20mph Speed Limits

[superbadger]

well what a thread!!!!!. I find Parrot's 'claims,counter-claims and overall attitude' quite disturbing! . You have described yourself as a cyclist's worst nightmare!!! (my opinion) So don't have a go that you didn't say it!. However you are a cyclist too???. I Havn't quoted any of your rambling's because you are so inconsistent i wouldn't know where 2 begin? I don't wish anybody any harm but if there's any kind of 'Karma' out there then maybe one day some idiot driver who is overly-confident and 'knows best' because he has been driving since the dark ages and he also knows that speed limits are a fabrication of politicians minds nearly runs you off the road!!! And then i pray that he/she stops and gives you tons of abuse because its 'your fault!'. It would be like you arguing in the mirror wouldn't it! ... Its not all bad news though because i do offer a compliment.... Your one in a million . THANK GOD!!!!

 

[dawesome]

I suspect that not many 13 or 14 year old girls are being driven around by their boyfriends...Anyway, the original quote was very unsafe - an anecdote told to a policeman that is now widely reported as fact.<br><br>with edit:so if 'cancer' is a category, that would be the biggest killer.

When children are travelling by car the risk of serious injury or death is highest when they are aged 14 to 15, and half of all deaths and injuries occur when the driver is under 21:

www.theaa.com/.../facts_about_road_accidents_and_children.pdf

 

[mangaman]

Which only cover the age range 15-19, and doesn't record whether the boyfriend was driving.

WHO forecast is that by 2015 the motor car will be the single most common killer of all children over the age of 5:

www.sarf.org.za/seminars-and-conferences/.../6%20Tom%20Bishop.pdf

It is slowly changing, attitudes are hardening, in time drivers who speed on public roads will be viewed with the same disgust as drink drivers, who actually kill fewer people than speeding drivers.

All fair points dawesome, but not what I asked jds.

jds' point that 17 year old boys driving are not the leading cause of death of women of that age seems reasonable.

We all agree the car is dangerous, but, like everything else, the more actual facts we have the better.

Otherwise we're in danger of sounding like bitter cyclists who want the roads to ourselves.

 

[2Loose]

uhuh my spider sense is telling me that I should have read the whole thread...

 

[mangaman]

After reading half the thread and actually sympathising with Parrot (although haven't read the latter half, so excuse me...maybe)...I can't help thinking that some speed limits are set wrongly in some areas. But I think Parrots main point was driving within the conditions and ability. Limits can be a farce in certain areas.

No Parrot's point was the stated limit was irrelevant to him.

He admitted exceeding it on a hugely regular basis.

"Driving within the conditions" is always wheeled out - Parrot did it it repeatedly - to excuse bad driving.

In moral terms I felt Parrot was trying to say - at times, I drive slowly near a school and that gives me some sort of moral credit so I can go ballistic on twisty country roads where a lot of crashes occur, which is ridiculous.

All credible organisations - including the IAM, which Parrot claimed advanced testing on, are specific that one should never break the specified limit.

If you want to increase the limit in your locality (I can't think of a situation where anyone would want that, but that's what you seem to be implying) - then lobby the council, don't just speed.

He also started by claiming a "massive" 20 years of driving experience with no crashes.

He then revealed a number of low speed incidents - but they were alright as no damage was done.

As a driver of 38 years no crashes at all ever / no points / never stopped by PC Plod - I found him rather a joke.

As I pointed out earlier, he dismissed his low speed crashes as they didn't cause much damage, because they were at a low speed.

But he still failed to connect speed and severity of crash.

I guess he's a regular troll on cycling sites, and I'm hoping he was just having a boring Friday and picked a fight with us but is now off. He seems to have flounced.

 

[2Loose]

Great summary Mangaman, I was rapidly getting the impression that I had missed something...

