20mph limits coming

Tony Raven said:

Paul Smith, from campaign group Safe Speed, said: “It’s a knee-jerk
reaction and an ill-founded one. If you get to the point where a speed
limit feels unnatural, it affects a driver’s attention.

but

Quoted message said:

Critics also point out that a 20mph limit is unnecessary in many urban
centres where traffic already travels very slowly.

In Portsmouth the average speed on residential roads is only 24mph,

So we're to believe that the limit is dangerous because it will make
people drive too slowly, at the same time as being unneeded because they
drive nearly that slowly already. So why, then, is it not dangerous
until a law is introduced to make it a requirement?

I suspect that the morons who can't pay attention to their surroundings
at 20 mph are the same ones who'd be unsafe at any speed (change down a
gear, open a window, it really isn't hard) but that's just a hypothesis.
There's nothing "natural" about travelling more than about 12mph:
everything else is learned and can therefore be unlearned.

-dan

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Paul Smith, from campaign group Safe Speed, said: “It’s a knee-jerk
reaction and an ill-founded one. If you get to the point where a speed
limit feels unnatural, it affects a driver’s attention.

“It could be quite marked and it could be quite dangerous – we just
don’t know.”

Why does this berk get so much press coverage? He's even in our local rag
saying that speed cameras that *don't" flash make speeding drivers more
uncertain and uncertain drivers are unsafe drivers.
Jeez.

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net

Tony Raven said:

I don't read the dreadful rag, honest! I nicked this from the Cambridge
Cycling Campaign list. There is the usual gnashing of teeth in the
comments section

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/8506/20+MPH+Britain

20 MPH BRITAIN

Friday June 1,2007
By Jo Macfarlane

<snip>

Quoted message said:

The Government has given all local authorities the power to cut
residential speed limits to 20mph, and Liberal Demo?crat-run Portsmouth
City Coun?cil became the first to take up the offer.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Hugh Bladon, from the Association of British Drivers, said: "The council
has gone completely bananas.

"This is absolutely unenforceable, impossible and impractical and will
bring all speed limits into disrepute.

Impractical? When I drove a manual, it was easy: second gear for speeds
up to 20 mph, third for speeds up to 30. Fourth for speeds over 30.

Now I drive an automatic, it's a little harder but I seem to manage in
the many 20 mph zones around here.

I think Hugh Bladon meant to say, "My organisation brings all drivers
into disrepute."

Cheers,
Luke

--
Lincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET)
Swansea City 2-2 Southend United
We went up twice with Tilly and Brush

Daniel Barlow said:

Tony Raven said:

Paul Smith, from campaign group Safe Speed, said: ?It?s a knee-jerk
reaction and an ill-founded one. If you get to the point where a speed
limit feels unnatural, it affects a driver?s attention.

but

Quoted message said:

Critics also point out that a 20mph limit is unnecessary in many urban
centres where traffic already travels very slowly.

In Portsmouth the average speed on residential roads is only 24mph,

So we're to believe that the limit is dangerous because it will make
people drive too slowly, at the same time as being unneeded because they
drive nearly that slowly already. So why, then, is it not dangerous
until a law is introduced to make it a requirement?

I suspect that the morons who can't pay attention to their surroundings
at 20 mph are the same ones who'd be unsafe at any speed (change down a
gear, open a window, it really isn't hard) but that's just a hypothesis.
There's nothing "natural" about travelling more than about 12mph:
everything else is learned and can therefore be unlearned.

They made what I think is a good point in that article, which is that
20mph limits will erode respect for speed limits generally.

It's foolish to make laws that significant numbers of people will think
are silly. They will just break them, unless you enforce them like mad,
and excessive enforcement is not appropriate in a civilized country.

I already respect speed limits much less than I used to. It's getting to
the point where one just ignores most of the road furniture except the
cameras.

Ben C said:

On 2007-06-01, Daniel Barlow <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I suspect that the morons who can't pay attention to their surroundings
at 20 mph are the same ones who'd be unsafe at any speed (change down a
gear, open a window, it really isn't hard) but that's just a hypothesis.
There's nothing "natural" about travelling more than about 12mph:
everything else is learned and can therefore be unlearned.

