Portsmouth = 1st city with a blanket 20mph limit

Cretin · June 2007

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

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

You'll get no argument from me that many motorists aren't up to the standard they should be - where we probably diverge is on the subject of how you fix that problem. Some people (presumably Portsmouth councillors) think that a 20mph will help. Some people (myself and The Boss) think it won't.

But we both want the same thing - safer drivers leading to safer roads.

The Bosscp · June 2007

yes I would completely agree with that Cretin.

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

<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.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No! Neither can you 'back up' the viewpoint that all the residents have been surveyed. I just don't think they have. People on these forums spend far too long wittering on and on about proof and evidence, way more than the threshold of where it becomes tediously dull.

It's almost become a standard response that if you don't like what someone's saying or they've made an argument that you don't agree with but can't think of a counter-argument in response to it, you just retort with "can you prove that?". It's DULL.

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

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

(see bold) What on earth are you blabbering on about?

Whoever made any mention of a 5-year-old cycling to school alone?? I certainly didn't.

As it happens, there is one juction and then one long, straight road between our house and the school. And the fact that the road is long and straight is exactly why it is inhabited by dangerous, selfish speeding drivers. And why, using your own definition, there is a victim to this crime.

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

Mister Paul · June 2007

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

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

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

You'll get no argument from me that many motorists aren't up to the standard they should be - where we probably diverge is on the subject of how you fix that problem. Some people (presumably Portsmouth councillors) think that a 20mph will help. Some people (myself and The Boss) think it won't.

But we both want the same thing - safer drivers leading to safer roads.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

And the circle goes back to the start again.

I'm still interested to know how 20mph limits don't improve road safety? Sure, they're localised, and there needs to be work alongside to improve driving standards, but there's no downside to them.

20mph limits are there to slow traffic in a particular area and so make that area safer. And they work.

20mph limits are not there to improve driving standards. No-one has ever suggested that this is their purpose, so arguing that they don't improve driving standards is pointless.

You've come up with no evidence yet that there are negatives to 20mph limits, except for slight references to the Safespeeding idea that speed limits make driving standards worse. An argument which falls at the first hurdle.

__________________________________________________________
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 Mister Paul

As it happens, there is one juction and then one long, straight road between our house and the school. And the fact that the road is long and straight is exactly why it is inhabited by dangerous, selfish speeding drivers. And why, using your own definition, there is a victim to this crime.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well I just don't accept that it'd just magically be perfectly safe as soon as people started going under the speed limit. That's one area in which we'll have to agree to disagree.

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

I'm still interested to know how 20mph limits don't improve road safety? Sure, they're localised, and there needs to be work alongside to improve driving standards, but there's no downside to them.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
So, question then, Paul. What would be the downside, if any, of a 5mph speed limit across the whole town, sorry, city?

Tourist Tony · 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 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
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
What--for quoting you? I know you have trouble remembering what you say, so the above was to help you along, son.

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

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

What--for quoting you? I know you have trouble remembering what you say, so the above was to help you along, son.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
You must be a very vindictive, hate-filled little man if you can be bothered to go digging back through nearly 40 pages just in the hope of showing me up.

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul
And the circle goes back to the start again.

I'm still interested to know how 20mph limits don't improve road safety? Sure, they're localised, and there needs to be work alongside to improve driving standards, but there's no downside to them.

20mph limits are there to slow traffic in a particular area and so make that area safer. And they work.

20mph limits are not there to improve driving standards. No-one has ever suggested that this is their purpose, so arguing that they don't improve driving standards is pointless.

You've come up with no evidence yet that there are negatives to 20mph limits, except for slight references to the Safespeeding idea that speed limits make driving standards worse. An argument which falls at the first hurdle.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You're not really interested in what I have to say, you're more interested in what you have to say - and the only thing you appear to be able to talk about starts with S and ends with D. You're quite obsessed with it. Not once have I seen you mention awareness, observation, or anticipation - three things which have a much greater impact on general road safety than anything else.

Its been interesting to talk with people who have something to contribute, there are plenty here and a few who have taught me things I didn't know. I wouldn't count you as one of them Mister Paul.

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

As it happens, there is one juction and then one long, straight road between our house and the school. And the fact that the road is long and straight is exactly why it is inhabited by dangerous, selfish speeding drivers. And why, using your own definition, there is a victim to this crime.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well I just don't accept that it'd just magically be perfectly safe as soon as people started going under the speed limit. That's one area in which we'll have to agree to disagree.

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

Nothing is magically safe Bonj. But surely even you can see that a car passing at 50mph is completely different to a car passing at 20mph. Can't you? How can anyone with a sound mind disagree with that?

