Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
 

Just zis Guy, you know? ) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

It's more like telling someone a helmet will Save Their Life [tm]

True.

Very similar, also, to saying that religiously sticking to a speed lower
than some arbitrary number on the side of the road is safer than setting a
speed based on the conditions.

Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
 

On 23 Jun 2004 16:30:57 GMT, Adrian
wrote (more or less):

Just zis Guy, you know? ) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

It's more like telling someone a helmet will Save Their Life [tm]

True.

Very similar, also, to saying that religiously sticking to a speed lower
than some arbitrary number on the side of the road is safer than setting a
speed based on the conditions.

Of course these speed limits are not completely arbitrary as you
suggest, but vary depending on the conditions.

e.g. residential urban street 20mph, rural motorway 70mph

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
 

Gawnsoft ) gurgled
happily, sounding much like they were saying :

It's more like telling someone a helmet will Save Their Life [tm]

True.

Very similar, also, to saying that religiously sticking to a speed
lower than some arbitrary number on the side of the road is safer than
setting a speed based on the conditions.

Of course these speed limits are not completely arbitrary as you
suggest, but vary depending on the conditions.

No, they don't.

e.g. residential urban street 20mph, rural motorway 70mph

residential urban street at 8.40am in ****ing rain - 30mph
residential urban street at 2.30am, clear and dry - 30mph

Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
 

Adrian wrote:

Just zis Guy, you know? ) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

It's more like telling someone a helmet will Save Their Life [tm]

True.
Very similar, also, to saying that religiously sticking to a speed
lower than some arbitrary number on the side of the road is safer
than setting a speed based on the conditions.

I wonder who would do such a thing? I advocate a speed based on the
conditions and not more than the maximum of the posted limit, myself.

--
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
 

Adrian wrote:
Gawnsoft ) gurgled
happily, sounding much like they were saying :


It's more like telling someone a helmet will Save Their Life [tm]


True.

Very similar, also, to saying that religiously sticking to a speed
lower than some arbitrary number on the side of the road is safer than
setting a speed based on the conditions.



Of course these speed limits are not completely arbitrary as you
suggest, but vary depending on the conditions.


No, they don't.


e.g. residential urban street 20mph, rural motorway 70mph


residential urban street at 8.40am in ****ing rain - 30mph
residential urban street at 2.30am, clear and dry - 30mph

Round 'ere, residential urban street at 8.40am, ****ing rain, 40mph.
9pm, clear and dry, 50mph. (I know this to be the case because I made
tea and coffee for mr.plod camped on the side road, outside my front
door, and got 'whoops, here's your mugs back, we'll be back in a bit,
that one was doing 53'.)

Now, anyone think that 40 (which is the normal speed for most people
down this road) is appropriate, in the dry, for a road with parked cars
along each side, only enough room for one car to travel between them at
any time (so bi-directional traffic entails much ducking into gaps),
very poor visibility as to anything/kid between the cars, and a blind
corner half way along that's not sharp enough to make people slow down
enough (more than once there's been a head on and several very near
misses at that point), has kids playing around/crossing the road in the
evenings a lot?

Let alone 40+, which some drivers appear to think is fine. And that's
in the dry... they don't slow down for the rain... I drive down it at
25-30 a lot of the time, and get harassed by people that come flying up
behind me, obviously doing closer to 40 than 30. Apparently my ideas
don't agree with theirs, and they tend to be in the majority, I have to say.

There are no centre lines on this road, or speed limit signs (it's a 30,
it doesn't need them, which I'm in two minds about) and still the
buggers drive down it at 40 most of the time - I can't see that removing
what little markings there are (four side turnings) would slow people on
the section that doesn't have any. Humps *might just* slow the buggers
down though, to something approaching reasonable speeds for the road.
Quite why it doesn't have something of this ilk I'm not sure, since it
runs parallel to the main A road, and is used as a rat run by those too
impatient to wait, or incapable of adjusting the time they need to allow
for their journey, or perhaps just plain selfish in their insistance
that they should be able to get from A to B in the shortest possible
time at whatever speed they deem necessary to achieve this, regardless
of safety.

I'd love to see this road a 20, but I know the only difference that
would make would be to those who already driver closer to 30 than to 40
and 50 - the buggers that ignore the current limit and road conditions
aren't exactly going to be the ones that accept the limits are lower for
a good reason, are they. No, they'll be the ones that trot out the
mantra that they drive within the conditions of the situation rather
than the inflexible limits that don't take into account varying
conditions...

--


Velvet

Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
 

On 24/6/04 9:26 am, in article
, "Velvet"
wrote:

I can't see that removing
what little markings there are (four side turnings) would slow people on
the section that doesn't have any. Humps *might just* slow the buggers
down though, to something approaching reasonable speeds for the road.

Howabout redoing the priorities at the site turnings so that anyone going
straight on has to give way? Bad ascii art follows:


----------------------------------------------------


------------------------=========-------------------
| |
| |
| |
| |

goes to

----------------------------------------------------
||
||
------------------------ -------------------
| |
| |
| |
| |


Where double lines indicates a give way or stop.

