On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 18:56:48 -0000, Martin Underwood wrote:


Yes, a lot of main roads near where I live (Oxfordshire) have recently been
downgraded to 50 (or are about to be downgraded) "to reduce the number of
traffic accidents". This is solving the right problem in the wrong way: to
avoid collisions, you need to penalise the person who *causes* the accident,
typically a driver who is on a minor road who pulls out into fast-moving
traffic without assessing its speed or the pedestrian who crosses the road
without regard for the traffic, rather than penalising (by imposing a
draconian speed limit) the driver who is in the right and who has priority.


I'd agree with that if it weren't for the fact that one party (the
pedestrian) is an entire magnitude more vulnerable than the other. One is
carrying round has a set of fragile bones at a maximum of about 4mph, the
other several hundredweight of speeding metal. If you are in charge of such
an object then I think you should accept that the restrictions placed upon
the motorist are going to be greater than those placed on pedestrians.


Children are a special case, and a 40, 30 or even 20 limit is sensible (with
the level set according to the amount of segregation between pavement and
road) but otherwise the onus is on the pedestrians or the drivers on side
roads to make sure that they do not cause accidents. Any fool can reduce
*the effect of* accidents by cutting speed limits, but driver/pedestrian
training is the clever solution.

I'd be in favour of that. As someone else has said later in teh thread,
there's not much post-test training available for drivers.

it's when that driver would choose to drive at 20 mph or more above
the actual limit that you get problems with non-compliance. Penalise the
serious offenders who think it's safe to drive at 100 on a single
carriageway or 60 in a built-up area with parked cars and the likelihood of
children emerging from behind them; don't penalise those who drive at 40 in
a 30 zone where there is good visibility of hazards.

But then, you could argue that you need to set a deliberately cautious
speed limit, to take account of lapses of concentration, mechanical
failure, unpredictable road conditions, and oncoming idiots. The number of
times I've had close shaves on my bike on roads like the ones you've
described, where I'm at a total loss as to why, in perfect conditions, and
wearing my fetching flourescent jacket, a driver has obviously failed to
see me until the last minute.

--
Cliff Laine, The Old Lard Factory, Lancaster http://www.loobynet.com
* remove any trace of rudeness before you reply *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using words well is a social virtue. Use 'fortuitous' once more to
mean 'fortunate' and you move an English word another step towards
the dustbin. If your mistake took hold, no one who valued clarity
would be able to use the word again.

John Whale