Portsmouth = 1st city with a blanket 20mph limit

dondare · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Jon G

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss
Look, this subject has been done and dusted, the argument is over, I won it. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Do you mean Parliament has agreed with you and is about to change the relevant statutes? Nothing else could really be described as 'winning the argument'.

Jon
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I think that he means either that the law has changed and you can't prove otherwise, or that the law ought to be changed because he knows that he's right.

You're not the boss of me.

Cunobelin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The annoying thing is that some councils seem happy to adapt the road, rather than adapt the space at the side of the road<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

In Portsmouth this area is what the locals refer to as "a car park" it is impossible to walk (or cycle) on most pavements due to illegally parked cars!

He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.
(Unattributed Trad.)

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by BigWomble
When you have two or more signal-control junctions, one after the other along the road that you're on, it would be nice if when you arrived at the second junction the traffic lights were also turning green, and so on. This is called a green wave - if you watched it happen on a long straight road, the green lights will come on one after the other, on into the distance. It doesn't always happen that nicely - in the real world, these things don't tend to. But it is a major gain on having individually controlled junctions. This process is called 'TRANSYT', and was invented by TRL.

The settings are sensitive to the amount of traffic at each signal controlled junction, and the amount of traffic varies throughout the day. The traditional response is to develop lots of different settings, and change them throughout the day. However, this is inaccurate, and when the settings change the junctions get badly hit.

SCOOT is a computer program that recalculates TRANSYT on every traffic light cycle. It is expensive, and very clever. It is very reliable, but if it breaks, it falls back to a pre-calculated setting - no harm done. It is the best scheme available today.

One of the things that SCOOT can be asked to do is to allocate less time to side roads when the main road is getting congested. This stops the main road locking up solid. However, it is a bit controversial for those people stuck on the side road!

Ta - Arabic for moo-cow
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Very interesting, thanks for that input. I don't suppose there is anywhere on the web I can look to see where these systems have been installed? It would be useful to see how they operate in practice.

Mjones I take in what you say and respect your opinion and the links you've provided, but I'll just have to be completely honest and say that from my perspective, road freight is a big problem, and I think there are measures that government could take to 'spread the load'. Whenever I'm driving on a busy motorway, most of the space seems to be taken up by freight. When I'm using the same motorway at night, its normally pretty much empty (come down the M62 at 3AM, theres probably about 1-2 cars a minute using it).

The traffic lights on roundabouts, well many junctions around the M60 have them and so far as I can see, at night, they're utterly useless and delay traffic for no obvious reason I can see.

Of course I have my own ideas about how we can reduce congestion (working patterns, more cycling, car sharing, better traffic lights etc, but as someone who loves the freedom that owning a car offers me, I'm pretty much against anything that restricts that freedom. Yes its biased, but I can't say fairer than that.

Cunobelin · June 2007

The last paragraph represents part of the problem, but at least you recognise this........

From the start and the threatening of pedestrians on crossings, much of this has been about an arrogant "anything that restricts MY speed or movement is persecution" attitude.

We all live with society's restrictions. You don't murder / rob / assault, go areound naked simply because those are the standards of the society and community you live in.

Equally you don't drive, cycle or park on pavements for the same reason.

The whole point here is that the Portsmouth Communities have made a decision about how they want their environment to be, and this includes a 20 mph limit. it is a popular move within those communities, and one that is being brought in with legal authority and after a "Period of grace WILL be enforced.Part of the initial costs is the equipment to record and prosecute offenders.

In everything society does there will be those who benefit more and those who benefit less. THere is no "real" loss here to anyone.

He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.
(Unattributed Trad.)

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Jon G

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss
Look, this subject has been done and dusted, the argument is over, I won it. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Do you mean Parliament has agreed with you and is about to change the relevant statutes? Nothing else could really be described as 'winning the argument'.

