Safe Speed Forums

Dondare wrote:
The roads were there before the cars. Road Tax did not pay for them to be built and doesn't pay for them now.

One comes to mind -the A5 - but from some of the description of how the Romans built it -don't think you'd like to drive it in it's origonal format

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

These days, no. Mind you, these days you can't even expect the parents to exhibit much in the way of roadcraft/common sense

_________________
Chris

I'm still waiting to see evidence that pedestrians are legally entitled to use the road as a walkway, let alone that they have priority. Just because this was the case 200 years ago does not mean it is true now.

The first rule in the highway code is this:



and on very soon after is this, on crossing the road:




Doesn't seem to back up pedestrian priority in the road, especially d.

I can travel the entire distance from my front gate to my place of work (about 11 miles) on roads that were built over 100 years ago.
The tarmac is newer but the right of way is the same as it was then. It'll take more than tarmac to change that.

_________________
Occasionally slightly trollish.

"1: Pavements or footpaths should be used if provided. Where possible, avoid walking next to the kerb with your back to the traffic. If you have to step into the road, look both ways first.

2: If there is no pavement or footpath, walk on the right-hand side of the road so that you can see oncoming traffic. You should take extra care and

be prepared to walk in single file, especially on narrow roads or in poor light
keep close to the side of the road.
It may be safer to cross the road well before a sharp right-hand bend (so that oncoming traffic has a better chance of seeing you). Cross back after the bend."

If use of the footpath was a legal requirement, then rule 1 would say "Pavements or footpaths MUST be used if provided."

Rule 2 indicates a clear right to walk on the road.

_________________
Occasionally slightly trollish.

This isn't consistent with what you were saying earlier. It gives pedestrians a right to use the road in some circumstances, which are exceptions to the norm: e.g. crossing a road, and if there is no footpath. What does that suggest is the usual rule?

Perhaps the time has come for the legislators to stop worrying about upsetting the minority and leglislate for their safety by changing the should to must.If drivers are judged as not being capable of needing instruction ,then why not pedestrians.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

All tax income pays for all Government expenditure. So a bit of road tax gets spent on roads, and a bit of betting tax also gets spent on roads. For instance.
I would be pleased to end this debate more knowledgeable than I started, so please pull me up on any mistakes that I make concerning traffic laws.
Anyone else own a bit of road?

_________________
Occasionally slightly trollish.

Pedestrians a minority?

_________________
Occasionally slightly trollish.

After 40 years of car ownership - do i have shares in Uk roads, or own a bit.???

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Most of the HC is not law. It's advice. Walking in the road is not illegal, but it is inadvisable.

Pedestrians have had the right to walk along the road before laws were written down, and most laws are prohibitative. There may not be a law that specifically states that they can walk in the road; but there's certainly not one saying that they can't. (Except motorways, of course.)

_________________
Occasionally slightly trollish.

Ask Gordon Brown.









And so to bed.

_________________
Occasionally slightly trollish.

Great. Doesn't mean every one of us can claim the same (the estate I live on was farm fields until the 1930's, the estate my parents live on was farm fields until the early 2000's...), nor does it say anything about the mileage that's been added to the network since the introduction of the motor vehicle.

And does historical ability to have once walked freely on a certain patch of the British landscape mean that freedom should still exist today? The routes followed by modern roads may be the same as those followed by the roads, carriageways, dirt tracks etc. that preceded them, but in terms of how the land they occupy is now used, they bear only slightly more resemblance to the roads of old than, say, runway 27L at Heathrow bears resemblance to the open countryside that preceded it.

_________________
Chris

The Dome was paid for through Lottery money, not taxation.

No, its not.

For PLG vehicles, there has been some political fiddling at the edges to apply differing rates of VED for differing emissions.

However, generally the heavier the vehicle, the higher the VED. Do you know what HGV owners pay in VED?

I'm a little disappointed, Dondare, that' you've failed to answer my main questions. If a pedestrian can be resposible for loss or damage, should he not be obliged to carry third party insurance?

Were there ever any instances of horses / horses & carriages running pedestrians over long before cars were ever a twinkle in the devil's eye?

Anyway, as you've chosen to concentrate on who pays for the roads...

Do you really think that all roads (except motorways) pre-date the motor car? Can't remember the last time I saw a "pedestrian-only" dual carriageway! Round here, there are lots of little lanes that see very little motor traffic. After a while, the weeds push through the tarmac and then it breaks up surprisingly quickly. As someone who cycles occasionally (and with two toddlers in a trailer) I am actually pretty grateful to the traffic because without it, these roads would revert back to narrow, muddy, dirt tracks which I wouldn't be able to tow my bike trailer up.

I quite like the cycle paths round here that are (usually) along the beds of dismantled railways - they're all the better because, as a cyclist / pedestrian, I don't have to pay a bean towards their upkeep. Of course, you could argue that neither does the motorist's road tax. But as you've already observed, the taxes the motorist pays don't JUST get used on the roads he travels.

I don't completely buy your argument that the motorist is the source of danger and therefore it is solely his responsibility to avoid it either. The motorist is a pedestrian that's in a car. They are both human beings. If you remove one or the other from the equation, the danger goes away.

I see Paul has picked up on the fallacy of "speed limit" here. I have another point.

Yes, I'd like to think that I drive at a speed I judge to be safe. Typically when approaching parked cars, unless, by prior observation, I *know* there is no chance of a pedestrian (or dog or whatever) appearing "out of nowhere" in front of me, the chances are I will have adjudged a *far* lower speed than were the parked car not present to be the safe speed of progress. Reference to the speedo is never made in such scenarios (at least not by me). It would be a dangerous and time-consuming distraction at a critical moment.

Anything up to £1,850 for the tractor unit and £230 for the trailer depending on licenced weight, axle configuration and suspension type.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/Ow ... G_10012715

However, when you consider that its quite possible for a HGV to do 10x the annual milage of a car, and the top rates are for 44tonners its actually pretty cheep.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

If I am a shark, I have no teeth or at least I haven't for 32 years so maybe I'm a basking shark While I understand the analogy I don't subscribe to the view that we are all looking for a feast. If the day comes when a suicidal fish jumps in my mouth, that's their lookout as much as mine. I am not a predator on the roads.



Not me bud. I love when someone tells it as it is



Thanks for the breakdown of breaking distances Handy but I'm still vague on whether modern breaking distances are still only as good as a Ford Anglia. I think the HC has it wrong. I also work better in imperial measurements. I'm 49 this year, and still driving/riding safely. I'm what's known as a low risk although I wish it were reflected more in my premium


I'm surprised no-one mentioned the old road tax should be on fuel since it directly relates to the pollution and wear on roads. I would be for it and I'm sure we have other ways of checking unlicensed or illegal vehicles without it.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

That's one of the beauties of our road safety system. When we screw up, someone else is there to mitigate our error. Before a crash takes place, in most circumstances we have to have...

- one road user making a mistake
- another road user failing to avoid the mistake of the first

This intensely practical arrangement is a 'magical risk divider'. If we're screwing up 1% of the time and failing to avoid the mistakes of others 1% of the time, all of a sudden the 'coincidence group' where both factors are present is 1 in 10,000, not 1 in 100.

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