dangers of rural roads

[David Martin]

On 12/5/05 1:47 pm, in article [email protected], "Mark Hewitt"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "Rudi Lutz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> One approach I know of was that the people who lived in a village (near
>> Daventry in this case) simply got together and agreed to park their cars
>> in a staggered fashion (alternatively on opposite sides of the road) thus
>> effectively making their own traffic calming system. How many cars are
>> needed in each portion will depend on local conditions. I was told it
>> worked very well.in forcing drivers to slow down, even though the local
>> authority refused to put in a lower speed limit, or speed bumps, or
>> anything. I am told it also made that particular route less attractive to
>> many motorists and actually reduced the through traffic, although this too
>> may be just anecdotal. Worth trying though if you have this problem.
>
> Thus creating bottlenecks in the road and massively reducing safety for both
> motorists and cyclists alike, well done. Idiots.

Define massively. And you are forgetting the pedestrians as well.

Most judgements when driving are based on perception rather than actual
data. If the road is percieved to be difficult to drive, people will slow
down. This can improve safety. And, unlike your knee-jerk reaction, I am
prepared to accept the judgement of those who saw the situation in teh flesh
as to the effect it had.

...d

 

[Mark Hewitt]

"David Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BEA914CF.10692%[email protected]...
>
> Most judgements when driving are based on perception rather than actual
> data. If the road is percieved to be difficult to drive, people will slow
> down. This can improve safety. And, unlike your knee-jerk reaction, I am
> prepared to accept the judgement of those who saw the situation in teh
> flesh
> as to the effect it had.

It results in cars, cycles, whatever coming into direct conflict with each
other, i.e. head to head. The risk of head on collisions increases as a
result. Yes it may slow the cars down, but far from improving safety it just
shifts the danger from one area to another.

 

[LSMike]

"Rudi Lutz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> One approach I know of was that the people who lived in a village (near
> Daventry in this case) simply got together and agreed to park their cars
> in a staggered fashion (alternatively on opposite sides of the road) thus
> effectively making their own traffic calming system. How many cars are
> needed in each portion will depend on local conditions. I was told it
> worked very well.in forcing drivers to slow down, even though the local
> authority refused to put in a lower speed limit, or speed bumps, or
> anything. I am told it also made that particular route less attractive to
> many motorists and actually reduced the through traffic, although this too
> may be just anecdotal. Worth trying though if you have this problem.
>
> Rudi

Love it! I'll bet that had a very positive effect for the village, and
safety around that road.

 

[LSMike]

"Mark Hewitt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "David Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:BEA914CF.10692%[email protected]...
>>
>> Most judgements when driving are based on perception rather than actual
>> data. If the road is percieved to be difficult to drive, people will slow
>> down. This can improve safety. And, unlike your knee-jerk reaction, I am
>> prepared to accept the judgement of those who saw the situation in teh
>> flesh
>> as to the effect it had.
>
> It results in cars, cycles, whatever coming into direct conflict with each
> other, i.e. head to head. The risk of head on collisions increases as a
> result. Yes it may slow the cars down, but far from improving safety it
> just shifts the danger from one area to another.
>
>
>

So do you have any objective evidence to support your opinion? I disagree,
and think it will improve safety significantly.

 

[Trevor Barton]

On Thu, 12 May 2005 14:12:31 +0100, David Martin wrote:
> Most judgements when driving are based on perception rather than actual
> data.

LOL

Shirly, strictly speaking, *all* driving judgements are and should be
based on perception? How do you amass the data you need without using
your perception in the first place?

And now I'll stop calling you surely.

--
Trevor Barton

 

[stupot]

Mark Hewitt wrote:
> It results in cars, cycles, whatever coming into direct conflict with each
> other, i.e. head to head. The risk of head on collisions increases as a
> result. Yes it may slow the cars down, but far from improving safety it just
> shifts the danger from one area to another.

Which area is the danger shifted to?