Jon
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I mean that it's perfectly valid to describe a motorist's permission to use the road as a 'conditional right', and therefore it's only valid to say he doesn't have the right to do so under a certain definitions of the word 'right', which is not 'the' only accepted legal one.
I know it's difficult accepting that I'm right, but you should have had enough practice by now.

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cunobelin

The last paragraph represents part of the problem, but at least you recognise this........

From the start and the threatening of pedestrians on crossings, much of this has been about an arrogant "anything that restricts MY speed or movement is persecution" attitude.

We all live with society's restrictions. You don't murder / rob / assault, go areound naked simply because those are the standards of the society and community you live in.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Again, you persistently fail to make the distinction between victimless crime and victimised crime.

Equally you don't drive, cycle or park on pavements for the same reason.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cunobelin

The whole point here is that the Portsmouth Communities have made a decision about how they want their environment to be, and this includes a 20 mph limit. it is a popular move within those communities, and one that is being brought in with legal authority and after a "Period of grace WILL be enforced.Part of the initial costs is the equipment to record and prosecute offenders.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well, they'll have to keep their fingers crossed that their camaign to change the law about it being enforceable goes through.

The Bosscp · June 2007

And besides, since when did Portsmouth decide to call itself a city anyway? It's a bit rich, I always thought it was a town.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

Again, you persistently fail to make the distinction between victimless crime and victimised crime.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

It's only victimless if you refuse to accept that there are victims though Bonj!

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

And besides, since when did Portsmouth decide to call itself a city anyway? It's a bit rich, I always thought it was a town.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Just did a quick Google...

Apparently "Portsmouth was designated a 'city' by virtue of its Royal Charter in 1194", though the source of this was http://www.rivals.net/default.asp?sid=9 ... id=7974803
so may not be acceptable to you!

Tourist Tony · June 2007

Bloody Royal Charters. Can't Bonj have some proof?

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

Tourist Tony · June 2007

I dip in, I dip out again, and LBB is still blowing his own Knob.
Priceless.
Dear little spoilt child, statute law remains in force until/unless repealed or replaced. Ditto Common Law. As I have said several times already, your opinion is not in any way relevant to the law, nor does it change history.
You remind me of a child only slightly younger than you actually are, stamping its foot in frustration and shouting "ME WANNA SWEETY NOW!!!"
They also seem to believe that that wins arguments.....

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Tourist Tony

Bloody Royal Charters. Can't Bonj have some proof?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You know what TT, if Bonj did have an issue with this then he'd be right! According to Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_statu ... ed_Kingdom

Royal Charters aren't worth the paper they're written on. Pompey only got city status in 1928, having been refused in 1911...

...of course all of this is assuming that you trust Wikipedia as a reasonable source of information!

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Tourist Tony

I dip in, I dip out again, and LBB is still blowing his own Knob.
Priceless.
Dear little spoilt child, statute law remains in force until/unless repealed or replaced. Ditto Common Law. As I have said several times already, your opinion is not in any way relevant to the law, nor does it change history.
You remind me of a child only slightly younger than you actually are, stamping its foot in frustration and shouting "ME WANNA SWEETY NOW!!!"
They also seem to believe that that wins arguments.....

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You appear to be the only one who gets so irate about it Tone, and YOU are the only one who feels the need to resort to peurile, playground insults - so it would seem you are the childish one.

dondare · June 2007

Is Ely a city? 'sgot a Cathedral.

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Peyote

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

And besides, since when did Portsmouth decide to call itself a city anyway? It's a bit rich, I always thought it was a town.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Just did a quick Google...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
By victim I mean someone who is unarguably, inescapably and tangibly worse off because of the 'crime'.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dondare

Is Ely a city? 'sgot a Cathedral.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Yep, the third smallest in England (Wells & City of London being smaller), s'all here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ely

The usual caveats apply.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss
By victim I mean someone who is unarguably, inescapably and tangibly worse off because of the 'crime'.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Ah well, by that definition you're right, because the simple fact that you argue that 'speeding' doesn't have victims means that those victims don't exist! (Because they would have to be victims 'unarguably')

It gets complicated when you start making up these defintions!

