Safe Speed Forums

Well...

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/10.htm#108 :

108: Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10mph or less.

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

Equally disliked by many here...



And far too many pedestrians can't work out that running into the road without any knowledge of the position/speed of oncoming traffic is a stupid thing to be doing. Some motorists cause problems, yes. But trying to improve road safety purely by forcing a change in the behaviour of motorists isn't a good idea. As we continue to re-engineer the road system in a futile attempt to make it somehow more pedestrian friendly purely by hindering the progress of vehicles, without a comparable level of effort expended on pedestrian education, we send out the appalingly dangerous message that road safety is all down to the motorist. The result of which appears to be, as many of us see all too often, a growing number of pedestrians who quite simple believe they have no responsibility in the safety process.

I've seen mothers pushing their pushchairs into the nearside lane to force traffic to stop at pelican crossings, simply because they can't be arsed to wait for the green man. I've seen people yapping away on mobile phones whilst drifting off the pavement onto the road without a care in the world, totally oblivious to any traffic that might be heading their way. I've seen kids taunt drivers at zebra crossings by waiting for the traffic to stop before laughing and walking off down the pavement, or crossing one at a time instead of as a group.


Furthermore, it also risks breeding resentment in motorists who see yet more restrictions placed on their progress and yet more implied finger pointing at them as being the source of all our road safety woes - resentment which may in some cases turn into hostility towards those other road users the restrictions were intended to protect.


Motorists have a significant responsibility to road safety due to their potential for causing damage/injury, I'm not saying otherwise. But EVERY road user should and must ultimately be responsible for their own safety, if not the safety of anyone else. We shouldn't dumb things down to suit the lowest common denominator without at least trying to raise that lowest level up a bit.

_________________
Chris

I thought we spoke about this earlier and apparently this is due to a directive from Central to Local Govt? The LA's must make car ownership and getting from A to B as painful as possible, in order to encourage car users to use public transport.

Here in West Bromwich, we have these build-outs all over the place, and I know for a fact (as I see it regularly) car drivers now just swerve out and overtake at the last moment. I'd love to know if an insurer could successfully sue a LA as being the true cause of the accident?

And now, one of our main routes from West Bromwich into Birmingham is being reduced from a nice, open, wide dual carriageway to a single lane road. That'll cause a nice bit of congestion.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Here's a letter to the Editor that appeared in yesterday's Plymouth Evening Herald:

_________________
Will

I dunno about "true cause" but I'd say such obstructions are a deliberate engineered danger and those responcible for such works are as culpable as anyone.

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction