Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:41 am

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 91 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 10  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2013 11:54 pm 
BANNED USER
BANNED USER

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 3:56 pm
Posts: 258
£94m won't change CHAV's of Blighty's attitude.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2013 12:15 am 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:33 pm
Posts: 11105
Location: The Home Of Mountain Biking, And All Great Things.
daugs wrote:
20mph limit doesn't work

Not sure that is entirely true. I certainly notice traffic is slower in the 20 zones locally here and in London.

"RoSPA's Policy Position on 20mph Speed Limits

20mph zones are very effective at preventing injuries and RoSPA would like to see their wider use in residential areas.

20mph zones significantly decrease the risk of being injured in a collision and their greater use, especially in residential areas, would help to reduce the number of traffic injuries in the UK."

(http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advicea ... zones.aspx)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2013 12:25 am 
Gold Trader
Gold Trader
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 12:28 pm
Posts: 3361
Location: The Admiral Benbow
:facepalm: http://the-mouth.co.uk/council-pledges- ... -epidemic/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2013 7:46 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 11:16 am
Posts: 799
Location: Camden, London
highlandsflyer wrote:
daugs wrote:
20mph limit doesn't work

Not sure that is entirely true. I certainly notice traffic is slower in the 20 zones locally here and in London.

"RoSPA's Policy Position on 20mph Speed Limits

20mph zones are very effective at preventing injuries and RoSPA would like to see their wider use in residential areas.

20mph zones significantly decrease the risk of being injured in a collision and their greater use, especially in residential areas, would help to reduce the number of traffic injuries in the UK."

(http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advicea ... zones.aspx)


all that is true when cars at 20mph ie speed is the issue, driving slower obviously reduces risks but the limit is frequently ignored at which point the issues persist, its like suggesting people keep to the limit on motorways ? sadly RoSPA are frequently in an ivory tower well away from reality trying to gain some behaviour moderation without saying anything too unpopular, who was it who issued the advice in the recent hot weather to avoid sunburn by staying indoors ? not RoSPA but hopefully you get my point. Whoever makes these decisions introduced more 20mph zones where we were and the added frustration seemed to just make drivers ignore them more.

In London the average speed is well below 20mph already, its the behaviour patterns that need to change, the sudden acceleration and braking probably increases the risks of accidents.

as an aside, has anyone mentioned if cyclists should obey the 20mph speed limit as well ??


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2013 8:17 am 
King of the Skip Monkeys
King of the Skip Monkeys
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:34 pm
Posts: 26174
Location: Moomin Valley
my neighbours will drive from one end of the village to the doctors or to the shop or to their friends house, a total journey of less than a mile round trip.

Knock this sort of behaviour on the head maybe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2013 8:43 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 6:25 pm
Posts: 606
Location: New Forest
Frustratingly I have learned the £3.6m awarded to the New Forest National Park will be foolishly spent on pointless 'bicycle buses', bicycle hire parking facilities, additional signage on certain existing cycle routes, and some sort of 'family cycling centre' in Brockenhurst. The National Park Authority have decided what is best without any engagement with the substantial local cycling community. In reality not one penny is being spent on making existing cycling journeys in the New Forest any safer, and therefore there is unlikely to be any rise in cycling numbers. What a wasted opportunity.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2013 11:35 am 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 7:11 pm
Posts: 8479
Location: Fircombe.
"Call You and Yours" on Radio4,, midday today , is about the cyclist/driver conflagration.
probably worth a listen!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2013 7:35 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:33 pm
Posts: 11105
Location: The Home Of Mountain Biking, And All Great Things.
daugs wrote:
as an aside, has anyone mentioned if cyclists should obey the 20mph speed limit as well ??


All power to your elbow if you can get up to speed in all the traffic and pollution.

Suggesting speed limits have no effect is daft.

We travel at 90+ in the overtaking lane at the moment, if they changed motorway limits to 80 that would become 100+.

By the same token, 20mph limits replacing 30mph limits will mean a number of drivers taking notice and observing the limits.

How is that bad?

Statistically it appears to have a beneficial effect.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2013 8:55 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 11:16 am
Posts: 799
Location: Camden, London
highlandsflyer wrote:
Suggesting speed limits have no effect is daft.

...............................

By the same token, 20mph limits replacing 30mph limits will mean a number of drivers taking notice and observing the limits.

How is that bad?

Statistically it appears to have a beneficial effect.


I'm not suggesting speed limits have no effect, I'm suggesting that reducing them is not an effective solution (to the problem in relation to cycling and per OP spending £94m) not least as the type of motorist that respects them is probably the motorist that gives cyclists enough room, doesn't ride them into the kerb to overtake when there isn't room etc, the impatient motorist with a lack of regard or consideration is the issue.

The RoSPA site refers to the fatalities and injuries but the emphasis seems to be to reduce pedestrian statistics with cyclists getting an "also" mention, the policy quoted refers to 20 mph zone that are designed to reduce drivers speed by physical measures, having lived on a 20mph road with speed bumps for over 10 years I can say that when Camden Council increased the measures and zones that the effect I observed was a deterioration in the areas already a 20mph zone which were the higher risk areas to begin with since they were initially selected for the measures.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:01 pm 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 5663
Location: Don't mess with monkeys, man
daugs wrote:
highlandsflyer wrote:
Suggesting speed limits have no effect is daft.

...............................

By the same token, 20mph limits replacing 30mph limits will mean a number of drivers taking notice and observing the limits.

How is that bad?

Statistically it appears to have a beneficial effect.


I'm not suggesting speed limits have no effect, I'm suggesting that reducing them is not an effective solution (to the problem in relation to cycling and per OP spending £94m) not least as the type of motorist that respects them is probably the motorist that gives cyclists enough room, doesn't ride them into the kerb to overtake when there isn't room etc, the impatient motorist with a lack of regard or consideration is the issue.

The RoSPA site refers to the fatalities and injuries but the emphasis seems to be to reduce pedestrian statistics with cyclists getting an "also" mention, the policy quoted refers to 20 mph zone that are designed to reduce drivers speed by physical measures, having lived on a 20mph road with speed bumps for over 10 years I can say that when Camden Council increased the measures and zones that the effect I observed was a deterioration in the areas already a 20mph zone.


My worry in all of this, is that money / resource will be thrown at this with the solution being more cycle facilities - which some will laud as the 3rd coming... but all the same will completely miss the point, and embolden the attitude of those drivers who are seemingly completely intolerant of cyclists on the road. The more and more cycle paths and facilities there are, the more the idiots with the "no road tax" mantra will feel even more empowered to have that belief that cyclists have no damned placed on the road, getting in their way.

The issue will remain, though, segregation will never be comprehensive or universal, so there will always be points where motorists and cyclists have to share the roads, but the more cyclists are maginalised, and assumed that they have separate facilities, the more we encourage that mindset.

If the issue regarding driver attitude towards cyclists, that's becoming more and more prevalent, is not addressed and arrested, cycling on the road is heading more and more towards Spike Bike.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 91 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 10  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 46 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group