Safe Speed Forums

20 mph is very close to the traffic speed at which the roads have their greatest carrying capacity, so it is unlikely that it will increase congestion.
Also a general speed limit of 20 will actually be easier to keep than a general 30 mph with a few 20mph zones (near schools, parks &c.) which is something that most people regard as perfectly reasonable.
In practice, it is very unlikely that 20 will be rigidly enforced. As I understand it, speed cameras cannot be sited just anywhere; the place has to have some history of serious accidents. Also, motorists are given a bit of lee-way, 10% + 2 mph, which means that if the current norm is 24 mph then Portsmouth motorists will not be needing to change their driving habits much.

_________________
Occasionally slightly trollish.

Hello Dondare.

Let's take three scenarios (there will be many others inbetween the extremes and around the average, but let me just pick three points). Scenario 1 - a tad of drizzle, lots of people bustling, a fair few cars on the road... Scenario 2, dry, approaching rush hour but traffic still only medium density, some people around. Scenario 3, dry, hardly any pedestrians except a crowd gathered in one place, very light traffic.

Scenario 1.
If the "safe speed" when crowded is sub-20, as you say, the change in limit and enforcement of it will have negligible effect at that time.

Scenario 2: Let's assume that the safe travelling speed for observant motorists most of the time is around 25 - 30. Motorists will be for ever taking their eyes to the speedo, fearful of a ping from a camera or an ambush from a speed gun. Speed may well come down to below the optimum safe speed for these motorists. Observation will certainly be impaired, punctuated often by the near 1-second periods of speed checks.

Scenario 3: The safe speed of progress might be around 50 for most of the road (but 30 or 40-limited) but no more than 15 - 20 past the crowd, which may have the odd inebriated party who could stumble or be boistrously bundled into the road as part of horseplay. Pre 20 limit/camera, progress would have been brisk, the crowd would hear/see the car coming at a semi-decent speed, but as it approached the crowd it would be slowing and the driver's foot would be on the brake. This has the psychological effect of buying time for the pedestrian with impaired reaction - a similar psychological application to that which road engineers apply to drivers approaching roundabouts with the progressively closer together lines across the road on the approach. In a ewstricted road, this warning of approach will disappear, as will the cocoon of temporal safety. More imporatantly, because the "correct" speed will be reached earlier, the brake will NOT be covered, so if something happens to create danger, a precious large part of a second to move the foot to the stop pedal takes away vital feet before decelrating.

Neither the reduced limit nor the enforcement have assisted road safety in these three scenarios. what it has done is made drivers scared, probably fined a few safe motorists - and placated the wooly hat brigade who think free travelling speed is the panacea of danger.

Just my 2d.

Day 1 Woman run over by lorry , dead.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

Yet another tragedy for her and all of her relatives. What can I say. Apparently died trying to save one of her children.

I have a worrying suspision that lower traffic speeds cause and make the severity of accidents worse. We had another instance of a young boy being crushed under the back wheels of a lorry on this website. In Burton a young girl was killed by a lorry on a crossing at low speed. I think that slow speed collissions knock over the pedestrian and then stop - most likely on top of the victim giving crush injuries. A slightly higher speed would probably knocked them out of the way or rolled over them completely. Also the lower speeds probably seem safer to people and so make accidents more likely.

In eden about the eden project by Tim Smit a highways engineer said of installing a crossing in one of the villages (requested by a villager because of the higher traffic volumes ) That most accidents happen on crossings it does bring in the possibility that installing a crossing could be more dangerous than no crossing at all.

Richard

The victim was on a pedestrian crossing which really isn't good news for the driver, but by the same token (I know North End extremely well) I also know that a very high percentage of the pedestrians don't give a toss when they cross and simply walk out like they own the road.

It wouldn't be right or proper to start apportioning blame based on one news story, but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to discover this woman was one of the "I own the road and you must stop on a sixpence when i step out" brigade.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

I think its important not to consider any speed limit appropriate because it is fairly close to the average speed.

What does the average speed actually mean?
How was is measured? At what time? on what roads? whereabouts on these roads?
Any bias?


The 'average speed' on my trip computer for my daily commute is 28mph but the majority of my commute is spent on high quality A roads with 60mph limits, where it is safe to travel at speeds near to the limit for the a proportion of the journey. So by this example, average speeds paint a misleading picture. But using this rule, the limit should be 20 0r 30, which of couse would be unworkable. I wonder if this is a similar scenario to portsmouth.

Obviously there are still a few roads in Pompey where it is possible to exceed even 30mph (the side streets for example), but I have yet to see anybody actually doing this because common sense tells you that 20-25 is much more appropiate when you take other factors in to account (eg, width of road, parked cars, etc).

Where the main roads are concerned (North End for example), it really is a struggle to get anywhere near 30mph during the day....and if the footie is on then you really are better off walking.

If plod are going to be strictly enforcing the 20 limit as the report said, then I expect they'll be hiding out on roads like Winston Churchill Avenue (a dual carrieageway where very, very few pedestrians try to cross) rather than (say) plotting up at North End where there are lots of pedestrians who cross the road without even looking.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

Yes, these are critically important questions.

A speed that was highly appropriate at 3am may be highly inappropriate at 3pm. So to alter the '3pm 'right speed' message on the basis of the 3am speed may well be barking.

A speed that's highly appropriate on a straight section may be highly dangerous near a bend. And so on.

We're left with just one option... Drivers must choose a speed that's safe and appropriate for the immediate conditions.