 

[superbadger]

A cyclist will give way to cars,buses,other cyclists(*) and even pedestrians... *-unless going 4 a scalp!. Mostly for self-preservation i guess when we are talking about vehicles a damn site bigger than us! I just think that we are in general a good bunch and most vehicle drivers can be too... Yes there are exceptions... but there always is. Hmmmm i wonder who on this thread?. We don't want to 'Parrot on' tho do we? So back 2 the topic in hand-20mph.... Nowt wrong with that! . Ok we have covered(earlier on) that it doesn't affect bikes; A decent cyclist won't go out their way 2 break a law just coz its there? (oh god.... theres a can tipped over! And its full of worms?)... As a cyclist i feel that i can see 'possible danger' way before a pedistrian or vehicle! Ok some riders have mp3/i-pod but when i use them i put it in left ear(nearside) and vol is low... We are a very responsible bunch and its very different for car drivers..... Don't attack me just yet??? A cyclist looks at most things as a 'danger' it don't matter if its 10mph or 60mph on that road.... The surface of the road,the sunken grids!(that the council never repair!!!) the odd wandering pedestrian,the flat-bed/bus at the left hand turn that you need to stay out the way of.... In a vehicle its different.... A slight prang be ok,ppl feel invincible which is scary... . I been doing other stuff while doing this post so for all i know we could be talking about the price of traffic-lights by now??? Sorry if the post doesnt quite fit but im sure it will squeeze in somewhere...

 

[BentMikey]

I can't help thinking that some speed limits are set wrongly in some areas. ... . Limits can be a farce in certain areas.

I must admit this is quite possible, IME limits are rarely (to the point of almost never) set too low, but they are often set too high.

 

[mchunt]

20mph speed limits ought to be set in urban areas to keep pedestrians safe even if people don't obey them they will probably still only do 30mph - at the moment people see a 30mph limit as permission to do 35, small difference in speed is a huge difference in survivability.

If urban roads seem safer more people may take up cycling which would lead to even more lives saved though people being healthier and lead to savings in the NHS budget - 20mph limits are therefore an austerity measure!

However on restricted roads such as motorways and super trunk roads (A14, A1, A42) the limits should be raised more in line with those in Europe - variable limits set according to traffic and weather would be even better. Annoy drivers with 20mph in towns but give them something back on motorways.

 

[Bman]

I must admit this is quite possible, IME limits are rarely (to the point of almost never) set too low, but they are often set too high.

How do we know why they are set though? There could be wildlife near the road (ducks from a pond or deer from a wood), or noise restrictions that we would be unaware of.

I think speed limits can be broken in some situations with little added risk, just like a cyclist when they RLJ. But its not legal and not safe.

 

[Becs]

How do we know why they are set though? There could be wildlife near the road (ducks from a pond or deer from a wood), or noise restrictions that we would be unaware of.

I think speed limits can be broken in some situations with little added risk, just like a cyclist when they RLJ. But its not legal and not safe.

How is it not safe if there is "little added risk" :-)

Also (to someone else) something can't be "hugely regularly". It's regular or it's not. Perhaps you meant frequent?

 

[400bhp]

[QUOTE 1554918"]
There is no such thing as a safe and experienced driver who ignores posted limits.
[/quote]

far too simplistic - the real world isn't binary.

 

[400bhp]

I must admit this is quite possible, IME limits are rarely (to the point of almost never) set too low, but they are often set too high.

Some limits are set lower because of noise reduction and not on safety.

 

[400bhp]

where a lot of crashes occur, which is ridiculous.

All credible organisations - including the IAM, which Parrot claimed advanced testing on, are specific that one should never break the specified limit.

They might want to look a little more closely at their examiners then

 

[superbadger]

20mph speed limits ought to be set in urban areas to keep pedestrians safe even if people don't obey them they will probably still only do 30mph - at the moment people see a 30mph limit as permission to do 35, small difference in speed is a huge difference in survivability.

If urban roads seem safer more people may take up cycling which would lead to even more lives saved though people being healthier and lead to savings in the NHS budget - 20mph limits are therefore an austerity measure!

However on restricted roads such as motorways and super trunk roads (A14, A1, A42) the limits should be raised more in line with those in Europe - variable limits set according to traffic and weather would be even better. Annoy drivers with 20mph in towns but give them something back on motorways.

Good point. But when i went along the A17 i think everyone had already decided do this before passed by law!!!!. Wagons were doing 100+ and not a cop in sight?. At least i never got nailed so happy days....