Monbiot on speed cameras and the real war
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Matt B on 30 Jul 2010 13:38 On 30/07/2010 16:20, Ret. wrote: > > Speed limits are a blunt instrument- I've always accepted that. But, > personally, I have always accepted that there is little alternative. What do you think would happen to traffic speeds and casualty rates if car drivers didn't assume (and weren't given) right of way over all traffic emerging from each and every side road and driveway or over all pedestrians and cyclists who wanted to cross as they drove along a road? What do you think would happen to traffic speeds and casualty rates if, as well as what I said above, kerbs were removed and the carriageway and footway were merged, and pedestrians, cyclists and motorists could and did use any part of it for travelling and for stopping to pass the time of day with each other and if children were encouraged to play on it and locals were encouraged to decorate it with flower beds, works of art, flower planters, benches etc? There /are/ alternatives that can deliver naturally (rather than artificially capped) appropriate and safe speeds. -- Matt B
From: Brimstone on 30 Jul 2010 13:50 "Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:luebvq3wizrx$.aeu0x4rwak1j.dlg(a)40tude.net... > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:17:23 +0100, Brimstone wrote: > >>> OK. Minimum speed limits. What happens when you approach a hazard, say a >>> horse? >>> >> As always, there are exceptions and immediate circumstances would take >> precedence. I would have though that obvious to a thinking person. > > so a minimum where there are on hazards in the view of the driver? > More a case of a minimum where there are no obstructions to progress.
From: Brimstone on 30 Jul 2010 13:52 "Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:1elwq13uwhswe.mfpr25zau1s3.dlg(a)40tude.net... > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:19:23 +0100, Brimstone wrote: > >> But you included the qualifier, "if safe to >> do so" hence my comment about different people's perceptions of what is >> safe. > > then I still do not see what the problem is. > The speed differential caused by some pootling along and others driving like a bat out of hell and neither showing any regard for others.
From: Tony Raven on 30 Jul 2010 14:21 Matt B wrote: > > What do you think would happen to traffic speeds and casualty rates if > car drivers didn't assume (and weren't given) right of way over all > traffic emerging from each and every side road and driveway or over all > pedestrians and cyclists who wanted to cross as they drove along a road? > Wasn't that how it was in 1935 when 30mph speed limits in built up areas first came into effect? And wasn't it occasioned by alarm at the number of pedestrian road deaths (about 3,500, most of them in built up areas)? And wasn't the 70mph limit first introduced in 1965 because of a series of massive motorway pileups in foggy weather? It seems the speed limits are there specifically because motorists failed to drive at a safe speed for the conditions -- Tony " I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong." Bertrand Russell
From: Adrian on 30 Jul 2010 14:25
Tony Raven <traven(a)gotadsl.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > And wasn't the 70mph limit first introduced in 1965 because of a series > of massive motorway pileups in foggy weather? Umm, would you like to think about that one for a moment...? |