20mph limits coming

Simon Dean said:

TheMgt wrote:
But then a 20mph limit at times when it's say middle of the night, or
there's excellent visibility, 20mph could well feel incorrect.

Can you explain the logic behind the middle of the night comment. I
maybe an exception but I find my visibility is much better in the light
or day.

Nick said:

Simon Dean said:

TheMgt wrote:
But then a 20mph limit at times when it's say middle of the night, or
there's excellent visibility, 20mph could well feel incorrect.

Can you explain the logic behind the middle of the night comment. I
maybe an exception but I find my visibility is much better in the light
or day.

At night you get advance warning of other cars coming towards you
because you can see the light from their headlamps before there is a
line of sight to the actual car. This is a significant factor on some
roads.

But speed is not just about visibility, like it or not it's about
probability of whether you're going to hit something or someone, and it
doesn't much matter whose fault it is or what "right" anyone has to be
anywhere.

During the day there might be lots of people milling around on the
pavement and a high probability of them stepping into the road making a
lower speed appropriate. At night you should watch out for cats. Good
drivers think of these things.

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 05:36:43 -0500 someone who may be Ben C
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

At night you get advance warning of other cars coming towards you
because you can see the light from their headlamps before there is a
line of sight to the actual car. This is a significant factor on some
roads.

Trees, animals, humans and cycles don't have bright headlamps.
Assuming that everything on the road does have bright headlamps is
not the sign of a good driver.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Wally said:

Simon Dean said:

Someone runs unannounced into the path of a moving vehicle without due
care and attention and "they're the victim"? I see. Whatever happens,
blame the car driver.

It's not that simple. The car driver is the one with a ton of metal under
his control. To a significant degree, it is incumbent on the driver to avoid
collisions with others - vulnerable road users especially, whether they are
'to blame' or not.

Right, so back to the point you conveniently snipped out where I avoided
the collision with the pedestrian...

Of course the motorist has a responsibility on the road.

Doesn't alter the fact seems some people are saying even if someone
leaps into your path from behind a parked car, or without looking at the
last minute, then the car user could still have avoided it and is
responsible? The police won't see it that way! The police will see it as
an accident. Pure and simple, with no blame on the driver.

I must say, I didn't know you were all clairvoyants, able to sense the
unexpected. Woooooo.

Cya
Simon

David Hansen said:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 05:36:43 -0500 someone who may be Ben C
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

At night you get advance warning of other cars coming towards you
because you can see the light from their headlamps before there is a
line of sight to the actual car. This is a significant factor on some
roads.

Trees, animals, humans and cycles don't have bright headlamps.
Assuming that everything on the road does have bright headlamps is
not the sign of a good driver.

Phew. Good job he made the distinction that you can get a warning of
OTHER CARS with HEADLAMPS. Not reading and understanding what someone
else says is the sign of a self absorbed p*ick.

Driving in the daytime, I usually find a glut of cars in queues,
pedestrians, people shopping, children going to school. During the
night, there's avery few cars on the road, even less people. There are
lots of shadows around, but I find that especially in the city, there
are these real great things called Street Lights which tend to
illuminate stuff. I think it's something to do with photons on a
particular wavelength, but I could be wrong.

Im not saying it would be safe to travel in excess of 20mph or 30mph,
but if it is, then all that 20mph speed limit is doing is generating an
artificially low speed limit at night while still being an unobtainable
maximum during the daytime.

Cya
Simon

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 13:12:32 +0100, Simon Dean <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Of course the motorist has a responsibility on the road.

Doesn't alter the fact seems some people are saying even if someone
leaps into your path from behind a parked car, or without looking at the
last minute, then the car user could still have avoided it and is
responsible? The police won't see it that way! The police will see it as
an accident. Pure and simple, with no blame on the driver.

I must say, I didn't know you were all clairvoyants, able to sense the
unexpected. Woooooo.

UK motorists are overprotected by the legal system. Over the channel,
many countries will expect a motorist to anticipate bone-headed moves by
cyclists and pedestrians, and presume the driver to be liable in all
such collisions, or "accidents" as wee Brits like to call them.
Equivalent laws should be implemented here ASAP, IMHO.