They made what I think is a good point in that article, which is that
20mph limits will erode respect for speed limits generally.

Why? It's easy to drive at 20 mph and quite appropriate for drivers to
travel slowly down residential streets.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

Ekul Namsob said:

Ben C said:

On 2007-06-01, Daniel Barlow <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I suspect that the morons who can't pay attention to their surroundings
at 20 mph are the same ones who'd be unsafe at any speed (change down a
gear, open a window, it really isn't hard) but that's just a hypothesis.
There's nothing "natural" about travelling more than about 12mph:
everything else is learned and can therefore be unlearned.

They made what I think is a good point in that article, which is that
20mph limits will erode respect for speed limits generally.

Why? It's easy to drive at 20 mph and quite appropriate for drivers to
travel slowly down residential streets.

Maybe, but that isn't what'll happen. 20 mph limits are like cycle
farcilities in that they allow some council jobsworth to tick a box
marked 'job done, budget spent' while making sod all difference really.

Ben C said:

They made what I think is a good point in that article, which is that
20mph limits will erode respect for speed limits generally.

There's already very little. For me, the question is, how can we best
achieve a reduction in actual driving speeds? The imposition of 20mph
limits tends to produce a reduction, but not to anything like 20.

Quoted message said:

It's foolish to make laws that significant numbers of people will think
are silly. They will just break them, unless you enforce them like mad,
and excessive enforcement is not appropriate in a civilized country.

Is it better to achieve speeds in the late 20s by setting a limit of
20 and not enforcing it, or by setting a limit of 30 and enforcing it
strictly? Which will bring the law into less disrepute?

I wish more drivers understood that the best way to reduce the
pressure for 20mph speed limits and traffic calming would be to obey
30mph speed limits.

Lower actual speeds are a high priority. They make crossing the road
easier, and reduce noise, pollution, and unsafe overtaking of
cyclists. Hence they tend to promote sustainable transport.

Quoted message said:

I already respect speed limits much less than I used to. It's getting to
the point where one just ignores most of the road furniture except the
cameras.

Hide the cameras!

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

"Colin McKenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Lower actual speeds are a high priority. They make crossing the road
easier, and reduce noise, pollution, and unsafe overtaking of cyclists.
Hence they tend to promote sustainable transport.

I'm not so sure about the safer overtaking - My daily commute has a half
mile long 20mph section and vehichles tend to hover about alongside me when
overtaking rather than passing normally like in a 30. Traffic seems to
average 25-30mph as when my (calibrated) speedo reads 20-25 vehicles seem to
pass doing about 5mph more than me (at a guess). This is a long straight
section with few junctions so I'm not sure why the 20 limit was put there.

Ben C said:

It's foolish to make laws that significant numbers of people will think
are silly. They will just break them, unless you enforce them like mad,
and excessive enforcement is not appropriate in a civilized country.

We already have plenty of laws like that. The law hasn't stopped
millions of folk smoking pot or sharing copyrighted stuff over the
internet. Whether most drivers will actually obey a 20mph limit won't
figure in any local authorities decision to introduce one.

"Ekul Namsob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ben C said:

On 2007-06-01, Daniel Barlow <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I suspect that the morons who can't pay attention to their surroundings
at 20 mph are the same ones who'd be unsafe at any speed (change down a
gear, open a window, it really isn't hard) but that's just a
hypothesis.
There's nothing "natural" about travelling more than about 12mph:
everything else is learned and can therefore be unlearned.

They made what I think is a good point in that article, which is that
20mph limits will erode respect for speed limits generally.

Why? It's easy to drive at 20 mph and quite appropriate for drivers to
travel slowly down residential streets.

I welcome the chance to drive at 20 mph in Portsmouth. It will be a 5 mph
improvement on what can be achieved now.....