Average speeds tell us little or nothing, and will actually be considerably higher than appropriate at some times and locations.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

A lot of people hate those sorts of comments, even though sometimes there is an element of truth in them. For example, if a cyclist dies riding on a three-lane dual carriageway with a 50mph speed limit and heavy lorry traffic, when there's a parallel cycle route provided, people don't like you making comments like "the cyclist should have ridden on the dedicated cycleway provided for them", as I don't think people like putting a bit of blame on the victim. It's very sad, but in the case of the pedestrian death in Portsmouth I think the lorry driver wasn't paying enough attention, seeing as it happened at a dedicated pedestrian crossing.

It wasn't a puffin crossing was it? I personally don't like these, as sometimes the sensors don't spot the people on the crossing, and change the signal for traffic to green when the pedestrian is still on the crossing.

Or she could also have stepped out (as a lot of pedestrians do down here) with the lorry right on top of the crossing expecting it to be able to stop in the same distance as a car.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

Yes, newspapers never seem to have headlines like "Idiot pedestrian steps in front of car!" only "Maniac speeding driver hits passerby."

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

There is no such thing as a dedicated cycleway. Pedestrians have priority on anything that isn't a motorway, and cyclists wanting to go faster than walking speed belong on the road.
As far as this incident is concerned, it is a central tenet of Safespeed that motorists are capable of acting sensibly and safely on their own. It does not require a 20 mph speed limit for a lorry driver to slow down when approaching a pedestrian crossing.

_________________
Occasionally slightly trollish.

There are some things in here that highlight important issues.

One of the big problems is that pedestrians DO have priority. They should not. If they did not have priority then they might look out for themselves better and thus support the SS tenet of taking personal responsibility for their actions. This doesn't just apply to motorists. Most pedestrian accidents are caused by ... the pedestrian.

I'm pleased that dedicated cycleways don't exist - I'll tell my local council to stop wasting money building them. They are rarely used anyway. Why aren't cyclists obliged to use them where provided? It would chime well with the nanny state to "protect" poor cyclists from danger even if it were against their will.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Examine the history of motor-vehicles on the road. They're there on the condition that they don't create danger for others. All other users have priority. Motorways are the obvious exception.
Cyclists have had the right to use the road for longer than motor vehicles have been in existance. The reason why some councils provide separate tracks is a bit complicated but it has nothing to do with getting cyclists off the road. There is no obligation to use them, any more than if the council replaced the footpath with a tightrope and designated that as a pedestrian "facility".

_________________
Occasionally slightly trollish.

I don't really agree with this line of reasoning: kites have been around longer than aeroplanes, but that doesn't mean my kite has priority if I fly it at the end of a runway. Same with rowing boats/container ships etc.

To quote another, in this case, "history is bunk". Things change to reflect changed circumstances.

I'm really learning useful things here. Cycle paths are not to get cyclists off the roads. Hmmm...

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

The pedestrian mindset given by Gixxer can be ably demonstrated when driving into RAF Cosford.

Since the new Cold War Museum was completed, the foot traffic near crash gate 5 at Hanger 1 has increased by a huge amount. Me wife (who is part of ATC at Cosford) regularly tells me that pedestrians wandering around between the new Museum and Hanger 1 have no clue whatsoever about how to deal with approaching traffic.

Despite having 2 crossings nearby and drivers either obeying or driving less than the 15 limit, they amble about with no regard to traffic and - should you have to brake or take avoiding action - they look at drivers with total contempt.

It happened this afo when taking one of our classic cars back to storage. I'd spotted a young lad (he looked about 5 years of age) mucking around on the side of the road near Hanger 1. Naturally, I decelerated whilst covering the brake all the time doing about 10. As I approached, his dad moved to shield him, and shot me a poisonous look as I drove past.

I thought, "sorry mate, but I saw your child may be in danger long before you so don't look at me in that tone of voice".

Sheesh

_________________
Simon

A kite on a runway might be the equivalent of a pedestran (or cyclist) on a motorway.

"History is more or less bunk. It's tradition. We don't want tradition. We want to live in the present and the only history that is worth a tinker's dam is the history we made today."
I wonder Henry Ford was thinking along the same lines as you when he said this. He was in the business of selling cars, after all. Anyway, in spite of his opinion, the current legal situation hasn't changed that much. The man with the flag has gone, but motor cars are still considered a danger to the public with the onus on the driver to minimize that danger; not the public to have to avoid it.

Cycle facilities of all kinds are there to get cars off the road, not bikes. The argument is that most car journeys are less than 5 miles and so could be cycled instead. The reason why people choose to drive is that there are not enough cycle-lanes, paths, tracks &c. for cyclists to feel safe. So if more of these are provided, more people will cycle. This is good because cycle facilities are much cheaper than real roads; it's simply an attempt to save money.
It isn't cyclists on the road who aren't using the cycle-paths as intended, it's motorists. By all means tell your council that you don't want them.

_________________
Occasionally slightly trollish.

I'm sorry I don't agree with that statement at all. The onus is on everyone to avoid danger. That's like telling a child it's ok to walk out from behind parked cars because the driver should be aware of it. Everybody avoids danger every day. If you're stupid enough not to, then YOU face the consequences.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

The tortuous and distorted logic of the above post means that further discusion of this point will be fruitless.


This is entirely wrong. People chose the car because it is safer, faster, more comfortable (and drier in wet weather), more convenient and finally, because they have the choice.

Separating pedestrians, cyclists and cars will probably enhance safety.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.