 

[Andrew Richardson]

On Thu, 12 May 2005 17:50:19 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Ambrose Nankivell" <$firstname+'n'@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Nathaniel Porter wrote:

>Perhaps we should expect people to set their speed so they can properly deal
>with hazards and potential hazards

We already do, and quite often they don't. In those areas where it's
particularly dangerous if they don't, they effectively have to be
forced to.
--

Andrew Richardson
Lewes, East Sussex, UK

 

[Nathaniel Porter]

"Andrew Richardson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 12 May 2005 17:50:19 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ambrose Nankivell" <$firstname+'n'@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> Nathaniel Porter wrote:
>
> >Perhaps we should expect people to set their speed so they can properly
deal
> >with hazards and potential hazards
>
> We already do, and quite often they don't.

Quite

> In those areas where it's
> particularly dangerous if they don't, they effectively have to be
> forced to.
>

But they're not forced to, they're merely restricted to a ceiling (and in
reality they are only restricted by the fear of getting caught).

Moreover, they're still incapable of choosing an appropriate speed, so when
circumstances are such that they need to drive below the limit they don't
realise it, and are thus still dangerous.

..The speed limit isn't dealing with the problem, only the symptoms.

 

[Al C-F]

On Thu, 12 May 2005 13:47:06 +0100, "Mark Hewitt"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Thus creating bottlenecks in the road and massively reducing safety for both
>motorists and cyclists alike, well done. Idiots.

But to quote Hampshire County Council; 'speeds are reduced therefore
the road must be safer'.

So that's all right then.

 

[Not Responding]

Richard wrote:
> Mark Hewitt wrote:
>
>> Then explain the massive amount of speed limit changes which have been
>> taking place recently.. most of them downwards.
>
>
> Quantify "massive" and "most" in your comment above, please.
>
> R.

IM(extensive)E it is damned difficult to get a limit reduced. The police
are always dead against it and without their support it's next to
impossible to get it done. However, despite the difficulty and next to
impossibility it can be done if you have an awful lot of time, energy
and widespread support and keep at it for years.

If you've seen limits coming down it's down to the sheer weight of
requests coming in for lower limits - eventually, *some* of them do get
approved.

Interestingly I have *never*, repeat *never*, seen a request to have a
limit raised. The vast majority of people just don't want them. But, if
you believe a limit is inappropriately low then take the matter up. Just
don't be suprised to find yourself in a minority of 1.

 

[Not Responding]

Nathaniel Porter wrote:

> But they're not forced to, they're merely restricted to a ceiling (and in
> reality they are only restricted by the fear of getting caught).
>
> Moreover, they're still incapable of choosing an appropriate speed, so when
> circumstances are such that they need to drive below the limit they don't
> realise it, and are thus still dangerous.
>
> .The speed limit isn't dealing with the problem, only the symptoms.
>

Maybe. But as the symptom of speeding is death and injury, I'm quite
happy to see the symptom treated.

 

[WildNorthlands]

Mark Hewitt wrote:
Then explain the massive amount of speed limit changes which have been
> taking place recently.. most of them downwards.
>
Easy; 3,400 people dead every year and 250,000 injured, many seriously.
The right
to stay alive takes priority over the desire of a selfish minority to
get somewhere quickly.

Simon

 

[David Martin]

On 12/5/05 2:43 pm, in article [email protected],
"Trevor Barton" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Shirly, strictly speaking, *all* driving judgements are and should be
> based on perception? How do you amass the data you need without using
> your perception in the first place?

Set off from home on a 30 limit. Don't look at the speedo. What speed are
you doing wnad what is your stopping distance?
Ask the same question after turning off a 70mph road into a 30 limit.

Perception will tell you that the second time you are going slower than you
are. 'Just drifted over the speed limit' is perception that you are
travelling the same speed.

It's boiling a frog territory.