Could even do a three way stop?


No road humps, but natural traffic calming by setting the priorities.


...d

Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
 

David Martin wrote:

On 24/6/04 9:26 am, in article
, "Velvet"
wrote:


I can't see that removing
what little markings there are (four side turnings) would slow people on
the section that doesn't have any. Humps *might just* slow the buggers
down though, to something approaching reasonable speeds for the road.


Howabout redoing the priorities at the site turnings so that anyone going
straight on has to give way? Bad ascii art follows:


----------------------------------------------------


------------------------=========-------------------
| |
| |
| |
| |

goes to

----------------------------------------------------
||
||
------------------------ -------------------
| |
| |
| |
| |


Where double lines indicates a give way or stop.

Could even do a three way stop?


No road humps, but natural traffic calming by setting the priorities.


..d



Might make a difference in the very short stretch where the junctions
are, but since they are all culdesacs the actual traffic coming out of
them is very low, and I'd imagine most would ignore the markings and
treat it as it is now - priority for those going straight ahead,
regardless of what the people coming out the side road do (who would
then gaily swing out into the path of erroneously oncoming traffic,
leading to many nasty accidents).

However, the rest of the road (fairly long, with no side turnings) would
continue to be a high-speed ratrun scenario that really *would* benefit
from speed humps.

Having heard article about speed humps this morning on the radio, was
rather appalled to hear that a driving organisation is against them
'because of the constant speeding up and braking that you have to do' -
any decent driver knows a constant reasonable speed can be kept over the
majority of sane speed humps, needing no braking, and very little
acceleration. Yes now and then there are bigger ones, but - guess what
- they're in there cos of the arseholes that fly over all the bumps
wrecking their car over the years in the process!

I've never had any problems negotiating speed humps at a reasonable yet
constant speed. There's no braking and accelerating required, just a
shame the majority of drivers seem to utterly lack this understanding,
really.


--


Velvet

Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
 

On 24 Jun 2004 07:05:35 GMT, Adrian
wrote (more or less):

Gawnsoft ) gurgled
happily, sounding much like they were saying :

It's more like telling someone a helmet will Save Their Life [tm]

True.

Very similar, also, to saying that religiously sticking to a speed
lower than some arbitrary number on the side of the road is safer than
setting a speed based on the conditions.

Of course these speed limits are not completely arbitrary as you
suggest, but vary depending on the conditions.

No, they don't.

e.g. residential urban street 20mph, rural motorway 70mph

residential urban street at 8.40am in ****ing rain - 30mph
residential urban street at 2.30am, clear and dry - 30mph

You seem to be mistaking 'speed limit' for 'minimum speed'


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
 

On 24 Jun 2004 07:05:35 GMT,
Adrian wrote:
Gawnsoft ) gurgled
happily, sounding much like they were saying :

It's more like telling someone a helmet will Save Their Life [tm]

True.

Very similar, also, to saying that religiously sticking to a speed
lower than some arbitrary number on the side of the road is safer than
setting a speed based on the conditions.

Of course these speed limits are not completely arbitrary as you
suggest, but vary depending on the conditions.

No, they don't.

e.g. residential urban street 20mph, rural motorway 70mph

residential urban street at 8.40am in ****ing rain - 30mph
Probably too fast but depends on the road.

residential urban street at 2.30am, clear and dry - 30mph
Definitely a maximum speed. People are trying to sleep and tyre
noise starts getting bad above about 25mph.

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
 

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 9:43:15 +0100, Grant Mason wrote
(in message ):

Probably depends on the location. Some roads have been made safer by
doing just that. Certianly the experience where roads have been
treated with lots of paint and signage has often been that drivers
simply speed up and the crash rate remains unchanged.

DfT research would appear to suggest otherwise.

A number of test villages covering 30, 40, 50 and 60 limits. A variety of
signage and paint changes. Every one resulted in lower mean and 85th
percentile speeds.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...dft_roads_5047
60-02.hcsp

There is a difference here. The study you quote is specifically about traffic
calming - a mix of reducing speed limits, reducing road widths, signage, road
markings etc. I would expect, in general, that if you lower the speed limit
AND give the appearance that it may be enforced then speeds are likely to
drop.

The argument though is about signage in general. For example, if you approach
a cross roads and road markings/signage clearly show that you have right of
way, then I say that the majority of drivers will pass through it faster than
if it has no road markings at all in which case the majority of drivers will
slow down as they preapre to 'negotiate' with the other road users who will
give way to whom.

Similarly, I believe that there are too mane, far too many, bend warnings
(for example). The majority of the bends being warned about are clearly
visible, yet drivers are conditioned to requiring the signs, and appear to
lose the capability of seeing bends for themselves when they aren't signed -
leading to yet more signs. At the same time, because there are so many
warning signs, drivers get used to just not taking any notice - and so bad
bends now require extra high visibility signs (big yellow backgrounds). Take
away all bend warnings EXCEPT where the bend or it's severity is not visible
and drivers would have to get used to looking through that piece of glass put
in front of them and observe if that grey/black strip they are on is going
off to one side !

Simon