|
Here here.
It's the Helen Lovejoy's 'Won't anyone think of the children' approach.
Teach your bratts to keep out of the damn road or let Charles Darwin look after them.
|
|
It would be nice to travel at 20mph sometimes the average speed on my car is less than that of my bicycle.
|
|
|
|
They'll wheel out the 'think of the children' to tug on the heart strings and make council chiefs feel as though they have no option and will cave to it. Then in 20 years time they'll demand 10mph limits, 40 years from now cars will be banned from the road altogether if we let it go on like this.
Its quite a dispicable trick of these campaigners, to go there with puppy eyes going 'think of the children' (when most of the campaigners dont have kids, if they did they've have better things to do with their day than run silly campaigns) just to get their own way. Cynical in the least. Brake's 20s plenty campaign centered around '5 children are killed on our roads every week' presumably ALL of them hit at more than 20mph but still not answering why they were in the road to begin with. I know i dont mount pavements to run children over so i dont see how they get run over.
My mother always told me to stay on the pavement, look both ways before crossing and cross when its clear and ive reached 27 years old without being run over by employing basic methods like that. No excuses.
|
|
There is no shortage of accident and safety data. Most accidents occur in the first or last mile of a journey, so in urban areas.
From memory, 80% of children survive an impact at 20 mph or less whereas at 30 mph or above the mortality rate is 90%.
Children cross roads to get to school, bus stops, etc. Additionally, safety of cyclists is significantly improved where the speed differential with motorised traffic is reduced. With 20 mph limits you might see more parents and children cycling to school which would reduce congestion.
|
|
+1
It's got nothing to do with "supervising" the children as Jamie would have it. (Do you have any kids Jamie?) It's about reducing speeds to safe levels (no need to go down to 10mph!) for non-motorised traffic.
Reasons include kids crossing the road to go to school (even with parents around, kids can and do many unpredictable things...), kids playing on their own streets in front of their own homes (or is that not allowed any more??) and the like.
Plus, I know as a cyclist that it's much easier to navigate difficult right turns, multiple lanes and roundabouts if the speed differential is lower. I can comfortably ride at 10-15mph on the flat, but if the row of cars behind me are all doing 40mph +, it's very difficult and dangerous to use many types of town roads. Change it to cars doing around 20mph and it's a very different story.
However, as a driver, I hate driving at 20mph, especially on wider roads with good visibility, but I can see the logic behind it, so I support it all the same. Contrary to Jamie's belief, I would assert that the number of folk in favour of lower speed limits is more than a mere handful. I do have sympathy with the anger towards the hypocrites who want everyone else to slow down near their homes, but drive like muppets everywhere else! That'll be the 45mph everywhere brigade...
OTOH, some main routes where there are long stretches of nothing much should probably be kept at 30mph or 40mph to avoid massive driver fustration!
|
|
It's got nothing to do with "supervising" the children as Jamie would have it.
It has everything to do with supervising children.
(Do you have any kids Jamie?)
No i dont and thats an argument i dispise, the 'you dont have kids so you cant comment' idea. Cant stand that. This is why i absolutely hate parents because any time you say something which doesnt suit them their response is 'if you dont have kids you cant have an opinion' as though having a child qualifies you to know everything.
It's about reducing speeds to safe levels (no need to go down to 10mph!) for non-motorised traffic.
The only truly 'safe' level is 0mph. This is the problem with 'road safety messages' its that its entirely centered around the idea that the ONLY way of making anything safer is slowing it down. Ridiculous speed limits, speed bumps, shared spaces etc might succeed in stopping motorists using those roads which is an artificial form of safety. I could make Helmand Province the safest place in the World if i emptied it of people. We've managed with a 30 limit, whilst having Europe's second safest roads for many decades. Holland has some seriously pedestrian speed limits in places and their road safety record is far worse than ours. Its always more about observation than just a simplistic argument about speed.
kids playing on their own streets in front of their own homes
Well sensible families stopped that in the 60s. I find it utterly unbelievable that any sane person in the 21st century in Britain would say its ok for children to play in the road. Unless they live in some countryside retreat which sees four cars a month. We have playgrounds and playfields for that sort of thing. Just because its 'in front of their own home' means nothing, its not their road, its a public road. Are you saying if it was in front of someone elses house they deserve to get flattened? My mother wouldve never allowed such disgusting dangerous behaviour as playing in the road, that was chapter one stuff. If i dared to kick a football in the road i'd be grounded for two months. Im literally astonished there are still people who think thats a good idea.
Plus, I know as a cyclist that it's much easier to navigate difficult right turns, multiple lanes and roundabouts if the speed differential is lower. Change it to cars doing around 20mph and it's a very different story.
