Manual for streets / 20mph limits.

Throbbe

tomstickland wrote: »

Removing the white lines from the centre of the road makes a lot of difference.

It does, but the effect wears off in time as regular road users get used to it. The same is true of most 'visual' traffic calming, like gateways.

I'm quite impressed with the Manual for Streets, using it in a professional capacity. As you (and others) say, speed limits need to be self enforcing or they'll be almost entirely ignored.

headpin

rog2 wrote: »

.........
Unfortunately, in March of this year, an 84 year old lady, who had lived all her life in the village, tried to negociate her way around one of these 'passing trade' lorries to get accross to the shop to buy milk - she was hit, and killed, by another lorry driver, whose visibility had been 'impaired' by the parked lorry.
We now have our pedestrian crossing.

Unfortunate and sad as it is, the old lady was the issue here not the parked lorry(ies) or speed limit.

At 84 she should well have known her highway code and the “advice” of not attempting to cross near or between parked vehicles. It is not safe to do so. She should have put herself in a situation where she could see the road clearly and where road users could see her. She was trying to save time and her actions were clearly responsible for the shocking consequences.

What is very often never mentioned, if ever at all, is the actions of pedestrians in accidents. Many accidents involving pedestrians are as a direct result of their own behaviour. You only have to drive a few miles to see pedestrians who think they can step off the kerb without checking the prevailing traffic conditions and their environment. Roads are safe if everyone pays attention to their surroundings. Drivers have the safety of a metal box. Pedestrians do not and yet they often act as if they are invincible.

In many respects this is the fault of parents and of the current way children are transported everywhere by car. By being ferried everywhere by car very few now have any road sense or understand the potential hazards on the road. They do not realise that roads are dangerous and treat them as just another piece of harmless tarmac. If they are unlucky they will find that is not so.

It is a fact that it is not speed that is the problem, but inappropriate speed. In my opinion if motorists were treated as being sensible we would be better off. There will always be the idiots who travel too fast for the conditions regardless of what the limit may be. Remember, most limits have no scientific basis are facts to back them up. They are called for by groups of people, usually as a reaction to something that has happened as a result of inappropriate speed. Of course a lower limit would probable have had no affect as the driver would still have taken absolutely no notice of it. Really the speed reduction is just a knee jerk reaction.

Hintza

I would much prefer a 20mph speed limit to the teeth jarring speed humps they have put in on our local main street. Our council have also reduced road width by extending the pavement out for bus stops on each side. Now if two buses stop their is total grid lock. Parking spaces have been reduced whereby it is very hard to park now.

I only go into town for the Post Office and to be honest I now prefer to travel elsewhere rather than get messed around. I suspect that the few shops remaining will not be in business for much longer.

Apparently the reasoning was to stop the boy racers at night!! What about proper policing instead. (The police station closed a few years ago so yopu never see one now, when you do they are just their to slap tickets on all the cars trying to get to the shops)

rog2

headpin wrote: »

Unfortunate and sad as it is, the old lady was the issue here not the parked lorry(ies) or speed limit.

I wasn't actually 'trying' to apportion 'blame' and I'm sorry if my post came accross that way.
The point was that it actually took a pedestrian's death for the council to realise that proper measures, such as pedestrian controlled electronic crossing lights are the only real measures for 'slowing' the traffic - changing the 'speed' limit from 40 to 30 made virtually no difference whatsoever - other than the additional 'revenue' collected by the 'Safety Partnership' mobile speed camera which seems, now, to have taken up residence in the local pub car park.
I have to say, though, that at 84 an old lady, who incidentally had never driven a car in her life, can be forgiven if she is not 100% au fait with the Highway Code.
Nor would it have been expecting too much for any lorry, either then or now, to have parked in such a way that they were not causing a potential obstruction - I should add that there is a foot path to the local school and housing estate which comes out opposite the local shop and, until the introduction of the pedestrian crossing was often blocked by 'passing customers', whether lorries or cars, making it difficult for pedestrians to pass, other than by going on to the road.

rog2

Hintza wrote: »

Apparently the reasoning was to stop the boy racers at night!! What about proper policing instead. (The police station closed a few years ago so yopu never see one now, when you do they are just their to slap tickets on all the cars trying to get to the shops)

Hence the name - 'Sleeping Policemen'. :rotfl: :rotfl:

epninety

tomstickland wrote: »

One of my pet hates is the obsession with 20 limits magically making roads safer. Properly designed road layout and shared space schemes can achieve this, but changing road signs from 30 to 20 achieves virtually nothing IMO.

Great link tomstickland, fascinating reading, and I do rather agree about the magic 20mph cures. Around here the council has gone in for 20mph zones in a big way (some not entirely legal I now know from reading your link).
From my experience what's missing from the plans is any approach on controlling pedestrian behaviour. I know the current paradigm is that pedestrians and cyclists can do no wrong, but it makes a lot of the road planning a complete joke.

Theres a road I drive most days, dead straight and fairly wide, which the council has made a 20mph limit - fair enough. It also has 4 pedestrian crossings within about 200 yard distance. Apart from slowing the taxis from 40 to 30, the only effect I've noticed since the reworking is an increase in kids playing chicken, and more people just walking into the road instead of using the crossings).

I suspect there will have been an initial drop in accidents (caused by the changed circumstance making the regulars pay attention for a while) but overall the numbers will stay the same or even increase. I just feel sorry for the poor sod who hits one of the little gits who loiter at the crossings paying no attention and then dash out at the last second.

Every time they trot out 'accident statistics' as a reason for all this stuff, I'd just like someone to check their working out.

Right, putting my soapbox away now :rolleyes:

Debt_Free_Chick

rog2 wrote: »

The point was that it actually took a pedestrian's death for the council to realise that proper measures, such as pedestrian controlled electronic crossing lights are the only real measures for 'slowing' the traffic - changing the 'speed' limit from 40 to 30 made virtually no difference whatsoever

Interestingly, one of the statistics that Local and Central Government use to determine where money should be spent on things like crossings is the KSI - Killed or Seriously Injured.

The higher the KSI, the more likely the spot is to get some money thrown at it.

No KSI - no money. Hence the residents & Parish Council get lobbying!

tomstickland

Well, many thanks for an interesting and intelligent discussion. To balance it out we need someone to accuse posters of being car crazed speed freaks. Ideally they could also claim that lifes will be lost as a result.

Most of the local councillor blogs just seem to make the glib assumption that their campaigning is going to magically make their town safer. Of course, the most abused word of the times is "safe".

I hadn't really considered the Hawthorne effect of a change in street layout. The idea that pedestrians take less care makes sense; there's a compensationg effect. They think "20 limit, oh that's safe" and pay less attention. Whatever mode of transport I'm using, I'm always amazed at how little attention some people pay.

epninety

tomstickland wrote: »

Well, many thanks for an interesting and intelligent discussion. To balance it out we need someone to accuse posters of being car crazed speed freaks. Ideally they could also claim that lifes will be lost as a result.

Ah, but that would be countered by one of the accused 'car crazy speed freaks' invoking Godwin's law, and bringing an enjoyable discussion to a close. :rolleyes:

rog2

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

The higher the KSI, the more likely the spot is to get some money thrown at it.

No KSI - no money. Hence the residents & Parish Council get lobbying!

Should we, then, seriously consider 'sacrificing' oldies in order to get money 'thrown' at the roads? :rotfl: :rotfl:

The 'system' is a mess. :mad: