Petition: 30 km/h (20 mp/h) urban speed limit
- Thread starter Jimmy Doug
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Linford
Guest
[QUOTE 2336488, member: 45"]That isnt an answer to my question.
Do you think that truck drivers are forced to overtake in 20mph limits? No you don't. So you agree with me.[/quote]
No, and realistically I don't think they really should, but they would be forced to that limit whether they road conditions justify it or not if a blanket limit is enforced. I've already stated I've not got an issue with a lower limit being used on narrow residential streets and around schools.
Could I put it any plainer than that ?
Do you think that truck drivers are forced to overtake in 20mph limits? No you don't. So you agree with me.[/quote]
No, and realistically I don't think they really should, but they would be forced to that limit whether they road conditions justify it or not if a blanket limit is enforced. I've already stated I've not got an issue with a lower limit being used on narrow residential streets and around schools.
Could I put it any plainer than that ?
Linford
Guest
[QUOTE 2336518, member: 45"]No, you couldn't. Ironic that I had to force you to though by answering the question for you and asking you to confirm.
Can we forget all the nonsense now then about drivers being forced to do things and unable to join slower-moving traffic flows and move on?
If, at risk of repeating myself, we put safety first and the result is that there are more 20mph limits, then the problem drivers will just have to get over themselves. The roads are no place for pride and ego.[/quote]
This isn't about ego. This is about everyone rubbing along on thetransport network, and finding a happy medium which all can live with. If I put an extra 30 minutes onto your commute each way on the M5 with a permanent contraflow down to 40mph and a few bottle necks for good effect for no apparent reason, you'd want to see me justify it. You seem to be trying to justify blanket restrictions over very wide area's, and I'm asking how and why. I don'tthink that is unreasonable.
Can we forget all the nonsense now then about drivers being forced to do things and unable to join slower-moving traffic flows and move on?
If, at risk of repeating myself, we put safety first and the result is that there are more 20mph limits, then the problem drivers will just have to get over themselves. The roads are no place for pride and ego.[/quote]
This isn't about ego. This is about everyone rubbing along on thetransport network, and finding a happy medium which all can live with. If I put an extra 30 minutes onto your commute each way on the M5 with a permanent contraflow down to 40mph and a few bottle necks for good effect for no apparent reason, you'd want to see me justify it. You seem to be trying to justify blanket restrictions over very wide area's, and I'm asking how and why. I don'tthink that is unreasonable.
Linford
Guest
Life would be a lot more boring if you were this reasonable from the get-go
Isn't it allowable (in law) to momentarily break the speed limit to overtake? I know speed cameras don't discriminate, but its OK* to overtake cyclists, tractors etc on double white lined roads, so does the same logic applies?
* Whether this "OK" is actually legal or not I dont actually know - but its definitely a blind eye area if it isnt.
A limit is exactly that.
Linford
Guest
[QUOTE 2336548, member: 45"]Ego is all that it's about. The main thing stopping us all getting along and traffic flowing is drivers not putting others first.
I'm wrong, it's not just about ego. It's about ignorance instead.
When you understand how little time is added on by putting others first you'll see it differently.
No I don't, so stop arguing against what isn't being said.
You're putting up arguments against any lower limits, and I'm pushing them over.[/quote]
Jimmy Doug (the OP) is arguing for a blanket limit. You are saying you disagree with him now ?
I'm wrong, it's not just about ego. It's about ignorance instead.
When you understand how little time is added on by putting others first you'll see it differently.
No I don't, so stop arguing against what isn't being said.
You're putting up arguments against any lower limits, and I'm pushing them over.[/quote]
Jimmy Doug (the OP) is arguing for a blanket limit. You are saying you disagree with him now ?
I'm fascinated, GrasB, by the idea that complaining about speeding should be described as "whining"? Perhaps you could clarify?
And precisely how has such a limit "made the village more unpleasant & harder for the villagers to get about their business"? Exactly how was it more unpleasant for the people walking or cycling round the village, popping into the local shop(s), crossing the road, walking their kids to school? (Assuming theire are shops/schools). Or does this only apply to villagers driving around, across, through, out of, the village? If so, why are their needs superior to those who aren't driving?