Edited to add - I've just thought of another reason why they aren't victims! If they can afford to move (house) away from an area that is being degraded due to speeding vehicles then technically they could 'escape', thus the 'inescapable' part of your definition wouldn't apply either!

I think the 'tangible' bit of your definition is a bit more difficult, is fear of fast traffic tangible? Not sure if it can be measured or not, and qualitative analysis can be difficult at the best of times. Gonna have to ponder on that one...

Cunobelin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Well, they'll have to keep their fingers crossed that their camaign to change the law about it being enforceable goes through.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Isn't it really a shame though that there are those who refuse to recognise their wishes, and have to be enforced by such a law.

Victimless or not is irrelevant......

All laws are merely an official reinforcement of a standard of moral or physical behaviour which the Society itself accepts.

The mental attitude of "it doesn't include me" is the same whatever the crime. A voluntary decision to contravene that standard.

Cycling naked through Paulsgrove, Somers Town or the Cuty Centre is "victimless", but still a crime!

He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.
(Unattributed Trad.)

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

By victim I mean someone who is unarguably, inescapably and tangibly worse off because of the 'crime'.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Glad you've got that sorted then.

My boy can't cycle to school because of the speeding, dangerous drivers. That's inarguable and inescapable, and he's tangeably worse off because of it.

That's merely one example of where speeding is not a victimless crime. There are more.

Oh, and don't come all offended and accusatory about other people's language. Remember that you've been banned a couple of times before because of yours Bonjy.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dondare

Is Ely a city? 'sgot a Cathedral.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Apparently. But I think the definition of a city as anything having a cathedral is a stupid one, that would make Southwell a city and having lived there for 12 years I know that the locals all regard it as a town. I think a much better definition of a city would be anything with more than a quarter of a million people.

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Peyote

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss
By victim I mean someone who is unarguably, inescapably and tangibly worse off because of the 'crime'.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Ah well, by that definition you're right, because the simple fact that you argue that 'speeding' doesn't have victims means that those victims don't exist! (Because they would have to be victims 'unarguably')

It gets complicated when you start making up these defintions!

Edited to add - I've just thought of another reason why they aren't victims! If they can afford to move (house) away from an area that is being degraded due to speeding vehicles then technically they could 'escape', thus the 'inescapable' part of your definition wouldn't apply either!

I think the 'tangible' bit of your definition is a bit more difficult, is fear of fast traffic tangible? Not sure if it can be measured or not, and qualitative analysis can be difficult at the best of times. Gonna have to ponder on that one...

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Alright, JUST tangible then. Tangible covers it on its own.

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Isn't it really a shame though that there are those who refuse to recognise their wishes, and have to be enforced by such a law.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
It's a shame that you refuse to recognise my wish to pay me a grand, flower, but that's life.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cunobelin

All laws are merely an official reinforcement of a standard of moral or physical behaviour which the Society itself accepts.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I again dispute the notion that "the entire community want this", instead asserting that it's simply the victory of a few die-hard car-hating campaigners. Did they take a vote of EVERY single person in portsmouth? No. There you go then.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cunobelin

Cycling naked through Paulsgrove, Somers Town or the Cuty Centre is "victimless", but still a crime!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yes, exactly - another victimless crime.
There'd be nothing wrong with it in my book.

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

Glad you've got that sorted then.

My boy can't cycle to school because of the speeding, dangerous drivers. That's inarguable and inescapable, and he's tangeably worse off because of it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Oh for god's sake, not that old one again.
You know it's not safe for a FIVE year old to cycle through a city at rush hour anyway, speeding drivers or not - and you're an idiot if you think it ever could be.
Yet you're bitter, and want something or someone to blame for the fact that your imaginary idealistic vision of utopia isn't the same as reality, so you decide to adopt the view that he "can't cycle because of speeders". Pathetic.
What you really want is for cars to be banned completely, but you are unable to reconcile that with your (albeit somewhat limited) appreciation of the needs of our society. So you decide to declare that "the roads are dangerous and it's all speeders' fault".

dondare · June 2007

What I want is for drivers to use their vehicles in a way that doesn't make it too dangerous for others (adults as well as children) to even consider cycling or walking short distances.
If your argument is "That's never going to happen, dream on" then take a look at Portsmouth, (back on topic again) where they're trying to make it happen. Too many motorists have demonstrated that they simply can't behave in a way that can be considered safe or sensible so they're having this imposed upon them.