(The new limits will apply to "side" streets, not the main "core" roads
which will continue as 30 (or 40). Portsmouth is an island, (just!), with a
few north/ south core roads and dozens of narrow and long side roads with
dense terraced housing running between them. Parking is on-street, people
often have to park some distance away from their homes,)

Simon Mason said:

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Paul Smith, from campaign group Safe Speed, said: “It’s a knee-jerk
reaction and an ill-founded one. If you get to the point where a speed
limit feels unnatural, it affects a driver’s attention.

“It could be quite marked and it could be quite dangerous – we just
don’t know.�

Why does this berk get so much press coverage? He's even in our local rag
saying that speed cameras that *don't" flash make speeding drivers more
uncertain and uncertain drivers are unsafe drivers.
Jeez.

But, but, Troll B sez the uncertainty of the Mondrian Utopia is
precisely what makes them safe. Whose side is he on? What is he on?

TheMgt said:

Ekul Namsob said:

Ben C <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They made what I think is a good point in that article, which is that
20mph limits will erode respect for speed limits generally.

Why? It's easy to drive at 20 mph and quite appropriate for drivers to
travel slowly down residential streets.

Maybe, but that isn't what'll happen. 20 mph limits are like cycle
farcilities in that they allow some council jobsworth to tick a box
marked 'job done, budget spent' while making sod all difference really.

Do you have any evidence for that?

Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

I am worried, seriously, about Safespeed. Smith's whole life, his
whole reason for living is being eroded by his increasingly isolated
position. The media can be harsh when they turn on those who feed off
them.

And Paul Smith's paranoia is getting out of control:

http://tinyurl.com/ytgc9v

And a terrible irony:

Pedestrian killed in lorry crash
A woman walking with a pushchair was killed when she was hit by a 17.5
tonne lorry on a pedestrian crossing.
The white goods vehicle collided with the unnamed woman in London Road
in Portsmouth on Friday morning.

The 57-year-old lorry driver, from High Wycombe, Bucks, has been
arrested on suspicion of careless driving.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/6711795.stm

in message <[email hidden]>, Ben C

(') said:

They made what I think is a good point in that article, which is that
20mph limits will erode respect for speed limits generally.

It's foolish to make laws that significant numbers of people will think
are silly. They will just break them, unless you enforce them like mad,
and excessive enforcement is not appropriate in a civilized country.

People - yes, I specifically mean you - are so gullible.

On Alec Salmond's first day as First Minister, some bright spark journalist
asked him if he supported the idea of a Scottish Olympics team. It 'wasn't
a priority' said Salmond. There were more important things he had to deal
with. On being pressed, he said that yes, in principle, he did support the
idea. So the headlines in all over the papers were 'SNP plan Scottish
Olympics team' and the next day it was 'IOC won't allow SNP Olympic team'.

It was a non-story, entirely cooked up by the media. The SNP had no plans
for a Scottish Olympic team.

Similarly, with this 20mph speed limit thing, it's a non-story. NOTHING HAS
CHANGED. Councils have had the right to put 20mph speed limits on
residential streets for years - probably since speed limit legislation was
first introduced, but certainly for the last decade. Guess what? They
still do. There've been plenty round here for years. Now one more town -
Portsmouth is to adopt them.

And just because of a silly story in a tabloid you wouldn't dirty your [censored]
with, you're getting hot under the collar about 'foolish laws' which
will 'erode respect for speed limits'. You're a mug, laddie. You've been
conned. You've fallen for it hook, line and sinker. That's exactly the
reaction the Express was looking for. It's a non-story cooked up in the
newsroom on a slow news day. It's the journalistic equivalent of trolling.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

---===***<<< This space to let! >>>***===---
Yes! You, too, can SPAM in the Famous Brooke Rotating .sig!
---===***<<< Only $300 per line >>>***===---

spindrift said:

I am worried, seriously, about Safespeed. Smith's whole life, his
whole reason for living is being eroded by his increasingly isolated
position. The media can be harsh when they turn on those who feed off
them.