Linford
Guest
[QUOTE 2336849, member: 45"]I'm not Jimmy Doug. And what relevance does your question have to what you've quoted of mine?[/quote]
OK, Jimmy Doug has done the Daily Mail knee-jerk thing and we haven't even established whether the child getting knocked over was caused by either a vehicle exceeding the posted 50kmh (in which case lowering posted limits are not going to matter a fig), or any other reason he has yet to disclose. Either way, it doesn't really help the situation as we all know that Daily Mail type responses are generally frowned on here.
I think we should take a step back and set out our stall to end this confusion as seem keen to disassociate yourself with knee jerkers.
A) I'm in favour of targeted 20mph limits in urban area's where it can be proven to be beneficial to all concerned.
B) I'm in favour of a blanket lower limit of 20mph in urban area's full stop.
C) I'm in favour of keeping things as the are with the existing limits in urban area's
I'm for 'A'....what say you ?
OK, Jimmy Doug has done the Daily Mail knee-jerk thing and we haven't even established whether the child getting knocked over was caused by either a vehicle exceeding the posted 50kmh (in which case lowering posted limits are not going to matter a fig), or any other reason he has yet to disclose. Either way, it doesn't really help the situation as we all know that Daily Mail type responses are generally frowned on here.
I think we should take a step back and set out our stall to end this confusion as seem keen to disassociate yourself with knee jerkers.
A) I'm in favour of targeted 20mph limits in urban area's where it can be proven to be beneficial to all concerned.
B) I'm in favour of a blanket lower limit of 20mph in urban area's full stop.
C) I'm in favour of keeping things as the are with the existing limits in urban area's
I'm for 'A'....what say you ?
Linford
Guest
[QUOTE 2337102, member: 45"]Nonsense. We know what effect speed has on road safety. There's nothing knee-jerk about it, and frankly you're being a bit of an idiot.
Your three options prove that you don't know what you're talking about. Everything with you is loaded, formed from ignorance or shallow thought or just plain daft. I'm bored with it now. We were doing the safespeeding crap years ago and you refuse to move on from it.
And it's areas.[/quote]
Where it can't be proven that it brings a benefit at a specific site, then it is change for the sake of change, and that is unjustifiable.
It isn't a trick, it isn't loaded. That is why I said 'where' and not 'if'.
If you don't agree with my three, provide your own. I'm trying to see if we have any common ground here because you clearly don't agree with Jimmy Doug.
Your three options prove that you don't know what you're talking about. Everything with you is loaded, formed from ignorance or shallow thought or just plain daft. I'm bored with it now. We were doing the safespeeding crap years ago and you refuse to move on from it.
And it's areas.[/quote]
Where it can't be proven that it brings a benefit at a specific site, then it is change for the sake of change, and that is unjustifiable.
It isn't a trick, it isn't loaded. That is why I said 'where' and not 'if'.
If you don't agree with my three, provide your own. I'm trying to see if we have any common ground here because you clearly don't agree with Jimmy Doug.
Bad Company
Very Old Person
- Location
- East Anglia
[QUOTE 2337245, member: 45"] I can't do this any more.[/quote]
Is that a promise?
Is that a promise?
Cyclopathic
Veteran
- Location
- Leicester.
I'd rather it was a blanket 15 mph in all residential areas. I do not accept the arguments made here against blanket limits as they sound more like excuses. What reason is there to go any faster on roads where there are houses? A 15mph speed limit would probably lessen traffic on residential roads (if properly and strictly enforced) because it would make it a waste of time for people to use them as rat runs in rush hours as they try and avoid traffic on major roads.
Also in the most built up residential areas and within a certain distance of schools, libraries and other public buildings there should be a system of pedestrian priority where the entire area is like a huge zebra crossing and motorists be obliged to be on the lookout for people rather than the other way around. If they were going at 15 mph then it would be easy to do this.
Also in the most built up residential areas and within a certain distance of schools, libraries and other public buildings there should be a system of pedestrian priority where the entire area is like a huge zebra crossing and motorists be obliged to be on the lookout for people rather than the other way around. If they were going at 15 mph then it would be easy to do this.
Linford
Guest
Would you be happy to stick to that as a cyclist, or do you just want it in force for others ?
DRHysted
Guru
- Location
- New Forest
There's an old saying, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Where I live it ain't broke, so I don't want a fix for something that isn't a problem.
If this is a problem where you live, I have no problem in you campaigning for a solution, but as long as you keep that campaigning where it is needed. i.e. not here!
