideas.[/p][/quote]Here is an example... http://www.motoringm e.com/features/to-dr ive-or-let-the-car-d o-it-that-is-the-que stion/ Pussyslimeslurper

9:09pm Thu 19 Dec 13

MJI says...

New Kid on the Block wrote:
MJI wrote:
Last night I saw a few POBs with no lights and only 2 lit cyclists.
.
One cyclist was riding by the kerb with a POB next to him with no lights and a small front reflector, someone passing them would have had a high chance of hitting the unlit one.
.
You can get LED lights off Ebay for £2-£3, buy the ***ing things and fit them! May be slightly cheaper materials than the Halfords ones but are good enough for everyday use in a town.
POB?
http://acronyms.thef

reedictionary.com/PO

B
Am I being particularly stupid today? Please give me and the other thickos a clue what you mean.
A few posts ago people on bikes
[quote][p][bold]New Kid on the Block[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MJI[/bold] wrote: Last night I saw a few POBs with no lights and only 2 lit cyclists. . One cyclist was riding by the kerb with a POB next to him with no lights and a small front reflector, someone passing them would have had a high chance of hitting the unlit one. . You can get LED lights off Ebay for £2-£3, buy the ***ing things and fit them! May be slightly cheaper materials than the Halfords ones but are good enough for everyday use in a town.[/p][/quote]POB? http://acronyms.thef reedictionary.com/PO B Am I being particularly stupid today? Please give me and the other thickos a clue what you mean.[/p][/quote]A few posts ago people on bikes MJI

10:26pm Thu 19 Dec 13

WorcsBornandBred says...

I love bikes.

But I also love cars.

But which ones better?

FFFFFFIIIIGGGGHHHTTT
TTTTTTT!!!!
I love bikes. But I also love cars. But which ones better? FFFFFFIIIIGGGGHHHTTT TTTTTTT!!!! WorcsBornandBred

5:10pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Pussyslimeslurper says...

Well seeing as people are reporting my comments ( you sad freaks ) for stupid things like the word "tang" I will now resort to reporting comments with bad spelling and punctuation. WN admins job is about to get a lot harder, please do this also. They write boring, useless stories then remove comments which we leave over stupid things. Get reporting people.
Well seeing as people are reporting my comments ( you sad freaks ) for stupid things like the word "tang" I will now resort to reporting comments with bad spelling and punctuation. WN admins job is about to get a lot harder, please do this also. They write boring, useless stories then remove comments which we leave over stupid things. Get reporting people. Pussyslimeslurper

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree