From: Chris Bartram on 29 Jul 2010 06:10 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 29 Jul 2010 06:10 "Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:1qgpkyng2m3px$.kvg1lqiyf92u.dlg(a)40tude.net... > 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 29 Jul 2010 06:18 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)nospam.london.com> 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 29 Jul 2010 06:22 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 29 Jul 2010 06:31
"Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:1v7ba8bls2ics$.1qzplkkzlyecy$.dlg(a)40tude.net... > 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. |