From: Chris Bartram on
On 29/07/10 10:36, Chelsea Tractor Man wrote:

> For 20 and 30s it says rather a lot about pedestrian safety.

There's a section of road near here that has been dropped to 30 from
NSL, it's dead straight, with a footpath. I can't see that change making
much impact, as it hardly ever gets walked down.

There's also a lot of streets at the default 30 that for safety you'd
only do 15-20 on, so the 30 limit is often useless too.
From: GT on
"Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)> wrote in message
> On 28 Jul 2010 21:02:12 GMT, Adrian wrote:
> 0 is safe.

My wife witnessed a small (about 3yrs) boy run into the road before the
school holidays started. He ran into the side of a stationary taxi and was
knocked over by the impact. He may have broken his arm! In that situation
the car was doing 0mph and still caused an injury!

From: Chris Bartram on
On 29/07/10 10:42, Matt B wrote:
> On 29/07/2010 08:47, Chris Bartram wrote:
>> On 28/07/10 14:40, Matt B wrote:
>>> On 28/07/2010 14:30, Adrian wrote:
>>>> Matt B<matt.bourke(a)> gurgled happily, sounding much
>>>> like
>>>> they were saying:
>>>>>>> including the less competant drivers, who shouldn't be forced off
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> road because they are not up to "racing".
>>>>>> Are you suggesting that every level of competence should be catered
>>>>>> for, rather than a minimum acceptable level of competence drawn?
>>>>> Absolutely!
>>>> Now I'm very worried indeed.
>>> We are talking liberalised shared public streets here (not strategic
>>> through roads, which would be a different kettle of fish altogether).
>>> We would tolerate all-comers walking and cycling on them, so why not
>>> tolerate the less able driving on them? The street design would
>>> eliminate the possibility of them doing too much damage, and if they
>>> really /were/ dangerous, they could have some sort of banning order
>>> served.
>>> The default for the use of social spaces should be to _allow_ unless
>>> there is a supportable and compelling reason not to.
>> Are you taking some mind-altering substance?
> No, I've always been open-minded. ;-)
It's just that I'd personally not want to be on a road being driven by
all and sundry without any minimun competency being set... I'd call that
a compelling, supportable reason.
From: Chris Bartram on
On 28/07/10 15:31, Chelsea Tractor Man wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:26:59 +0100, Matt B wrote:
>> There are more places to
>> watch and more permutations to look out for. With 2 lanes you use lane
>> 2 to overtake, nothing else, and if there's someone else coming up in
>> it, faster than you from behind, you wait. It works well on the
>> unlimited German motorways.
> on any motorway, you move lanes to overtake, *one at a time*, having
> checked the new lane is clear so IMHO theres no difference. If anything,
> more lanes gives a safety margins at the times you would go fast, leaving
> the ability to leave an empty lane between you and very slow traffic.
> It also leaves the possibility of escape lanes should somebody move into
> your path.
Indeed, and I don't agree that lane discipline would improve with only 2
lanes. What works elsewhere may not here.
From: GT on
"Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)> wrote in message
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 09:34:57 +0100, Brimstone wrote:
>> If one knows the road then one can be travelling at a legal speed before
>> one
>> comes into view of the the camera site.
> No good for me. Most of my milage is on once a year or less roads. My
> local
> milage i'm pottering along in the old Hyundai anyway. I agree if you know
> all the regular camera sights on roads you use a lot you can probably get
> away with it. In my locality 90% of the mobile speed traps are in one
> (safe) location, in fact the safest piece of road in the area, hence they
> catch people. I would prefer it outside the school.

The safest piece of road is also the 'fastest' piece of road, so they put
cameras there to catch the most people - again proving that they are just
money raising, not safety promoting.