20mph Speed Limits

[dawesome]

Also worth taking note of - what are the trade-offs people are willing to make regarding speed against accidents? If no-one was allowed to go above 5 mph (including joggers, cyclists, cars) serious accidents would be reduced to near zero. I suspect that very few people are willing to go this far down the trade-off route though.
Another solution would by barriers between pavements and roads with a few designated crossing places. Once again, few people would like this solution..

5 pages in and we're already on the

"They'll bring back the man with the red flag next!!!11111"

Not bad.

 

[jds_1981]

5 pages in and we're already on the

"They'll bring back the man with the red flag next!!!11111"

Not bad.

Don't be stupid. It's a serious point. There is a trade-off that everyone has to make an opinion on (if you assume increased speed = more/worse accidents) regarding the acceptable accident against speed trade-off.

 

[mickle]

I was banging on at my missus about 20 mph zones (it's a regular subject of conversation around our dinner table) when she suggested that I simply drove at 20 mph in the areas I thought should be reclassified.

So now I drive at 20mph almost everywhere within York city ring-road. Obvious innit.

 

[StuartG]

If you're one of those people who believe that speed is the most important factor in the determination of safe driving, then I can only say you're ignorant.

I thought you should be allowed to drive on the road. Now I am sure of it!

You stupidly (if we are getting into such epithets) divorce speed as the most important attribute of the damage that is going to occur in a collision. Or do you restrict your driving to the CERN campus where a different physics may exist?

As for the safe speed such that your judgement will always be correct - it is zero. You may be able to control your car better at a higher speed than another ( though your judgement in this is worrying) - but despite that it is going to increase the risk to other road users who have to look out for you (or for small kids) who don't.

From your car seat you can't see everything. The unexpected happens. You need time to take action. That is directly extremely related to your speed. I think I would rather rely on a traffic engineer's (or even a politician's!) balance of the risk of speed than yours.

In road crashes people are more at risk from mistakes than malice. You seem to pack quite a few ...

 

[MacB]

I was banging on at my missus about 20 mph zones (it's a regular subject of conversation around our dinner table) when she suggested that I simply drove at 20 mph in the areas I thought should be reclassified.

So now I drive at 20mph almost everywhere within York city ring-road. Obvious innit.

does this qualify as a 'Mickle Tip' on how to be popular?

 

[Dan_h]

Dan_h, on 22 September 2011 - 20:25:32, said:
+1

The words "motor vehicle" appear quite often in the road traffic act and mean that there are quite a few rules that don't apply to cyclists. Speed limits are one, using a mobile phone while cycling is quite legal (as long as you are not riding dangerously because of it) and even the alchohol limit does not apply (I know you can be pulled over for drunk cycling, but you have to be unable to ride safely not just over the specified limit).

just another reason that cycling is better than driving

Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.

Corkery Vs. Carpenter 1951.

The defendant was succesfully prosecuted under the licensing act 1872 for being drunk whilst in charge of a bicycle on a public road.

After lengthy debates the courts declared that a bicycle is covered under the terms of "carriage" for the purpose of s.12 of the licensing act 1872. This was applied under the "mischief rule" of the rules of interpretation, whereby a judge can interpret legislation in such a way to give the statute the lawful affect for which it was intended.
This post

Nope, the Corkery v Carpenter 1951 ruling applied to the use of the word "carriage" this was changed in the Road Traffic Act 1984 to be "motor vehicle" along with a definition of what constitutes a motor vehicle. Also I didn't say that you cant be drunk in charge of a bicycle only that the standard by which this is judged is not the legal alchohol limit but your ability to safely operate it.

 

[dawesome]

Don't be stupid. It's a serious point. There is a trade-off that everyone has to make an opinion on (if you assume increased speed = more/worse accidents) regarding the acceptable accident against speed trade-off.

Nope, it's a silly straw man, nobody's proposed making the speed limit 5mph for cyclists and it will never happen. The default speed limit for all residential streets should be 20mph, the evidence, which you've first claimed was "biased" and then ignored clearly demonstrates this.

 

[mickle]

I view speed limit signs as a guide to what is generally considered to be a maximum safe speed, but nothing more. blah blah blah.

A guide?? There's the rub. You and tens of thousands of idiots like you. My commute is infested with drivers who think the way that you do. Which is why I'm regularly passed by cars exceeding the national speed limit by some margin. Most of these are people who also think that the minumum safe overtaking gap for cyclists is a 'guide' too.

I hope I never encounter you when I'm on my bike.

 

[Parrot of Doom]

More by luck than judgement, I would submit.

You would be wrong.

Breathtaking arrogance. Which other laws do you pick and choose whether to bother complying with, on the basis that you know better?

No more than anyone else. Do you always enter ASLs via the entry in the gutter? Do you have reflectors on your pedals? Have you ever left your engine running while not sat in the driver's seat? Have you ever cycled or driven along a pavement? I'm not going to judge you based on what laws you ignore. What would be the point?

Paranoid, conspiratorial drivel. Politicians, I'm sure, would love to be able to relax speed limits, given how popular it would be with sections of the electorate. Luckily it's not up to them.

I did not say that politicians set speed limits.

I don't think that, but conclude from what you've said that you often drive dangerously fast.

I never drive dangerously. There are occasions where I've made a mistake that could have had minor consequences, but that's absolutely no different to anyone else, from the pedestrian who steps into the road without looking, to the cyclist who filters inappropriately.

Absolute rubbish. Increase in speed will not only increase the likelihood of an accident due to increased reaction and stopping distance, but will increase the severity of any accident. I agree that there are many other aspects to safe driving, but speed is one of the most significant, not the least.

I think you're wrong. From memory, the usual contributory factor in most road traffic accidents is "failed to look".

You're a danger to yourself and others.

You are wrong. The dangerous people are those who lack observations skills.

 

[dawesome]

You would be wrong.



No more than anyone else. Do you always enter ASLs via the entry in the gutter? Do you have reflectors on your pedals? Have you ever left your engine running while not sat in the driver's seat? Have you ever cycled or driven along a pavement? I'm not going to judge you based on what laws you ignore. What would be the point?



I did not say that politicians set speed limits.



I never drive dangerously. There are occasions where I've made a mistake that could have had minor consequences, but that's absolutely no different to anyone else, from the pedestrian who steps into the road without looking, to the cyclist who filters inappropriately.



I think you're wrong. From memory, the usual contributory factor in most road traffic accidents is "failed to look".



You are wrong. The dangerous people are those who lack observations skills.

Pedal reflectors and pavement cycling do not feature as a significant factor in fatal RTCs.

Speed is the single most common factor in fatal RTCs.

Hope this helps.

You claimed speed limits are set for political reasons, now you deny politicians set speed limits, I sense confusion.

 

[Parrot of Doom]

I thought you should be allowed to drive on the road. Now I am sure of it!

You stupidly (if we are getting into such epithets) divorce speed as the most important attribute of the damage that is going to occur in a collision. Or do you restrict your driving to the CERN campus where a different physics may exist?

Where did I say anything like that? Please don't put words in my mouth, I never said any such thing.

As for the safe speed such that your judgement will always be correct - it is zero. You may be able to control your car better at a higher speed than another ( though your judgement in this is worrying) - but despite that it is going to increase the risk to other road users who have to look out for you (or for small kids) who don't.

I agree with your first point. I never said I was able to control my car better at a higher speed than others though, did I? That isn't the point I'm trying to make.

From your car seat you can't see everything. The unexpected happens. You need time to take action. That is directly extremely related to your speed. I think I would rather rely on a traffic engineer's (or even a politician's!) balance of the risk of speed than yours.

I agree completely, which is why I view observation and anticipation as skills which are far more important than the ability simply to obey the speed limit.

In road crashes people are more at risk from mistakes than malice. You seem to pack quite a few ...

And yet, I've never had a medium or high-speed accident. In all my years of driving I've had a few sub-5mph collisions that resulted in a scraped panel or dented wing, but not now for many years.

 

[Parrot of Doom]

A guide?? There's the rub. You and tens of thousands of idiots like you. My commute is infested with drivers who think the way that you do. Which is why I'm regularly passed by cars exceeding the national speed limit by some margin. Most of these are people who also think that the minumum safe overtaking gap for cyclists is a 'guide' too.

I hope I never encounter you when I'm on my bike.

So I'm an idiot, which makes someone like you, who has never met me or seen me drive...what, exactly? Prejudiced, perhaps? Ignored, certainly.

 

[benb]

I never drive dangerously.

If you routinely exceed the speed limit, then you do.

From memory, the usual contributory factor in most road traffic accidents is "failed to look".

Spectacularly missing the point. Regardless of the primary cause of an accident, increased speed will make any accident more likely, and will make any accident more severe.
And as your judgement is so poor in this area, I would question how good it is in others.

Basically, what you're saying is that shaving some time off your journey is more important than other road users safety.

 

[StuartG]

The dangerous people are those who lack observations skills.

The deaf, blind and young.

It IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO LOOK OUT FOR THEM.
Not blame them ... even if it means slowing down a bit.

You are incredible. Care to share your registration number?

 

[Parrot of Doom]

Pedal reflectors and pavement cycling do not feature as a significant factor in fatal RTCs.

Speed is the single most common factor in fatal RTCs.

Hope this helps.

You claimed speed limits are set for political reasons, now you deny politicians set speed limits, I sense confusion.

Again, you remove my comments from their proper context and create a non-existent argument. I really wouldn't waste your time dawesome.