You're not the boss of me.

dondare · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dondare

Is Ely a city? 'sgot a Cathedral.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Apparently. But I think the definition of a city as anything having a cathedral is a stupid one, that would make Southwell a city and having lived there for 12 years I know that the locals all regard it as a town. I think a much better definition of a city would be anything with more than a quarter of a million people.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I think that you'd argue about the colour of the sky.

You're not the boss of me.

Tourist Tony · June 2007

Oh yes, Knob?
"You appear to be the only one who gets so irate about it Tone, and YOU are the only one who feels the need to resort to peurile, playground insults - so it would seem you are the childish one."

"Stakeholders - bollocks. It's the nanny state brigade that are to blame for this, the penpushers in council offices that like to think up ever more draconian methods of inflicting their meddling ways on the motorist."

"you tool!"

Loved the logic displayed in this one:
"And you're no one to talk, anyway - aren't you the guy who rides a home-made bike?"

"the deluded people on this forum."

"you fool!"

"You're talking out of your arse"

"Absolute rubbish What a stupified figment of your rose-tinted imagination"

"WHEN did this happen then, smartarse, if you think you know so much about it?!"

"Oh dear Tone, you do appear to be wound up about this one! Maybe you get some fly spray, take your bonnet off, and spray it liberally at your head, in order to kill the bee that's clearly buzzing around in there. It might also take most of your hair off, but that wouldn't matter. It'd probably be funny."

This one has him steaming from the ears:
"CAN'T YOU SEE HOW RIDICULOUS THAT IS? If you're so sure of the definition of a 'right' in law, then show me that definition IN LAW! Not in some bloody backstreet college's liberalist commie rantings.

If imperial college is the best you can come up with that backs you up, then it's obviously NOT the law of the land is it, you dimwit!"

" thick, thick skulls"

"So stop weeing into the wind, and drop it. You're like a dog with a bone."

I notice as well that Little Boy Bonj talks about the law, and how he keeps his licence (note the spelling, you semi-literate child) by sticking to it, then promptly rants on about speeding not being wrong.
A typical SS troll: "laws are to make OTHERS do what I want. They don't apply to me, because I know better! Wanna sweety!"

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

Glad you've got that sorted then.

My boy can't cycle to school because of the speeding, dangerous drivers. That's inarguable and inescapable, and he's tangeably worse off because of it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Oh for god's sake, not that old one again.
You know it's not safe for a FIVE year old to cycle through a city at rush hour anyway, speeding drivers or not - and you're an idiot if you think it ever could be.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

What image do you have in your head Bonjy?

I did 4 miles with him last Friday, once the peak time was over, and choosing roads that the power-hungry dangerous drivers don't tend to use. Much of it was on the road, and he was safe at all times. The difference is the speeding drivers. Who, using your definitions, prevent him from cycling to school.

You might want to change your <s>definitions</s> goalposts again.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

Yet you're bitter, and want something or someone to blame for the fact that your imaginary idealistic vision of utopia isn't the same as reality, so you decide to adopt the view that he "can't cycle because of speeders". Pathetic.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Your definitions young Bonj.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

What you really want is for cars to be banned completely,<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Nope. Never said that. Never suggested that. See what I mean about your mind? You're coming from a position that only exists in your head, and which is the cause of your misunderstanding and agression. And that would be the same when you're behind the wheel. That's why you think pedestrians should get out of the way, and why you intimidate those in your way with your horn or by revving your engine.