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

Mister Paul · June 2007

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

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul
And the circle goes back to the start again.

I'm still interested to know how 20mph limits don't improve road safety? Sure, they're localised, and there needs to be work alongside to improve driving standards, but there's no downside to them.

20mph limits are there to slow traffic in a particular area and so make that area safer. And they work.

20mph limits are not there to improve driving standards. No-one has ever suggested that this is their purpose, so arguing that they don't improve driving standards is pointless.

You've come up with no evidence yet that there are negatives to 20mph limits, except for slight references to the Safespeeding idea that speed limits make driving standards worse. An argument which falls at the first hurdle.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You're not really interested in what I have to say, you're more interested in what you have to say - and the only thing you appear to be able to talk about starts with S and ends with D. You're quite obsessed with it. Not once have I seen you mention awareness, observation, or anticipation - three things which have a much greater impact on general road safety than anything else.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Don't waste your fingers, cretin. Your attempts at insults wash straight off.

I am interested in what you have to say. Which is why I ask you questions about your position. Which you don't answer.

Instead you pop up on a cycling forum, dive straight into a discussion about speed, and then complain that people are discussing speed. You ignore the fact that I've agreed with you about poor drivings standards and the need to improve standards, but you still like to pretend that people who talk about speed are ignorant because they don't consider the other factors.

And if you read other threads on here, and one in particular which is currently ongoing, you'll see that there is plenty of focus on observation, awareness and anticipation.

You're obviously a Safespeeder. You ignore questions about whether you are a member, and if you weren't would ask what we were talking about. Complete giveaway mate.

And then you start, admittedly more subtly that usual, on the old, flawed SS arguments. Like the one you display above, that you can discuss all aspects of improving road safety as long as you don't try to suggest that speed has something to do with it.

You have to consider it all, cretin. You're right, focussing on speed alone is wrong. Which is why no-one on here does it. Apart from the SSers who pop over from time to time. Now, if you considered all of the issues central to road safety, which means acknowledging that speed is one of them, then you're on the road to getting somewhere. Refuse to, and you'll be stuck.

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

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

I'm still interested to know how 20mph limits don't improve road safety? Sure, they're localised, and there needs to be work alongside to improve driving standards, but there's no downside to them.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
So, question then, Paul. What would be the downside, if any, of a 5mph speed limit across the whole town, sorry, city?

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

Why would we need 5mph limits Bonj?

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

dondare · June 2007

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

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

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

You'll get no argument from me that many motorists aren't up to the standard they should be - where we probably diverge is on the subject of how you fix that problem. Some people (presumably Portsmouth councillors) think that a 20mph will help. Some people (myself and The Boss) think it won't.

But we both want the same thing - safer drivers leading to safer roads.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I'm not going back through all your posts to find this out; do you advocate cycle-lanes or cycle-paths as one way of getting safer roads? Generally speaking that is.
How on earth do you propose to raise the standard of driving to such a high level that speed limits are unnecessary? That is something that will never happen.

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 Mister Paul

I'm still interested to know how 20mph limits don't improve road safety? Sure, they're localised, and there needs to be work alongside to improve driving standards, but there's no downside to them.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
So, question then, Paul. What would be the downside, if any, of a 5mph speed limit across the whole town, sorry, city?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
A road has it's maximum carrying capacity (for motor traffic) at about 18 mph. (And no I can't bl**dy prove it.) Anything under that would increase congestion because each vehicle would be spending so much time on the road. And at 5mph they'd be obstructing cyclists.

You're not the boss of me.

Mister Paul · June 2007

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

A road has it's maximum carrying capacity (for motor traffic) at about 18 mph. (And no I can't bl**dy prove it.) Anything under that would increase congestion because each vehicle would be spending so much time on the road. And at 5mph they'd be obstructing cyclists.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Yeah but no but yeah but....cars have to go at 30mph so that the traffic lights can stop them!! Don't you understand, fool?!

__________________________________________________________
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 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

As it happens, there is one juction and then one long, straight road between our house and the school. And the fact that the road is long and straight is exactly why it is inhabited by dangerous, selfish speeding drivers. And why, using your own definition, there is a victim to this crime.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well I just don't accept that it'd just magically be perfectly safe as soon as people started going under the speed limit. That's one area in which we'll have to agree to disagree.

