Morons reducing speed limits

[Hyper]

Am i the only one who thought his post was a joke? Who survives a hit at 50mph?

My post was far from a joke,

It was in the local newspapers,

He felt ill so put the window down in the taxi but the taxi driver said it was too cold so put it back up. The road was very twisty and there was no paths on either side so the taxi could not stop. After a few minutes my mate ended up being sick all over me and him and the taxi stopped right away and told him to just get out (even though before hand he had stated he could not stop because the road was dark, had no paths and was full of blind corners).

So my mate stepped out (unwillingly) and was hit by another car at 50mph, he rolled over the bonnet of the car, hit the front window and was flung into the air but was very lucky.

I know it was not the brightest move in the world but still these things happen and he was lucky that the car wasnt going any faster.

 

[rypt]

I know it was not the brightest move in the world but still these things happen and he was lucky that the car wasnt going any faster.

Those things should not happen to anyone with half a brain, next time perhaps he wont drink quite so much.

but a month after, a boy got hit by a car while trying to do jumps over the bumps on his bike

Just shows you, speed bumps cause accidents.

 

[Justintime]

One thing I've thought about with this 'lowering' of NSL roads to 50mph, although this means cars now have to do 50 instead of 60, surely it now means HGVs can do 50 instead of 40? Would've thought this would be a lot more dangerous/risky??

No. HGVs are still limited to their own speed laws AFAIK.

 

[TreeTops]

Don't often post in here, but this news story really resonates with some of the feelings on here:

http://www.thisistamworth.co.uk/new...peed-signs/article-650403-detail/article.html

 

[Overlag]

Don't often post in here, but this news story really resonates with some of the feelings on here:

http://www.thisistamworth.co.uk/new...peed-signs/article-650403-detail/article.html

haha quality

 

[MikeHunt79]

Don't often post in here, but this news story really resonates with some of the feelings on here:

http://www.thisistamworth.co.uk/new...peed-signs/article-650403-detail/article.html

Makes you wonder tho, £5k to swap some signs over, it'll take an hour at the most, no wonder council tax is so much!

 

[Tute]

Well no, you just slow down for the cameras.

I certainly don't see a lot of people doing so. The buses don't for starters.

This week a spokesman from Warwickshire County Council confirmed that an investigation is ongoing.

An investigation into someone changing signs. THAT'S why the council tax is high, to pay for wastes of time like this.

 

[[TW]Fox]

I certainly don't see a lot of people doing so. The buses don't for starters.

I drive that road twice a day every day, everyone slows down for the cameras.

 

[Durzel]

There's a road near where I work which is NSL, and you would have to be literally insane to do NSL down it - it's one track with high trees either side, zero visibility of what's coming towards you until it's there etc. I went down it once as it's a shortcut to work, I would've killed myself if I had gone 60 down it.

I'll have to remember to get a pic of it.

 

[Muffin`]

Don't often post in here, but this news story really resonates with some of the feelings on here:

http://www.thisistamworth.co.uk/new...peed-signs/article-650403-detail/article.html

The original speed limit was the correct one. At odd spots some warning signs were all that was necessary. The constant decreasing of speed limits is political dogma unconnected to road safety. And, no, it wasn't me that altered the signs. But if it was me I'm sure it wouldn't have cost me more than a couple of hundred pounds, at most, to do it - not even if I employed somebody. Spending £5000 public money to change the signs back seems to me more like vindictive larceny by Warwickshire Highways Dept. against local taxpayers.

Legend, I want people like him on my council.

 

[Smithy]

reason? People walking across the dual carriageway died. well DUH, they shouldn't be walking on a dual carriageway should they?

But people do. Whether you believe it to be moronic or not.

So what's your solution? Just to shrug your shoulders and say "oh well, he was an idiot for doing it" every time someone dies, or take the initiative and do something about it?

It's extremely self-centered to believe these changes are made purely to **** you off. When are people going to look beyond their own inconvenienced selves and see that some good may come of these changes?

 

[Dolph]

But people do. Whether you believe it to be moronic or not.