And Paul Smith's paranoia is getting out of control:

http://tinyurl.com/ytgc9v

Interesting to note that the SS site employs a form of censorship (a
member has been suspended pending further consideration).

Ben C said:

Daniel Barlow said:

Tony Raven said:

Paul Smith, from campaign group Safe Speed, said: ?It?s a knee-jerk
reaction and an ill-founded one. If you get to the point where a speed
limit feels unnatural, it affects a driver?s attention.

but

Quoted message said:

Critics also point out that a 20mph limit is unnecessary in many urban
centres where traffic already travels very slowly.

In Portsmouth the average speed on residential roads is only 24mph,

So we're to believe that the limit is dangerous because it will make
people drive too slowly, at the same time as being unneeded because they
drive nearly that slowly already. So why, then, is it not dangerous
until a law is introduced to make it a requirement?

I suspect that the morons who can't pay attention to their surroundings
at 20 mph are the same ones who'd be unsafe at any speed (change down a
gear, open a window, it really isn't hard) but that's just a hypothesis.
There's nothing "natural" about travelling more than about 12mph:
everything else is learned and can therefore be unlearned.

They made what I think is a good point in that article, which is that
20mph limits will erode respect for speed limits generally.

they have it on the A308 though hampton which is busy main road, and yes
as it has no other measures bar a flashing 20 zone, which allways
flashes as very few do go at sub 20, it is for most part ignored, by
traffic and authority. this said thats just a bad placment. 20 zones are
a good idea, keep the speed down and the roads can be reclaimed a bit, i
live in culdsack so people driving in come in slow and carefully. kids
play and cats sleep under cars.

Quoted message said:

It's foolish to make laws that significant numbers of people will think
are silly. They will just break them, unless you enforce them like mad,
and excessive enforcement is not appropriate in a civilized country.

if as further up the thread it's sugested it's residential then i think
it's a good idea. done well with maybe the odd rumble strip say? it
should work.

Quoted message said:

I already respect speed limits much less than I used to. It's getting to
the point where one just ignores most of the road furniture except the
cameras.

it's not that bad, it really isn't

roger

TheMgt said:

Ben C wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's foolish to make laws that significant numbers of people will think
are silly. They will just break them, unless you enforce them like mad,
and excessive enforcement is not appropriate in a civilized country.

Quoted message said:

We already have plenty of laws like that. The law hasn't stopped
millions of folk smoking pot or sharing copyrighted stuff over the
internet. Whether most drivers will actually obey a 20mph limit won't
figure in any local authorities decision to introduce one.

We've already got police forces, courts, and prisons. So it's much
easier to "solve" a problem of bad behaviour by making it illegal
rather than having to set up some kind of educational programme.

[Later]

Damn. The prisons are full up! What on earth is going wrong? :-)

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Ekul Namsob said:

TheMgt said:

Ekul Namsob said:

Ben C <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> They made what I think is a good point in that article, which is that
> 20mph limits will erode respect for speed limits generally.
Why? It's easy to drive at 20 mph and quite appropriate for drivers to
travel slowly down residential streets.

Maybe, but that isn't what'll happen. 20 mph limits are like cycle
farcilities in that they allow some council jobsworth to tick a box
marked 'job done, budget spent' while making sod all difference really.

Do you have any evidence for that?

My own eyes. I've never yet been behind anyone who slowed for a 20 limit
unless the road was lined with speed bumps. Not that I'm advocating
more speed bumps or anything.

Roger Merriman said:

Ben C <[email hidden]> wrote:

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I already respect speed limits much less than I used to. It's getting to
the point where one just ignores most of the road furniture except the
cameras.

it's not that bad, it really isn't

You're right, it's not that bad. But a good speed limit tells the driver
something. The limit is 30 in built-up areas, whether there's a 30 sign
or not. So why have 30 signs? They're quite a good warning that there's
a village or town around the corner, or that you're not out of the woods
yet. But in recent years they've started putting 40s and 50s on open
roads miles from any buildings or people as if to stop you accidentally
driving into the hedge. They're not telling you anything you don't know.