From: Matt B on 29 Jul 2010 08:00
On 29/07/2010 12:41, Chelsea Tractor Man wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:20:16 +0100, Matt B wrote:
>>> If you could transfer those reasons. What are you thinking of?
>> I asked /you/ what /you/ thought the reasons were. Do you know any
>> uncongested streets in an unenforced 30 mph limit zone where traffic
>> normally travels at speeds significantly below the limit? If you do, I
>> bet there are also streets in the same 30 mph area where the speeds are
>> closer to 40 mph.
> By "unenforced" I assume you mean cameras?
>> What /actually/ controls the traffic speed in such places - because it
>> is certainly nothing to do with the speed limit?
> Perception of risk, I would say.
Risks to who or what? Can they be duplicated in other places where
speed is a problem?
> But I do not know *any* urban street where
> the boy racers and the odd white van man etc will not do 50 where anybody
> else would do 25.
What about ones like these:
> Thats why we have a speed limit.
Do those types religiously obey speed limits then do you think?
From: GT on 29 Jul 2010 08:03
"Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:02:06 +0100, GT wrote:
>>> both limits make allowances for small trangressions, one drink, a couple
>>> miles an hour. The speed limit could be 25, 30 or 33 1/3, but there
>>> to be a town limit around that point. Just because it could be 31
>>> of 30 invalidates nothing.
>> But why do we consider it OK to go over the limit by a little bit?
>> for society really).
> the idea is to drive at the limit if safe to do so, the margin is there so
> you can do so without worrying if you deviate over slightly.
I accept your reasoning, but I believe that a limit should be a limit and if
one is caught over the limit, then you should be punished for it. I can't
think of another limited thing in life that one is allowed to break 'just a
Yes officer, I did have one extra sip of wine, but I'm only just over the
Yes officer, but those tyres are only just under the limit...
Yes Mr. Customs officer, but its only 1 packet of cigarettes over the import
Hang on - I thought of one...
Yes Miss checkout lady, but its only 2 items over the 10 - do I have to take
it all off the conveyor and move to another till?...
From: Matt B on 29 Jul 2010 08:29
On 29/07/2010 13:11, Chelsea Tractor Man wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:00:07 +0100, Matt B wrote:
>>> Perception of risk, I would say.
>> Risks to who or what? Can they be duplicated in other places where
>> speed is a problem?
> It depends what you are talking about, are you talking about building in
> hazards, you will not say what you are suggesting for some reason.
I'm talking about the "things" (whatever they are*) that effectively and
sustainably control traffic speeds. You suggested "perception of risk"
as a possibility. I wondered what risks /you/ were thinking of.
>>> But I do not know *any* urban street where
>>> the boy racers and the odd white van man etc will not do 50 where anybody
>>> else would do 25.
>> What about ones like these:
> congratulations, you found a place you cannot do 50. Your point is?
That even the speed of BRs and WVMs /can/ be sustainably controlled.
>>> Thats why we have a speed limit.
>> Do those types religiously obey speed limits then do you think?
> no, that's the point of enforcement
You'd need enforcement 24/7 on every inch of road, and even then you'd
get people driving unabated at 35 in a 30 and at 46 in a 40 and at 57 in
a 50. What would be the gain, especially as we have seen that actually
speed /is/ effectively and automatically controlled by other* means.
* Traffic calming takes many forms, not all of them painful or
environmentally disastrous. Some of the best techniques can be seen in
such places as Seven Dials, London, New Road, Brighton and Northmoor,
From: Adrian on 29 Jul 2010 08:49
Chelsea Tractor Man <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:
>> You seem to be arguing that speed limits are needed because otherwise
>> people will drive dangerously with no possible legal comeback.
> Not at all. But if you have a 20 or 30 limit to decrease pedestrian
> injuries should there be an accident, its a safety measure. You police
> it by policing the speed limit.......
30 limits are the default urban limit. They have been since the 1930s,
when four wheel brakes were far from universal, hydraulic brakes were a
rarity and radial tyres had not been invented.
20 limits have to be self-enforcing using traffic calming measures.
From: Matt B on 29 Jul 2010 08:52
On 29/07/2010 13:17, Phil W Lee wrote:
> Are you seriously trying to claim that there is any type of road user
> who kills less users of the footway than cyclists do?
Rated by the mileage of that type of road user, of course.
> I'm fairly sure that even pedestrians kill more vulnerable users of
> the footway than cyclists do, although that pales into insignificance
> compared to anything with an internal combustion engine.
The current DfT stats give "vehicle travelling along pavement" as one of
the factors contributing to 9 fatalities for 2008, one of those was
probably a pedal cycle.
Motor vehicles were used for 108 times the number of vehicle miles as
pedal cycles that year.
So, pedal cycles "travelling along pavement" was a factor in _14 times_
as many pavement fatalities per vehicle mile as motor vehicle
"travelling along pavement" was.