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Adam Lea

(') said:

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Simon Dean
([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

> Wally wrote:
>> Simon Dean wrote:
>>
>>> Why do people seem so unable to read, often ignoring statements, or
>>> inventing their own in order to flame, ridicule, or argue against.
>>
>> They probably don't, by and large. However, in your case, they may be
>> making an exception for a sarcastic, callous [censored].
>
> What's sarcastic about it? A young woman and her family tried to kill
> themselves by throwing themselves in front of my car without warning?

If you aren't able to cope with that, hand your driving licence in at
the nearest police station; you won't be needing it again. The road is
public open space, and the people who have an actual right to be on it
are pedestrians. When a guest in someone else's space, you adapt your
behaviour to theirs, not the other way around.

True, but the fact is that a motor vehicle, whatever speed it is
travelling at requires a finite time and a certain amount of space to
stop, so as a pedestrian one should try to avoid that space if possible.
Similarily if you are cycling up to a T junction you wouldn't just come
thundering out of the junction without looking, you would stop at the
give way markings and look for other traffic.

Oh, agreed. But just because a pedestrian (or indeed a cyclist) is an
idiot
does not give motorists the right to mow them down. Driving a motor
vehicle is a privilege and requires a very high standard of care.

This is true. It is unfortunate that in the UK we seem to have adopted a
culture that the car is king and that "lesser" road users should keep out of
the way so the motorist can have minimal obstruction. It is going to be hard
and take a long time to reverse this.

I have browsed the archives of threads cross-posted to uk.transport and some
of the viewpoints there really are shocking.

Ben C said:

Nick said:

Simon Dean said:

TheMgt wrote:
But then a 20mph limit at times when it's say middle of the night, or
there's excellent visibility, 20mph could well feel incorrect.

Can you explain the logic behind the middle of the night comment. I
maybe an exception but I find my visibility is much better in the light
or day.

At night you get advance warning of other cars coming towards you
because you can see the light from their headlamps before there is a
line of sight to the actual car. This is a significant factor on some
roads.

Bollocks. Peds don't have headlights, and at night may be drunk. Many
bikes have inadequate lights or none at all. Cars drivers don't always
switch them on. Car drivers have an obligation to drive at a speed
which enables them to stop for any hazard in the road. Many such
hazards are unlit. Night driving requires slower speeds; it does not
permit higher speeds.

Quoted message said:

But speed is not just about visibility, like it or not it's about
probability of whether you're going to hit something or someone, and it
doesn't much matter whose fault it is or what "right" anyone has to be
anywhere.

The probablility of a collision will be less if speed limits are not
exceeded, night or day. Why would you want to increase the probablility
of a collision?

Quoted message said:

During the day there might be lots of people milling around on the
pavement and a high probability of them stepping into the road making a
lower speed appropriate. At night you should watch out for cats. Good
drivers think of these things.

Some drivers aim for those cats, and couldn't care less about people
milling around, night or day. And, no doubt, even they'll claim to be
"good" drivers.

"Sir Jeremy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The roads are bought and paid for by the general population with the
billions
in taxes that we pay in.

I've corrected your post for you.

Simon Dean wrote on 03/06/2007 13:20 +0100:

Quoted message said:

David Hansen said:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 05:36:43 -0500 someone who may be Ben C
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

At night you get advance warning of other cars coming towards you
because you can see the light from their headlamps before there is a
line of sight to the actual car. This is a significant factor on some
roads.

Trees, animals, humans and cycles don't have bright headlamps.
Assuming that everything on the road does have bright headlamps is
not the sign of a good driver.

Phew. Good job he made the distinction that you can get a warning of
OTHER CARS with HEADLAMPS. Not reading and understanding what someone
else says is the sign of a self absorbed p*ick.

Driving in the daytime, I usually find a glut of cars in queues,
pedestrians, people shopping, children going to school. During the
night, there's avery few cars on the road, even less people. There are
lots of shadows around, but I find that especially in the city, there
are these real great things called Street Lights which tend to
illuminate stuff. I think it's something to do with photons on a
particular wavelength, but I could be wrong.

Im not saying it would be safe to travel in excess of 20mph or 30mph,
but if it is, then all that 20mph speed limit is doing is generating an
artificially low speed limit at night while still being an unobtainable
maximum during the daytime.