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

Nothing is magically safe Bonj. But surely even you can see that a car passing at 50mph is completely different to a car passing at 20mph. Can't you? How can anyone with a sound mind disagree with that?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well, I agree that 50mph through a built-up area is going to be almost always dangerous, and shows disregard for others.
However I don't accept your viewpoint that it is ONLY dangerous for your lad to cycle to school 'because people speed'. There's idiot CYCLISTS that don't watch where they're going, there's the school run mum pootling along at 18mph in second but she's in a dirty great 4x4 with bull bars and she's not looking where she's going because she's turned round into the back seat trying to stop her kids squabbling.
Yes I agree that excessive speeding is dangerous and yes, ok - it can be intimidating, but don't pretend it's the ONLY reason why the roads aren't safe places for kids to cycle on.
Presumably when you're cycling with your son you ride behind him and slightly further out... does the presence of a lot of parked cars add to how difficult it makes this to ensure his safety? I don't know I've never done it as I'm not lucky enough to have kids, but I would imagine parked cars would make it a pain in the arse... we do it without thinking about it but to a small child it's a major manouevre.

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

I'm still interested to know how 20mph limits don't improve road safety? Sure, they're localised, and there needs to be work alongside to improve driving standards, but there's no downside to them.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
So, question then, Paul. What would be the downside, if any, of a 5mph speed limit across the whole town, sorry, city?

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

Why would we need 5mph limits Bonj?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Why would we need 20mph speed limits Paul?

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

<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

I'm still interested to know how 20mph limits don't improve road safety? Sure, they're localised, and there needs to be work alongside to improve driving standards, but there's no downside to them.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
So, question then, Paul. What would be the downside, if any, of a 5mph speed limit across the whole town, sorry, city?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
A road has it's maximum carrying capacity (for motor traffic) at about 18 mph. (And no I can't bl**dy prove it.) Anything under that would increase congestion because each vehicle would be spending so much time on the road. And at 5mph they'd be obstructing cyclists.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
So why not have a minimum speed on the roads of 18mph [:D] ?

And when I suggest a 5mph limit, by saying that cyclists would be obstructed, you automatically assume that cyclists would be exempt from the limit! And you accuse me of being the one who decides the law only applies to other people! [;D] Still, I think you're right - cyclists should be exempt, yet I don't think they'd be obstructed. Well, not too much anyway. I think it'd actually quite fun going through the middle of the lanes overtaking them all.

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

You're obviously a Safespeeder. You ignore questions about whether you are a member<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well what's the point in asking if you've already made your mind up?

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

<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

As it happens, there is one juction and then one long, straight road between our house and the school. And the fact that the road is long and straight is exactly why it is inhabited by dangerous, selfish speeding drivers. And why, using your own definition, there is a victim to this crime.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well I just don't accept that it'd just magically be perfectly safe as soon as people started going under the speed limit. That's one area in which we'll have to agree to disagree.

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

Nothing is magically safe Bonj. But surely even you can see that a car passing at 50mph is completely different to a car passing at 20mph. Can't you? How can anyone with a sound mind disagree with that?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well, I agree that 50mph through a built-up area is going to be almost always dangerous, and shows disregard for others.
However I don't accept your viewpoint that it is ONLY dangerous for your lad to cycle to school 'because people speed'. There's idiot CYCLISTS that don't watch where they're going, there's the school run mum pootling along at 18mph in second but she's in a dirty great 4x4 with bull bars and she's not looking where she's going because she's turned round into the back seat trying to stop her kids squabbling.
Yes I agree that excessive speeding is dangerous and yes, ok - it can be intimidating, but don't pretend it's the ONLY reason why the roads aren't safe places for kids to cycle on.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Whether or not you think it is irrelevant, but it is Bonj. Which is confirmed by the school and the LA. School runners aren't difficult to deal with because their slow speed when manoeuvring (?) and approaching the school. In this situation it is the speed which is the danger. Note my bold again. Not the only reason. I've never said that. But the decisive reason.

Come round one morning and I'll show you if you like.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

Presumably when you're cycling with your son you ride behind him and slightly further out... does the presence of a lot of parked cars add to how difficult it makes this to ensure his safety? I don't know I've never done it as I'm not lucky enough to have kids, but I would imagine parked cars would make it a pain in the arse... we do it without thinking about it but to a small child it's a major manouevre.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Not significantly, no.

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

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

<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

I'm still interested to know how 20mph limits don't improve road safety? Sure, they're localised, and there needs to be work alongside to improve driving standards, but there's no downside to them.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
So, question then, Paul. What would be the downside, if any, of a 5mph speed limit across the whole town, sorry, city?

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

Why would we need 5mph limits Bonj?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Why would we need 20mph speed limits Paul?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Because of the benefits Bonj.

