MOTORISTS and road safety/responsibility

[Cyclone 10]

Incidentally does anyone disagree agree the above statement

 

I agree in principle, although even with good anticipation you can't control the (odd) behaviour of others.

[Darbees 10]

What's the point of having a limit of 30 and then physically slowing vehicles to 20? If the limit is 30 you should be able to do 30 if it's appropriate for the conditions, if the authorities don't think it is they should lower the limit but not put bumps in that wreck the cars.

[willman 10]

heres an interesting fact - less people were killed on the road by a car in 2005than in 1945 .

3101 or something last year with 6million cars and i think it was '40 or '45, 4000 were killed with only 1million cars on the road.

 

presented by jeremy vine on bbc radio2 yesterday.

[Tony 10]

What's the point of having a limit of 30 and then physically slowing vehicles to 20? If the limit is 30 you should be able to do 30 if it's appropriate for the conditions, if the authorities don't think it is they should lower the limit but not put bumps in that wreck the cars.

 

If people could manage to restrain themselves and stick to 30 or any other suitable speed at the time then your idea might have some merit.

[troyhark 10]

heres an interesting fact - less people were killed on the road by a car in 2005than in 1945 .

3101 or something last year with 6million cars and i think it was '40 or '45, 4000 were killed with only 1million cars on the road.

 

presented by jeremy vine on bbc radio2 yesterday.

Better car and road safety design. Stricter laws on road worthyness and speed limits..etc.

RTAs have reduced ever since the 30s I believe.

[Cyclone 10]

If people could manage to restrain themselves and stick to 30 or any other suitable speed at the time then your idea might have some merit.

 

If people can't 'restrain' themselves, then restrictions should be put in place which still allow you to drive at the posted limit.

 

Speedbumps should be passable at 30mph without risking damage to your car (or back).

[Justin Smith 10]

What's the point of having a limit of 30 and then physically slowing vehicles to 20? If the limit is 30 you should be able to do 30 if it's appropriate for the conditions, if the authorities don't think it is they should lower the limit but not put bumps in that wreck the cars.

 

I repeat what I said in the response I made above, theoretically the speed limit on my (residential road) is 30mph but anyone actually driving down it at that speed would have some sort of mental retardation problem.

I suspect most residential streets fall into the same category.

I don`t know what sort of road you live on but unless is a major through route I`ll bet you would not want people driving along it at 30mph, particularly if you have kids.

Of course I think speed humps are a pain in the arse (literally if one has piles !) but until all motorists drive in a safe and responsible manner I want one on my road !

[troyhark 10]

If people can't 'restrain' themselves, then restrictions should be put in place which still allow you to drive at the posted limit.

 

Speedbumps should be passable at 30mph without risking damage to your car (or back).

As I mentioned above, they are a way of reducing the speed limit. Without having to reduce the posted limit below, which is actually quite difficult to do. Also they are deliberatedly designed to be annoying to prevent people from using side streets as rat runs for example. So having speed bumps to let you go at 30 in a 30 zone would be pointless.

 

If you want effective methods of limiting speeds, fit a tachograph to cars or a speed limiter linked to roadside signs and then no-one could complain!!

[stackmonkey 10]

My morning commute to work involves my traversing about 10 speed bumps and the roads I use are not rat runs.

I can understand why the bumps have been installed on these roads as it wouldn't be safe to drive them at much over 30mph anyway, but they are also in places where it is otherwise safe to do 30mph.

I shouldn't be having to risk inflicting further damage on my car by simply travelling at a safe and legal speed on a perfectly normal journey to work,

[troyhark 10]

But the problem may be, you think it's safe to do 30, but someone else thinks it isn't.

[stackmonkey 10]

In some places it is, in some it isn't, and there's little correlation between that and where some of the speed bumps are.

On a couple of stretches the usual road hazards are such that if you're not prepared to do up to 30mph, you really shouldn't be on the road without an 'L' plate and an instructor beside you (and many of said learners are doing 30mph...)

[Justin Smith 10]

I really think it`s so sad that whilst most drivers are courteous and thoughtful it tends to be the cretins who stick in ones mind....

 

Last night I was driving along Queens Rd in the left hand lane (ready to filter off up London Rd) when I became aware of someone screaming up the right hand lane trying to cut in at the front. There wasn`t quite room for him to cut me up so, not wanting to risk bending his VW Golf (a German car, again....) he pulled in behind me. It was what he did next that amazed me because he then started tailgating me, executed a suicidal overtake, cut in front of me, started braking for no reason and sticking his wooley hat covered head out of the window shouting at me.

Let`s remember I`d not even done anything other than prevent him cutting me up ! I`m sure there is no one on SF who would disagree that he probably has a personality disorder and should not be on the road, but what can be done to prevent such moronic behaviour ?

 

What this got me thinking is that if his vehicle had been fitted with a speed limiter he would have known he couldn`t accelerate past the Q (doing about 30) and cut in so this whole incident would never have happened...... It`s not just the road safety thing that makes me such a fan of limiters, they would cut out so much aggressive driving which upsets so many people.