You're a danger on the road Bonj. And a bully. Your immaturity is astounding.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

but you are unable to reconcile that with your (albeit somewhat limited) appreciation of the needs of our society. So you decide to declare that "the roads are dangerous and it's all speeders' fault".
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No-one needs to speed. If you shortsighted, inconsiderate, dangerous drivers would just accept that then we'd all get there a lot safer and to your surprise a lot quicker. You're a buffoon.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Tourist Tony

Oh yes, Knob?
"You appear to be the only one who gets so irate about it Tone, and YOU are the only one who feels the need to resort to peurile, playground insults - so it would seem you are the childish one."

"Stakeholders - bollocks. It's the nanny state brigade that are to blame for this, the penpushers in council offices that like to think up ever more draconian methods of inflicting their meddling ways on the motorist."

"you tool!"

Loved the logic displayed in this one:
"And you're no one to talk, anyway - aren't you the guy who rides a home-made bike?"

"the deluded people on this forum."

"you fool!"

"You're talking out of your arse"

"Absolute rubbish What a stupified figment of your rose-tinted imagination"

"WHEN did this happen then, smartarse, if you think you know so much about it?!"

"Oh dear Tone, you do appear to be wound up about this one! Maybe you get some fly spray, take your bonnet off, and spray it liberally at your head, in order to kill the bee that's clearly buzzing around in there. It might also take most of your hair off, but that wouldn't matter. It'd probably be funny."

This one has him steaming from the ears:
"CAN'T YOU SEE HOW RIDICULOUS THAT IS? If you're so sure of the definition of a 'right' in law, then show me that definition IN LAW! Not in some bloody backstreet college's liberalist commie rantings.

If imperial college is the best you can come up with that backs you up, then it's obviously NOT the law of the land is it, you dimwit!"

" thick, thick skulls"

"So stop weeing into the wind, and drop it. You're like a dog with a bone."

I notice as well that Little Boy Bonj talks about the law, and how he keeps his licence (note the spelling, you semi-literate child) by sticking to it, then promptly rants on about speeding not being wrong.
A typical SS troll: "laws are to make OTHERS do what I want. They don't apply to me, because I know better! Wanna sweety!"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Tone: I think you need to seek some help - I'd start here: http://tinyurl.com/22bbxo

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

Glad you've got that sorted then.

My boy can't cycle to school because of the speeding, dangerous drivers. That's inarguable and inescapable, and he's tangeably worse off because of it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Oh for god's sake, not that old one again.
You know it's not safe for a FIVE year old to cycle through a city at rush hour anyway, speeding drivers or not - and you're an idiot if you think it ever could be.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

What image do you have in your head Bonjy?

I did 4 miles with him last Friday, once the peak time was over, and choosing roads that the power-hungry dangerous drivers don't tend to use. Much of it was on the road, and he was safe at all times. The difference is the speeding drivers. Who, using your definitions, prevent him from cycling to school.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Junctions? Traffic lights? Turning right at roundabouts?

Yes, WITH YOU. That's safer for two reasons, one that you can tell him what to do at a junction other tricky situation that may arise, and two, he's more confident knowing that he's got you there so isn't as likely to panic.
If you're lucky enough for the route to school to be one straight road with no junctions or traffic lights or anything, then he's probably not going to have any issues just going straight along it. But then again if that's the case then neither is a "speeding" driver.

Cunobelin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I again dispute the notion that "the entire community want this", instead asserting that it's simply the victory of a few die-hard car-hating campaigners. Did they take a vote of EVERY single person in portsmouth? No. There you go then.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Well - that's interesting again, BUT CAN YOU BACK THAT UP?...........

It is equally arguable that the opposite is true, and the residents have a reasonable case and it is simply the complaints of a few "speed loving motorists" - Have you actually taken a vote of any car drivers in Portsmouth?

What could be a measure though is the fact that Portsmouth residents hate this so much thatthey are requesting inclusion, not exclusion from these limits.

He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.
(Unattributed Trad.)

Portsmouth = 1st city with a blanket 20mph limit

Comments

Categories