BBC - Campaign to reduce cyclist deaths

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

I submit that on or about Tue, 20 Sep 2005 15:35:52 +0100, the person
known to the court as NJF <[email protected]> made a statement
(<[email protected]> in Your Honour's bundle) to the
following effect:

>How about *remove all distractions* such as excessive road signage,
>scameras, stereos and the like, most motorists driving modern quiet cars
>have no idea of their speed without constantly looking down at the
>speedo and without the doubt its one of the reasons so many hit each
>other, let alone cyclists....

<sigh>. Yet another "law-abiding speeder".

Fact: Every single driver in the UK since the late 1960s has had to
demonstrate the ability to drive safely within the speed limits before
being allowed to drive unaccompanied.

I do not speed. I rarely need to look at my speedo. Those who come
up with the pathetic excuse you give have, I'm guessing, never
actually made a genuine effort to obey the law - it's amazingly easy.

Here's a clue for you: it's a limit, not a target. You are allowed to
go slower, you do not have to maintain speed at the limit +/- 0.5%.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[Badger]

David Martin wrote:

> NJF wrote:
>
>
>>How about *remove all distractions* such as excessive road signage,
>>scameras, stereos and the like, most motorists driving modern quiet cars
>>have no idea of their speed without constantly looking down at the
>>speedo and without the doubt its one of the reasons so many hit each
>>other, let alone cyclists....
>
>
> Don't remove cameras, just hide them so they don't distract.. Behind
> big round signs, red border with black lettering to indicate the speed
> limit. That should do nicely.
>
> ..d
Na, the buggers just stand on the brakes and *smack* another RTI, the
one hidden on the Totton flyover by the tar works has already caused a
fatal, truck driver panic braked and lost control, the tacho showed he
was below the limit before he braked...

 

[Jon Senior]

David Hansen wrote:
> Hopefully not the sort of "advice" these bods usually give, such as
> telling cyclists that beware of low flying motorcycles signs mean
> that cycling is not allowed, or cycle as close to the kerb as
> possible.

Far be it from me to defend plod. I certainly have little time for the
buggers but...

The copy-and-pasting of the article by the OP merged the BBCs "Safety
Advice" with the article, implying that that was the advice being doled
out by the police. The quote from the police does not appear to mention
the actual advice being given.

I have little doubt that it'll be vastly different from that which many
would prefer, but I'd be interested to hear. I may have to try cycling
near more policemen in an attempt to find out.

Jon

 

[Jon Senior]

Badger wrote:
> Na, the buggers just stand on the brakes and *smack* another RTI, the
> one hidden on the Totton flyover by the tar works has already caused a
> fatal, truck driver panic braked and lost control, the tacho showed he
> was below the limit before he braked...

Did he die? If so, I'd be inclined to chalk that one up to natural
selection.

In a few years (~10 actually), Britain is going to begin a process of
5-year retesting of truck drivers. That should have an interesting effect.

Jon

 

[wafflycat]

"NJF" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> How about *remove all distractions* such as excessive road signage,
> scameras, stereos and the like, most motorists driving modern quiet cars
> have no idea of their speed without constantly looking down at the speedo
> and without the doubt its one of the reasons so many hit each other, let
> alone cyclists....

Funny that, when I took my driving test, in order to pass it I had to
demonstrate I could drive at a speed under the speed limit for the road I
was on. Seems I could do this, as I passed my test. I don't think the test I
took was especially devised for me, it was the same one everyone else did
who was hoping to get a full driving licence. I still manage to drive within
speed limits and have no difficulty doing this. I do not find I have to
constantly look at my speedo to be able to achieve this, even in my quiet
modern car. It's just one of the basic driving skills I acquired to be able
to pass my driving test. Perhaps if a driver's skills have failed to such an
extent that he or she cannot stay within speed limits unless their eyes are
glued on the speedo to the elimination of all other tasks associated with
normal driving, then perhaps he or she really shouldn't be driving any more
at all....

Cheers, helen s

 

[Tony Raven]

wafflycat wrote:
>
> Funny that, when I took my driving test, in order to pass it I had to
> demonstrate I could drive at a speed under the speed limit for the road
> I was on. Seems I could do this, as I passed my test.

