Safe Speed Forums

There are two types of pedestrian:- those you can see and those you can't. They conceal themselves behind parked vans and in bus shelters and then rush out. Not always, but enough to make a cyclist or motorist wary of any roadside object large enough to hide behind. The sort you can see are no better; with all the self-preservation instincts of a lemming trying for a miscarriage they'll stand in plain view, perhaps looking straight at you or perhaps looking the wrong way before stepping out. Riding or driving at 1 mph is not an option, but going at a speed which'll probably kill them isn't something you should consider doing either. If you have the attitude that anyone who can't see you coming or recognise the danger deserves to die, then you shouldn't be driving. The actual danger comes from the 1 ton block of steel that you've brought onto the road, and it's that fact which makes you responsible for the safety of others, the least you can do is drive at a speed which, according to official figures, gives them a 50% chance of surviving. If you decide to go faster then you've made a conscious decision to act in a way that will probably get someone killed in the event of such an accident.

You will never get enough police on the road to replace the cameras, but if you did you can bet your licence that they'd be just as unforgiving to speeders as PC Gatso.

For one thing it's not that much effort. Install a camera, check the film, post a letter.
For another the perceived risk is high. so cameras reasure people.

why is a limit?

For one thing it's not that much effort. Install a camera, check the film, post a letter.
For another the perceived risk is high. so cameras reasure people.

That does fit in with your idea that pedestrians should only be given a 50% chance of survival on the roads. What is it you don't like about them?

Probably because it's in a city and there are lots of people living and working nearby who don't want their lives blighted by traffic noise.

Also, if it was people would do

For such a short length of road, what's they hurry? What is so important about your time that you need to get 1 mile down the road 15 seconds quicker to the detriment of everyone else? Just leave 15 seconds earlier if it matters that much.

The point being made was that in order to remove any possibility of hitting a pedestrian you have slow to zero; since this is not practical you have to assume the pedestrian has equal responsibility.
My point is that the driver has to take responsibility for the safety of the pedestrian, and since at any finite speed the possibility of an accident cannot be ruled out then the driver should keep to a speed which will not make the pedestrian's death probable in the event of such an accident: which we are told means keeping it below 30mph. Which just happens to be the speed limit in pedestrian-rich environments.

No, I'm saying that pedestrians should not be given a less-than-50% chance of survival. I'm not arguing that you have to drive at 30, simply that you shouldn't be going faster than that.

The point being made was that in order to remove any possibility of hitting a pedestrian you have slow to zero;

since this is not practical you have to assume the pedestrian has equal responsibility.

My point is that the driver has to take responsibility for the safety of the pedestrian, and since at any finite speed the possibility of an accident cannot be ruled out then the driver should keep to a speed which will not make the pedestrian's death probable in the event of such an accident:

which we are told means keeping it below 30mph. Which just happens to be the speed limit in pedestrian-rich environments.

Ooops sorry, quoted above before reading this in full. Again why do you think it is better to keep to a speed which reduces the likelyhood of death in collision rather than keep to a speed whcih reduces likelyhood of a collision in the first place, am I just thick or confused?

hang on here.. aren't these the same thing ?
in the situation being discussed a speed which reduces the likelihood of a collision is going to be much less than 30mph... which surely also reduces the likelihood of death in a collision.

It shouldn't be a question of 'hurry', it must be a question of appropriate speed.

All the more reason to change the layout to lower the perceived safe speed. Any road safety campaigner would agree.

We also have 's in UK. I'm trying to get one in my area. Massive local favourable response for it.

For another the perceived risk is high. so cameras reasure people.

...and in my book 'appropriate speed' includes quality of life - for everyone, not just drivers

The difference between 30 and 40 over a mile is neither here nor there. It's 30, so what?

All the more reason to change the layout to lower the perceived safe speed. Any road safety campaigner would agree.

They have recently done this with Stourbridge ring road. By adding a set of lights to allow a filter, and a Toucan crossing elsewhere the vehicle speeds have falled dramatically and transformed the place. Added a little congestion for the benefit of the environment.

Germany has speed limits for environmental reasons, in fact I think our motorways have a limit for just such a reason. We also have 's in UK. I'm trying to get one in my area. Massive local favourable response for it.

what does the environment have to do with road safety?

strangely in the c+ thread on Richmond park they said the new 20 limit has caused chaos (apart from it being enforced on bikes) and they now want it raised back to 30.

We also have 's in UK. I'm trying to get one in my area. Massive local favourable response for it.

One of the biggest problems we face is getting over the "perception" created by the "speed kills" campaigns.

Are you saying that limits should be set ignoring the fact that people live within metres of the highway?

Of course. Richmond Park is exactly the same as the Old Quarter of Stourbridge isn't it.