...d

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 12 May 2005 09:11:36 +0100, "wafflycat"
<waffles*AT*v21net*DOT*co*DOT*uk> wrote:

>More needs to be done to make children in rural areas aware of the risk of
>road accidents, campaigners say.

Of course. Because the only alternative is to get drivers to slow
down, and that would never do.

This is a piece of shameless victim blaming.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 12 May 2005 10:39:09 +0100, "Mark Hewitt"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The last bastion of being able to drive at speeds
>appropriate to the road conditions looks like it is going to be on the way
>out then.

Yes, killed as ever by the consistent failure of drivers to drive at
speeds appropriate to the road conditions.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Nathaniel Porter]

"Not Responding" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Nathaniel Porter wrote:
>
> > But they're not forced to, they're merely restricted to a ceiling (and
in
> > reality they are only restricted by the fear of getting caught).
> >
> > Moreover, they're still incapable of choosing an appropriate speed, so
when
> > circumstances are such that they need to drive below the limit they
don't
> > realise it, and are thus still dangerous.
> >
> > .The speed limit isn't dealing with the problem, only the symptoms.
> >
>
> Maybe. But as the symptom of speeding is death and injury, I'm quite
> happy to see the symptom treated.
>

I'll grant you it is better than nothing - but as speeding is simply one
symptom of **** driving, we should be dealing with the root cause IMV.

Its the difference between saving some lives and saving most lives IMV.

 

[David Martin]

On 13/5/05 3:17 pm, in article [email protected],
"Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote:


>> Maybe. But as the symptom of speeding is death and injury, I'm quite
>> happy to see the symptom treated.
>>
>
> I'll grant you it is better than nothing - but as speeding is simply one
> symptom of **** driving, we should be dealing with the root cause IMV.
>
> Its the difference between saving some lives and saving most lives IMV.

Automatic suspension of a driving license for 48 hours after an accident,
whether you were at fault or not (rule 1 applies).

That would drop accident rates like crazy.

...d

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 13 May 2005 15:17:29 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I'll grant you it is better than nothing - but as speeding is simply one
>symptom of **** driving, we should be dealing with the root cause IMV.

The thing is, you can't go to court and prosecute someone for being a
********. You can prosecute for a provable offence like speeding.
And it turns out that drivers with multiple speeding convictions are
also more likely to crash, so although it's a blunt instrument it does
at least tackle some of the worst offenders.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Not Responding]

Nathaniel Porter wrote:
> "Not Responding" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>>>.The speed limit isn't dealing with the problem, only the symptoms.
>>>
>>
>>Maybe. But as the symptom of speeding is death and injury, I'm quite
>>happy to see the symptom treated.
>>
> I'll grant you it is better than nothing - but as speeding is simply one
> symptom of **** driving, we should be dealing with the root cause IMV.
>

Absolutely 100% spot on. It's not much and all we can say for speed
camera enforcement is that they are better than nothing. It's a marginal
improvement that is paid for entirely by offenders.

I'm with you all the way when you say we need also to address the root
cause - by which I assume you mean the excrably low standard of driving
skill that is permitted on our roads. But this next stage will be
politically very challenging. Bear in mind the hoo har caused by the
"better than nothing" use of speed cameras and picture the career
prospects of the politician that proposes to remove driving licences
from, say, 20% of the driving population.

> Its the difference between saving some lives and saving most lives IMV.
>

 

[wafflycat]

"Not Responding" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> IM(extensive)E it is damned difficult to get a limit reduced. The police
> are always dead against it and without their support it's next to
> impossible to get it done. However, despite the difficulty and next to
> impossibility it can be done if you have an awful lot of time, energy
> and widespread support and keep at it for years.
>

In my less extensive experience, I agree. There's lots of requests to get
lower speed limits/speed cameras/other speed reduction measures put through
various villages along the A47 and it's just not happening. people are told
that until a specific number of people are killed, a lower limit will not be
considered. The fact that the apparent high speed of vehicles deters
non-motorised users from being on or near the roads counts for nothing.

Cheers, helen s