True! A better way that would not hold up emergency vehicles would be police on the street. If the limit is 30 there should be no problem with speds up to that. Doing 50 on a narrow urban road is reckless, and should be penalised appropriately. Penalise the offenders, not the innocent who would drive at a safwe speed for the road anyway.
At the cost of risking damage to the vehicles of the safe drivers as well as the reckless, slowing emergency vehicles (how many lives has that cost), increasing congerstion and pollution.
If it is the only way to save lives maybe that price is worth paying. But I remain to be convinced that it is the only way, rather than just the cheapest way.
I am concerned about casualties among all types of road user. There is no group that I "don't give a toss about".
The point is that people often confuse accident probability with accident severity. They are different things.
For example, two statements about spped reduction measures, one from the ABD andf the other from a "safety (sic) camera partnership" read
"There is no link between the level of the pseed limit and the num,ber of accidents"
and
"Reducing the speed limit has resulted in a reduction in casualties".
It is possible that both of these statements are true.
Urban streets are our most dangerous roads, with perhaps 10 times the accident rates of our safest roads, which is why they have low speed limits. I would like to see speed enforcement measures concentrated on these roads, rather than on motorways and trunk roads which are more profitable. Yes, I see many examples of bad driving, either through ignorance, incompetence or a wrong atbreastude to other road users. And I DO walk around urban streets. Most drivers in city centres seem to drive at sensible speeds, I suspect it is the suburbs where the worst abuses take place.
Actually I do. My road is a narrow winding road, and cycling along it can be downright dangerous. Some years ago, before they built a bypbutt, it was frequented by HGVs on their way to and from the M1. I would have felt far more comfortable on my bike if the road had been a bit wider and had the blind bends removed.
In which case I would suggest making it a cul-de-sac. A 20mph limit might also be appropriate.
AnnoyancesIn no particular order 1. Driving with front fog lights on when there absolutely is no need. 2. Rear...
A road is either needed as a through route or it is not. I have not objection to making rat runs impbuttible if they are endangering people in a residential street. But the best way is to make then unusable as a through route by either blocking off one end, or putting a blockage half way down to create two cul-de-sacs.
Indeed. One end of that particular road is at a junction with a confusing layout that has resulted in many accidents. Blocking off that end of the road would make the junction safer, as well as making the road useless as a rat-run.
Well, to tell you the truth I don't much drive in urban traffic these days, although I did once work as a taxi driver. If I were doing that now, I am sure I would be cursing the speed bumps.
I still think the answer to the problems is proper enforcement of urban speed limits rather than the creating of dangerous obstructions in the road.
-- Created on the Iyonix PC - the world's fastest RISC OS computer.