But it ignores the fact that be it day or night, if the unexpected does
happen and you hit someone you have a 90% chance of killing them at
40mph and a 90% chance of them living at 20mph. So irrespective of the
number of people around its much safer for those that are around should
the worst happen if you drive slower.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

Simon Dean said:

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Simon Dean
([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Simon Dean wrote:
>> Bloody woman and her brood include a kid in a pushchair, [...]
>> These people deserve to be killed.

Quoted message said:

How am I driving without due care and attention?

Somebody decides right when Im on top of them to swing 90 degrees right
and walk into my path?

I think you'll find the police will chalk that upto an accident and not
dangerous driving.

Would you pass a driving test if you collided with a pedestrian? If not,
then your driving was substandard.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

Simon Dean said:

Ekul Namsob said:

Simon Dean said:

Wally wrote:
> Simon Dean wrote:
>
>> I was travelling along the road today, 20 mph (I had my aircon on, and
>> it's real slow to get my car going), and I had to swerve to avoid a
>> speed bump.
> Jump out in front of you from between parked cars, did it?

Quoted message said:

No, as I said.... "It" was crossing a side road, ie, the road that I
wasn't on. Then all of a sudden, in the middle of them crossing that
road, they make a 90 degree right turn and cross into the middle of the
main road (the road I was on).

[censored]. The speed bump was crossing a side road. Why? Was it trying
to follow the chicken?

And you had to swerve to avoid it, even though it was crossing the road
you weren't on.

Quoted message said:

Thank you for not reading. You look like you have missed...

"Then all of a sudden ... they make a 90 degree right turn and cross
into the middle of the main road (the road I was on)."

You see, these are the laws of physics and geometry and simple
mathematics, that when someone suddenly, with no warning decides to run
into the middle of your path, means that you end up having to swerve or
hopefully slam on your brakes to hopefully avoid said suicidal object.

Why do people seem so unable to read, often ignoring statements, or
inventing their own in order to flame, ridicule, or argue against.

Read the quote. "Jump out in front of you from between parked cars, did
it?" The 'it' refers to the speed bump round which you 'had to swerve'.

Were you surprised by the speed bump? Did it jump out in front of you?

Almost certainly, it did not. Therefore your driving was substandard.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

Simon Dean said:

Simon Brooke wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

hand your driving licence in at the
nearest police station;

So if I leap into your path unannounced, you can cope with that?

Hazard perception is part of the driving test these days. Good drivers
slow down when they see a potential hazard. You did not, you had to
swerve (in your own words 'to avoid a speed bump'!) therefore your
driving was substandard.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

Marc Brett said:

Ben C said:

Nick said:

Simon Dean wrote:
> TheMgt wrote:
> But then a 20mph limit at times when it's say middle of the night, or
> there's excellent visibility, 20mph could well feel incorrect.
>
Can you explain the logic behind the middle of the night comment. I
maybe an exception but I find my visibility is much better in the light
or day.

At night you get advance warning of other cars coming towards you
because you can see the light from their headlamps before there is a
line of sight to the actual car. This is a significant factor on some
roads.

Bollocks. Peds don't have headlights,

They have eyes, generally speaking.

Quoted message said:

and at night may be drunk. Many bikes have inadequate lights or none
at all. Cars drivers don't always switch them on. Car drivers have
an obligation to drive at a speed which enables them to stop for any
hazard in the road.

Now that's bollocks. What speed would that be? Less than 5mph I
estimate. If such an obligation existed no-one would ever be able to
drive a car at all.

Quoted message said:

Many such hazards are unlit. Night driving requires slower speeds; it
does not permit higher speeds.

I don't agree.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But speed is not just about visibility, like it or not it's about
probability of whether you're going to hit something or someone, and it
doesn't much matter whose fault it is or what "right" anyone has to be
anywhere.

The probablility of a collision will be less if speed limits are not
exceeded, night or day. Why would you want to increase the probablility
of a collision?

So why do you drive faster during the day?

Marc Brett said:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 05:36:43 -0500, Ben C <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

At night you get advance warning of other cars coming towards you
because you can see the light from their headlamps before there is a
line of sight to the actual car. This is a significant factor on some
roads.

Bollocks. Peds don't have headlights, and at night may be drunk.

Oy, some of us manage to be drunk during the daytime.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

Simon Dean said:

David Hansen said:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 05:36:43 -0500 someone who may be Ben C
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

At night you get advance warning of other cars coming towards you
because you can see the light from their headlamps before there is a
line of sight to the actual car. This is a significant factor on some
roads.