You say you find it 'difficult' but you're still here so you must accomplish that mission very well and be a good cyclist. I find it 'difficult' when ive got people meandering in the road for no reason and cyclists weaving round but no newspaper would be interested in my campaign against them. Politically incorrect to own and drive a car. The last 10 years has seen the motorist attacked from all angles, with all the bus lanes, cycle lanes, traffic lights, speed bumps, chicanes and millions of other measures which decrease road space, intentionally increase congestion to justify charging for it. The flip side is the last 10 years has seen alot of improvement in the safety of cyclists but thats still not enough for you is it. You've wrung the motorist dry and swung the pendulum in your direction but you still want even more.
Contrary to Jamie's belief, I would assert that the number of folk in favour of lower speed limits is more than a mere handful.
Perhaps but 90% of people who agree will nod in agreement because its so politicaly incorrect to drive a car now that its almost offensive to disagree with any policy which slows cars down. Some clipboard survey person says 'do you support 20mph limit to save children?' and people will obviously say yes, but thats not research its propaganda.
However, as a driver, I hate driving at 20mph, especially on wider roads with good visibility, but I can see the logic behind it, so I support it all the same.
Well i dont because i stick to my guns, i dont want to sound hypocritical and i dont like spending time on the fence.
OTOH, some main routes where there are long stretches of nothing much should probably be kept at 30mph or 40mph to avoid massive driver fustration!
Even Brunstrom recognised that if a motorist thinks a speed limit is stupid they're less likely to comply with it. And the same goes for any law to be honest, didnt Churchill once say something about how too many laws results in lack of respect for the law?
|
(Do you have any kids Jamie?)
No i dont and thats an argument i dispise, the 'you dont have kids so you cant comment' idea. Cant stand that. This is why i absolutely hate parents because any time you say something which doesnt suit them their response is 'if you dont have kids you cant have an opinion' as though having a child qualifies you to know everything.
You do like to deliberately misrepresent arguments don't you? I'm not saying you can't have an opinion, I'm saying you clearly don't understand young children and their behaviour, almost certainly because you don't have any. I didn't when I was in my happy go-lucky child free days, and I might have come out with similar sentiments to you. These days, I know better. It's called experience...
BTW, "i absolutely hate parents". Really? Are there any other major groups of ordinary, reasonable people you hate?
kids playing on their own streets in front of their own homes
Well sensible families stopped that in the 60s.....
Really. Try to understand the difference between letting kids run wild and a young lad learning to ride his bike on a cul-de-sac. The former is history, the latter is quite reasonable, even today. Or would you prefer kids to be hooked on a lead and collar, dragged into a car and driven absolutely everywhere to ensure there is no chance that they might selfishly get into your way?
You've wrung the motorist dry and swung the pendulum in your direction but you still want even more.
Personally, I've not wrung anyone dry. I'm a driver as well as a cyclist and pedestrian. I see things from all perspectives, something you seem to be lacking.
Some clipboard survey person says 'do you support 20mph limit to save children?' and people will obviously say yes, but thats not research its propaganda.
The main purveyors of twisted propaganda are the "speed at any cost" merchants, which you appear to represent? Have you actually heard anyone ask you such a question phrased in that way? No, of course you haven't. The only propaganda I can see here is the straw-man arguments you present.
|
You do like to deliberately misrepresent arguments don't you? I'm not saying you can't have an opinion, I'm saying you clearly don't understand young children and their behaviour, almost certainly because you don't have any
I dont need to understand anything i develop opinions based on fact, numbers, common sense and pure maths. And if an idea doesnt stack up mathematically then it gets thrown out as far as im concerned. You're resorting to the world famous argument of 'because you dont agree with me it must be because you dont understand' which is a common card to play when you've run out of ideas.
I didn't when I was in my happy go-lucky child free days, and I might have come out with similar sentiments to you. These days, I know better. It's called experience...
Its called having a skewed vested interest, as i said, i develop an opinion based on the pure black and white maths on paper, people who have kids tend to develop opinions based on their own irrational beliefs and will never listen to anything which goes against what they've decided. Its not 'experience' its called 'falling for it'.
BTW, "i absolutely hate parents". Really? Are there any other major groups of ordinary, reasonable people you hate?
Theres no such thing as a reasonable parent but i shouldve explained further, its usually first time parents or parents of young children who are the worst. When the kid gets to 14 and the parent couldnt care less anymore because they hate them, they're fine.
Really. Try to understand the difference between letting kids run wild and a young lad learning to ride his bike on a cul-de-sac. The former is history, the latter is quite reasonable, even today.
