From: Matt B on 31 Jul 2010 12:31 On 31/07/2010 16:39, Mortimer wrote: > "Matt B" <matt.bourke(a)nospam.london.com> wrote in message > news:8bisskFum2U1(a)mid.individual.net... >> On 31/07/2010 16:09, Phil W Lee wrote: >> The point is though that with no lights, and peds, cyclists, cars, >> etc. randomly interacting it /never/ becomes predictable or routine. >> Alertness is required each and every time - you never know who or what >> is going to cross your path - and you /never/ have any priority over >> them. > > Therefore it becomes a free-for all: it increases the risk of collision > which means that either the number of collisions increases or else > everyone has to slow right down to reduce the chance of collision to > acceptible level. So which do you think it is most likely to be? > It also relies on much greater signalling so everyone > knows who is going to go next, to avoid everyone thinking "so *can* I go > or can't I?". That doesn't sound like a bad thing. > What happens if two road users each are convinced that it > is now safe for them to go? Either they collide or else they each > realise that it is not safe and they back off, and then have to decide > all over again who will go first. Yes, just like in "real" (unregulated) life. > When I'm driving I want to know that I can either go through a junction > at normal speed if the lights are in my favour or else I will have to > stop if they are not. So with _no_ lights it'll always be the latter, never the unsafe and unreliable former. > Having to slow down at *every* junction, rather > than only those where the lights are against me, is a very retrograde > step. Not at all. Did you watch the video? > I'm not saying that if the lights are in your favour you should > stop looking for the nutter who has gone through a red light into you > path, but this should be the unlikely exception rather than being a > near-certainty. Treat drivers like idiots (like by removing their freedom to go when it' safe) and they act like idiots. Allow them to make decisions and choices and they'll behave responsibly. :-) -- Matt B
From: Matt B on 31 Jul 2010 12:32 On 31/07/2010 16:43, Mortimer wrote: > "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:qLadnYoBYMr13MnRnZ2dnUVZ8tKdnZ2d(a)bt.com... >> >> "Phil W Lee" <phil(a)lee-family.me.uk> wrote in message >> news:2te8561q3b1aj6cornsc5b8bah1pft8iic(a)4ax.com... >> >>> I'm fairly sure that what happens when lights fail is not a good >>> indication of what happens when they are removed. >>> It is dealing with the unfamiliar that makes drivers cautious, so it >>> doesn't last. >> >> It has in those towns which have implemented it, so we're told anyway. > > If when you get rid of lights you replace them with either a roundabout > or a major road / minor road junction (ie crossroads sign in one > direction, give way / stop signs in the other direction) that's fine. If > you dispense with the rules of priority, that's a horrendous situation > because it leads to doubt, indecision and barging. Yes, and thus caution, leading to slower and safer roads. Where do most crashes occur now? -- Matt B
From: Mr Pounder on 31 Jul 2010 14:04 "Matt B" <matt.bourke(a)nospam.london.com> wrote in message news:8bi2oiF5pmU1(a)mid.individual.net... > On 31/07/2010 08:39, Derek C wrote: >> From the court reports in my local newspaper: >> >> [snipped details of some motoring offences] >> >> If only penalties like these were applied to cyclists, we would soon >> see a drop in deliberate RLJing, no lights at night and the many >> other offences that cyclists seem to get away with scot free! > > Should the penalty be proportional to the size of the risk posed at the > tine? No, a red light is a red light regardless of the tine. > > Do you believe that most sets of traffic lights give more benefit than > dis-benefit for most of the time? Yes. Would our access roads and streets be > safer, less congested and polluted and more enjoyable places without them? No. > > -- > Matt B >
From: Tony Raven on 31 Jul 2010 14:05 Mortimer wrote: > > Therefore it becomes a free-for all: it increases the risk of collision > which means that either the number of collisions increases or else > everyone has to slow right down to reduce the chance of collision to > acceptible level. It also relies on much greater signalling so everyone > knows who is going to go next, to avoid everyone thinking "so *can* I go > or can't I?". What happens if two road users each are convinced that it > is now safe for them to go? Either they collide or else they each > realise that it is not safe and they back off, and then have to decide > all over again who will go first. > If you can't handle it then perhaps you shouldn't have a driving license. American drivers manage it all the time so I don't see why you think a British driver can't without crashing. -- Tony " I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong." Bertrand Russell
From: Nick Finnigan on 31 Jul 2010 14:29
Matt B wrote: > On 31/07/2010 16:39, Mortimer wrote: > >> When I'm driving I want to know that I can either go through a junction >> at normal speed if the lights are in my favour or else I will have to >> stop if they are not. > > So with _no_ lights it'll always be the latter, never the unsafe and > unreliable former. Traffic rarely needs to stop, even at a junction with a STOP sign. |