Trees, animals, humans and cycles don't have bright headlamps.
Assuming that everything on the road does have bright headlamps is
not the sign of a good driver.

Phew. Good job he made the distinction that you can get a warning of
OTHER CARS with HEADLAMPS. Not reading and understanding what someone
else says is the sign of a self absorbed p*ick.

While not reading and understanding what you say is the sign of what
exactly? See elsewhere in this thread:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I was travelling along the road today, 20 mph (I had my aircon on,

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> it's real slow to get my car going), and I had to swerve to avoid a
> speed bump.
Jump out in front of you from between parked cars, did it?

Quoted message said:

No, as I said.... "It" was crossing a side road,

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

Ben C said:

Marc Brett said:

Car drivers have an obligation to drive at a speed which enables them to
stop for any hazard in the road.

Quoted message said:

Now that's bollocks. What speed would that be? Less than 5mph I
estimate. If such an obligation existed no-one would ever be able to
drive a car at all.

You need to get your brakes checked. Urgently.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 13:20:06 +0100 someone who may be Simon Dean
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Trees, animals, humans and cycles don't have bright headlamps.
Assuming that everything on the road does have bright headlamps is
not the sign of a good driver.

Phew. Good job he made the distinction that you can get a warning of
OTHER CARS with HEADLAMPS.

That is true, but only useful to the discussion if cars (and other
motor vehicles) are the only things on the road.

Quoted message said:

Not reading and understanding what someone
else says is the sign of a self absorbed p*ick.

Excellent, personal abuse. Usually the resort of those without
better arguments, for example party politicians, journalists and
some academics.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Ben C said:

Nick said:

Simon Dean said:

TheMgt wrote:
But then a 20mph limit at times when it's say middle of the night, or
there's excellent visibility, 20mph could well feel incorrect.

Can you explain the logic behind the middle of the night comment. I
maybe an exception but I find my visibility is much better in the light
or day.

At night you get advance warning of other cars coming towards you
because you can see the light from their headlamps before there is a
line of sight to the actual car. This is a significant factor on some
roads.

and noise in the lanes, together with the lights mean that you can tell
a cars coming some way off at night. at night in a car you don't have to
worry so much about can another car stop but can you. which means it is
possible to drive a little faster, not much but a touch faster.

Quoted message said:

But speed is not just about visibility, like it or not it's about
probability of whether you're going to hit something or someone, and it
doesn't much matter whose fault it is or what "right" anyone has to be
anywhere.

During the day there might be lots of people milling around on the
pavement and a high probability of them stepping into the road making a
lower speed appropriate. At night you should watch out for cats. Good
drivers think of these things.

indeed they should be thinking what if..

roger

Ekul Namsob said:

Simon Dean said:

Simon Brooke wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

hand your driving licence in at the
nearest police station;

So if I leap into your path unannounced, you can cope with that?

Hazard perception is part of the driving test these days. Good drivers
slow down when they see a potential hazard. You did not, you had to
swerve (in your own words 'to avoid a speed bump'!) therefore your
driving was substandard.

That is and always has been a minority viewpoint outside the halls of
the driving standards agency.

I remember being told on this group it was a wonder I ever went anywhere
at all (and I think that it was intended to say that I was hyper
risk-avoiding, not just scared to drive) when I mentioned that I found
it less stressful to drive along dedicated car paths (the M6 & M5 in
this case) for urban journeys because you didn't have to look out for
all the people potentially behind parked cars, on the pavements, etc.

I think also my point of view that when passing a pavement cyclist you
need to leave at least as much room as you would overtaking one on the
road (either by car or by bike) was pooh-poohed, too.

I've watched, in particularly nihilistic voyeuristic moods (matched, it
would seem by approximately 10% of the population, given that it's prime
time TV) the "Traffic Cops" show, where police officers seem perfectly
happy to call occasions where a motorist crashes into a stranded vehicle
'just an accident'.

And I've mentioned occasions when I thought it prudent to do an
emergency stop in a car to a friend, and they've failed to believe that
I knew that there was no-one following my car before I hit the brakes.

And so on, and so on.

And getting back to vulnerable road users, you can bet that when I walk
round my (20mph) neighbourhood, if the opportunity arises, I'll happily
feint the kind of move that so upset Mr Dean if I see people driving
like that.

--
A