I live on a 30 mph limit main road which is usually pretty jam packed of traffic so to me the thought of playing out in the road sounds suicidal, yet there are still a few idiots who let their kids of 6 or 7 run across the road to their mates house without looking first. You've missed my point here, in the case of a cul-de-sac theres only three reasons for a car to be going down that road. 1) They live there 2) They're visiting someone there or 3) They're delivering something there. So its not a place for normal everyday traffic. Do you see my point now?
Or would you prefer kids to be hooked on a lead and collar, dragged into a car and driven absolutely everywhere to ensure there is no chance that they might selfishly get into your way?
No i just want them to stay on the pavement if there is one, if they need to cross then look both ways and wait until its clear, pay a bit of attention or if they cannot do so then a parent should be supervising them. Thats all i said, four times now and you're still not listening. You'd prefer to believe i said something completely different just to make an argument with me. Its pathetic. I say 5 and you hear 13. Grow up for goodness sake. Another example of the New Labour one-extreme-or-another tool of arguing. I put forward a reasonable point and you try and discredit me by accusing me of saying things i never said.
I'm a driver as well as a cyclist and pedestrian. I see things from all perspectives, something you seem to be lacking.
I walk places as well you know, whether im in a car or on foot im still the same person, i cant ride a bike so no i dont see anything from a cyclists perspective the same as ignorant people who walk behind reversing cars have probably never driven a car before. My point is i dont need 20mph limits, shared spaces, pedestrianised zones or endless congestion causing traffic lights to walk around. 27 years of 'look, listen' etc and ive got through them all without being run down.
The main purveyors of twisted propaganda are the "speed at any cost" merchants, which you appear to represent?
And you accuse me of making stuff up!?!?!? This is quite hilarious. You have no proof or any quotes from me to back up that pathetic statement at all. The fact is ive shot down your arguments so now your only response is the Tony Blair esque take-it-to-the-other-extreme to try and discredit me. I do hate it when people accuse me of saying things i never said. Stop with 'you appear...' or 'you prefer...' because you dont need to make guess work, i say what i mean.
The only propaganda I can see here is the straw-man arguments you present.
So you dont think taking 'people should look both ways before they cross' as 'children should be locked up in cars' to be a bit of a strawman deviation yourself then? And accusing me of being a speed merchant without any proof. Resorting to 'you just dont understand' because i dont have kids, having children doesnt raise your IQ you know.
You really are embarassing yourself. Its like you say 10, i say 9 and you claim i said 1. Thats how stupid you're getting.
All i said was people should look both ways before they cross a street and i get accused of being some sort of child terrorist, this is the problem we're up against today in Modern Britain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
A speed limit change requires a fair amount of (expensive) legal work to create a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). This has to go out to consultation - the emergency services, etc.
Watching the news, most councils are under pressure to save money so the sort of frivolous changes you suggest are unlikely to happen in the current cimate. The suggestion that two people can get their way if calling for a 20 mph limit is pure fantasy.
|
|
100% of children would survive if they werent hit at all, regardless of what speed it was. We should focus more on avoiding collisions entirely rather than sending out a message that its ok to run somebody over so long as its done slowly which is what the 'slow down to 20 so as children survive' argument does. I'd rather drive at 30 and not hit anybody personally.
Of course children have to cross roads, everybody does and if they're not old enough to know to stop, look, listen etc then they should be supervised. We should not give preferance or 'right of way' to people who cannot look both ways first because their parents couldnt be bothered to teach them basic things. Im sick of the constant suggestion that everything is the motorists fault and nobody else has to take responsibility for themselves whatsoever, its up to the motorist to look out for everybody else.
Most schools are in roads with speed bumps and zebra's so you dont need a 20 limit there because its impossible to go any faster anyway. Its true most accidents happen in built up urban areas with low speed limits, only 6% of the road death toll last year was on motorways but just changing speed limit to 20 isnt going to solve that, urban areas will still make up the majority, and then what do we do? 10mph? The road safety figures discussed here the other day also show that in cases of pedestrians KSE in urban areas, in 58% of cases the pedestrian was listed as 'failing to look correctly' so you can drive as slow as you want, if people dont look before they walk into the road, people will still be run over. Shouldnt we focus on stopping the 58% failing to look rather than ensure they get run over at 20mph instead?
I see hundreds of instances a week of people just wandering into the road, on their phone, eating crisps and chatting to a mate etc and paying zero attention to the traffic, its a good job most motorists know they'll do it first but we need to drill it into people once again to not walk into the road without looking and to take responsibility for themselves. Thats what school taught me and i look both ways and i dont get run over, so what are schools teaching kids now?
|
|
|
|
|