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

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dondare
But we both want the same thing - safer drivers leading to safer roads.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I'm not going back through all your posts to find this out; do you advocate cycle-lanes or cycle-paths as one way of getting safer roads? Generally speaking that is.
How on earth do you propose to raise the standard of driving to such a high level that speed limits are unnecessary? That is something that will never happen.
[/quote]

Roads aren't intrinsically unsafe - bad drivers are. Cycle lanes or paths just separate the cyclists and drivers, they may reduce the risk to either group but they don't eliminate the bad driving (or cycling for that matter).

I'm not saying that speed limits are unnecessary, sometimes if set reasonably they can be a useful indicator of the kind of environment you're driving through/into. I just think they're a very minor part of road safety.

Driving standards in this country are actually pretty high compared to a lot of other countries, especially on the continent - and I've done a fair bit of driving across the world. They're still not good enough though, and I think more traffic police, advanced training and regular retesting with financial incentives offered to those who hold an advanced driving certificate, would be an ideal start. I don't think this is too much to ask, and I certainly wouldn't mind paying for it as I believe insurance claims would soon start to drop.

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul
Don't waste your fingers, cretin. Your attempts at insults wash straight off.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I wouldn't be insulted if someone told me the truth. And my membership of any other forums has no bearing on this discussion, which is why if you ask me again, I may turn you into a Newt. You'll get better though.

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

Whether or not you think it is irrelevant, but it is Bonj. Which is confirmed by the school and the LA. School runners aren't difficult to deal with because their slow speed when manoeuvring (?) and approaching the school. In this situation it is the speed which is the danger. Note my bold again. Not the only reason. I've never said that. But the decisive reason.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
If you say so. But I still agree with Cretin that speeding is only a part of road safety, and I still don't agree with hidden speed cameras.

Mister Paul · June 2007

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

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul
Don't waste your fingers, cretin. Your attempts at insults wash straight off.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I wouldn't be insulted if someone told me the truth. And my membership of any other forums has no bearing on this discussion, which is why if you ask me again, I may turn you into a Newt. You'll get better though.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Of course it has a bearing, cretin. You are the company that you keep.

I've been nothing but truthful on here. You claim otherwise because you've got nowhere else to go. You make statements and then when asked to justify them ignore the questions. that's not good debating mate.

There's no harm in 20mph limits. There are valuable benefits. You need to accept that they were never intended as measures to improve driving standards. They do nothing to worsen driving standards. You link the two to try to dismiss the limits, again because you have nowhere else to go. You have refused to offer a valid argument against 20mph limits, despite being asked several times.

Your debating style leaves much to be desired.

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

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

Whether or not you think it is irrelevant, but it is Bonj. Which is confirmed by the school and the LA. School runners aren't difficult to deal with because their slow speed when manoeuvring (?) and approaching the school. In this situation it is the speed which is the danger. Note my bold again. Not the only reason. I've never said that. But the decisive reason.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
If you say so. But I still agree with Cretin that speeding is only a part of road safety, and I still don't agree with hidden speed cameras.

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

And so does everyone else here.

Where does the hidden speed camera comment come from?? What's wrong with them?

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

dondare · June 2007

How would a minimum limit of 18 mph help?
Cyclists are exempt from speed limits.

School-run mums drive their kids to school in APCs to protect them from speeding motorists. If the limit was low and rigourously enforced then we'd see more kids cycling and walking and fewer war-waggons.

You're not the boss of me.

dondare · June 2007

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

Roads aren't intrinsically unsafe - bad drivers are. Cycle lanes or paths just separate the cyclists and drivers, they may reduce the risk to either group but they don't eliminate the bad driving (or cycling for that matter).

I'm not saying that speed limits are unnecessary, sometimes if set reasonably they can be a useful indicator of the kind of environment you're driving through/into. I just think they're a very minor part of road safety.

Driving standards in this country are actually pretty high compared to a lot of other countries, especially on the continent - and I've done a fair bit of driving across the world. They're still not good enough though, and I think more traffic police, advanced training and regular retesting with financial incentives offered to those who hold an advanced driving certificate, would be an ideal start. I don't think this is too much to ask, and I certainly wouldn't mind paying for it as I believe insurance claims would soon start to drop.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Cycle-lanes and paths: for or against?

Given the rate at which Europeans are flooding into this country and driving like they're invading Poland (Godwin's Law) there is no hope whatsoever of raising standards. The best hope we have is to force them to drive slowly.

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

There's no harm in 20mph limits.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
So why do you think people oppose them then? Is it because they all think it's such a big thrill driving at the breakneck speed of 30mph?

Portsmouth = 1st city with a blanket 20mph limit

Comments

Categories