While 'tis true, when I took the test and I presume now, one of the main
causes of failure was "failure to make sufficient progress" i.e. not
driving fast enough. So I have concerns that our driver training and
testing system tends to encourage people to drive near whatever the
local limit is, rather than what they feel is comfortable and
appropriate within the limit.


--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

 

[Peter Clinch]

Tony Raven wrote:

> While 'tis true, when I took the test and I presume now, one of the main
> causes of failure was "failure to make sufficient progress" i.e. not
> driving fast enough. So I have concerns that our driver training and
> testing system tends to encourage people to drive near whatever the
> local limit is, rather than what they feel is comfortable and
> appropriate within the limit.

Mebbe, mebbe not. I was taught that about 50 on a 60 limit road was a
good sort of number to get me through my driving test. I failed my
first one, in part for trying to glue myself at 30 in the 30 areas.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Richard]

Colin McKenzie wrote:
>
> I think we need something much more prescriptive like 'give cyclists at
> least a metre of clearance when overtaking at speeds up to 30 mph; much
> more at higher speeds.'

When I was cycling in the teeth of a gale, I needed far more than a
metre of clearance afforded to me by cars overtaking at under 30 mph
(and, bless their little cotton socks, they all did). That's the
problem with putting a number on it; as soon as you do so, some
insurance company is going to pipe up "my client followed the rules as
laid down, thus the accident was therefore so extraordinary that my
client can't be held fully responsible."

R.

 

[iakobski]

>> possible on the roads and take extra care when making manoeuvres.
>This wording won't do. Nor will the 'as much space as you would a car'
>wording in the HC.

You are so right. The drivers that passed me this morning gave me as
much room as possible, most of them crossing right to the other side of
the road to pass. When there was a car coming the other way at exactly
the moment they reached me, rather than slow down or speed up, they
carried on at the same speed and gave me the two inches that was
possible. (Luckily for me, I was cycling well out from the edge so
could swerve left as they passed. Otherwise the suction from a 4X4 at
80+ mph could easily have pulled me further out into the road and under
the car behind.)

How about "give cyclists as much room as you would a skittish horse",
though that might be lost on the city-dwellers. For them "give cyclists
as much room as you would a policeman with a camera" might get the
poiont across.

 

[Jeremy Parker]

"Badger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1o%[email protected]...
> David Martin wrote:
>

[snip]

> >
> > Don't remove cameras, just hide them so they don't distract..
Behind
> > big round signs, red border with black lettering to indicate the
speed
> > limit. That should do nicely.
> >
> > ..d
> Na, the buggers just stand on the brakes and *smack* another RTI,
.....

[snip]

But under British law every lamppost is a speed limit sign. I
wouldn't have thought one's speed could have drifted much between
lampposts. This is a fail-safe system, too, except in 20 mph zones,
because if you miss a speed limit sign, you will be driving slower,
not faster.

Jeremy Parker

 

[[email protected]]

Jeremy Parker wrote:
> "Badger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:1o%[email protected]...
> > David Martin wrote:
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> > >
> > > Don't remove cameras, just hide them ...
> > Na, the buggers just stand on the brakes and *smack* another RTI,
> ....
>
> [snip]
>
> But under British law every lamppost is a speed limit sign. I
> wouldn't have thought one's speed could have drifted much between
> lampposts. This is a fail-safe system, too, except in 20 mph zones,
> because if you miss a speed limit sign, you will be driving slower,
> not faster.

unless you miss the sign at the entrance to a 20mph zone. Fo this
reason I would like to see some sort of repeaters allowed (but not
required) inside a 20 zone as I believe this would have some sort of
effect on some drivers' speed

best wishes
james

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

[email protected] wrote:
> Jeremy Parker wrote:
>> "Badger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:1o%[email protected]...
>>> David Martin wrote:
>>>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>>
>>>> Don't remove cameras, just hide them ...
>>> Na, the buggers just stand on the brakes and *smack* another RTI,
>>> ....
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> But under British law every lamppost is a speed limit sign. I
>> wouldn't have thought one's speed could have drifted much between
>> lampposts. This is a fail-safe system, too, except in 20 mph zones,
>> because if you miss a speed limit sign, you will be driving slower,
>> not faster.
>
> unless you miss the sign at the entrance to a 20mph zone. Fo this
> reason I would like to see some sort of repeaters allowed (but not
> required) inside a 20 zone as I believe this would have some sort of
> effect on some drivers' speed
>

As I understand it, it's required that every 20mph zone have speed humps
repeated every 200 metres or so, which makes it pretty clear.
--
Ambrose

 

[Colin McKenzie]

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> unless you miss the sign at the entrance to a 20mph zone. Fo this
>> reason I would like to see some sort of repeaters allowed (but not
>> required) inside a 20 zone as I believe this would have some sort of
>> effect on some drivers' speed
>>
> As I understand it, it's required that every 20mph zone have speed humps
> repeated every 200 metres or so, which makes it pretty clear.

Not sure. The limits have to be 'self-enforcing', but I don't think
it's specified how to do this.

And plenty of 30mph streets have humps.

Colin McKenzie

 

[Richard]

Colin McKenzie wrote:

>> As I understand it, it's required that every 20mph zone have speed
>> humps repeated every 200 metres or so, which makes it pretty clear.
>
>
> Not sure. The limits have to be 'self-enforcing', but I don't think it's
> specified how to do this.
>
> And plenty of 30mph streets have humps.

<pedant>
Just because A requires B, does not mean that the presence of B implies A.
</pedant>

R.

 

[[email protected]]

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Jeremy Parker wrote:
> >> "Badger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:1o%[email protected]...
> >>> David Martin wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >>>> Don't remove cameras, just hide them ...
> >>> Na, the buggers just stand on the brakes and *smack* another RTI,
> >> [snip]
> >> But under British law every lamppost is a speed limit sign. I
> >> wouldn't have thought one's speed could have drifted much between
> >> lampposts. This is a fail-safe system, too, except in 20 mph zones,
> >> because if you miss a speed limit sign, you will be driving slower,
> >> not faster.
> >
> > unless you miss the sign at the entrance to a 20mph zone. Fo this
> > reason I would like to see some sort of repeaters allowed (but not
> > required) inside a 20 zone as I believe this would have some sort of
> > effect on some drivers' speed
>
> As I understand it, it's required that every 20mph zone have speed humps
> repeated every 200 metres or so, which makes it pretty clear.

The 20MPH zone in which I live had no extra speed humps or junction
tables installed when it was created. There are humps every 200 yards
on most of the roads within it (although this frequency is common
outside 20 zones as well IME). The road n which I live has no speed
humps (apparently to facilitate emergency vehicle access to the local
station) and is longer than 200 yards so if you miss the signs and
roundels on the road at the entrances to teh zone there is no other way
of telling that you are in a 20 zone

 

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 14:10:56 +0100 someone who may be "Ambrose
Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>As I understand it, it's required that every 20mph zone have speed humps
>repeated every 200 metres or so, which makes it pretty clear.

That may be the case down south. However, I can think of plenty of
"twenty's plenty" zones that have an entrance treatment and then
"20" in a circle painted on the road.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[Tony Raven]

Jeremy Parker wrote:
>
> But under British law every lamppost is a speed limit sign.
>
>
<pedant>
Except for the ones under 20ft tall or more than 200 yds apart
(distances are different in Scotland)
</pedant>

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Jeremy Parker wrote:
>
>But under British law every lamppost is a speed limit sign. I
>wouldn't have thought one's speed could have drifted much between
>lampposts. This is a fail-safe system, too, except in 20 mph zones,
>because if you miss a speed limit sign, you will be driving slower,
>not faster.

Not always. If you are on a road with no lampposts, and you miss
a 40mph sign, you could still be doing 60mph, or 70mph on a dual
carriageway.

 

[Jim Ley]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 14:10:56 +0100, "Ambrose Nankivell"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>As I understand it, it's required that every 20mph zone have speed humps
>repeated every 200 metres or so, which makes it pretty clear.

nope, any "traffic calming" measure is fine, and the rule only applies
to those roads which are considered routes between A+B, so if you're
just driving around a housing estate then even this isn't necessary
AIUI.

Jim.

 

[wafflycat]

"Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>>
>
> As I understand it, it's required that every 20mph zone have speed humps
> repeated every 200 metres or so, which makes it pretty clear.
> --
> Ambrose

Doesn't happen in the 20mph zone in Fakenham.

Cheers, helen s