So what's your solution? Just to shrug your shoulders and say "oh well, he was an idiot for doing it" every time someone dies, or take the initiative and do something about it?

Common sense would suggest a bridge or subway is the solution if people commonly need to cross the road. Failing that, teach the idiots where to find a safe place to cross.

It's extremely self-centered to believe these changes are made purely to **** you off. When are people going to look beyond their own inconvenienced selves and see that some good may come of these changes?

That applies far more to idiot pedestrians who think cars have to give way regardless of how stupidly they throw themselves into a busy road than anyone else mentioned in this thread.

 

[Smithy]

Common sense would suggest a bridge or subway is the solution if people commonly need to cross the road. Failing that, teach the idiots where to find a safe place to cross.

I take it your argument isn't about what's going to cost you more as a tax payer then? Since you would apparently have your council spend £x00,000 on a bridge instead of you leaving for work 5 minutes earlier.

That applies far more to idiot pedestrians who think cars have to give way regardless of how stupidly they throw themselves into a busy road than anyone else mentioned in this thread.

Again, you're of the opinion that these changes are coming in to place to protect the idiots of our society and to inconvenience yourself. You're not even attempting to see how this could benefit considerate pedestrians.

 

[rypt]

Again, you're of the opinion that these changes are coming in to place to protect the idiots of our society and to inconvenience yourself. You're not even attempting to see how this could benefit considerate pedestrians.

Considerate pedestrians would cross at a designated crossing. Plenty of the roads getting lower speedlimits have no pedestrians on them seeing as they have no sidewalk (so they are not designed for pedestrians). Others have ample pedestrian space.

And plenty of speed limits are set randomly, both old and new

looky here for example

The road approaching the roundabout from the right is a 70 (not shown on pic) down to 50 then down to 30. (leaving roundabout is the same but in reverse).
The road leaving the roundabout upwards is a 70
The road leaving the roundabout downwards is a 50

Now IF you were to closely look at the 3 roads, they are all virtually the same. Dual lane, no facing houses

A few stretches of some of the roads could be 50 due to ahving lights, but large sections have no traffic lights and should be 70




Here is the 60->40 road I was talking about earlier
clicky


For years this was a 60 from the point where you enter the picture on the left. Overnight it was changed to a 40 up to where the carpark is on the right, where it becomes a 60 now.
The car park has been there for many many years, so why it is that for all those years it was deemed safe enough as a 60?

 

[Overlag]

But people do. Whether you believe it to be moronic or not.

So what's your solution? Just to shrug your shoulders and say "oh well, he was an idiot for doing it" every time someone dies, or take the initiative and do something about it?

It's extremely self-centered to believe these changes are made purely to **** you off. When are people going to look beyond their own inconvenienced selves and see that some good may come of these changes?

in america people get fines for walking around on roads. IF someone crossed a motorway in england, they will also get a fine. if someone does the same on a dual carraigeway (which DOESNT have paths either side like some do) then they should be fined also.

if they die, well good, then they should show kids what happens when you "play" with cars.

 

[Dolph]

I take it your argument isn't about what's going to cost you more as a tax payer then? Since you would apparently have your council spend £x00,000 on a bridge instead of you leaving for work 5 minutes earlier.

I'm concerned with sensible road safety measures. Cutting my speed will not, in the slightest, prevent 95% of accidents (see the TrL figures), and so the focus on speeding is stupid and pointless.

The best way to prevent pedestrian/car casualities is to ensure that the two meet rarely. Given the amount of legalised theft that goes in to the NHS to repair the injuries suffered by people with no road sense, I'd say it's more than likely going to pay for itself quite happily.

Again, you're of the opinion that these changes are coming in to place to protect the idiots of our society and to inconvenience yourself. You're not even attempting to see how this could benefit considerate pedestrians.

Pedestrians should not be in the road, pavements are for pedestrians, roads are for cars, and they should cross as little as possible. Putting these measures into place will benefit pedestrians a lot, lot more.

 

[thevet]

re

its been like this in birmingham for years....i would get used to it getting worse if i was you

 

[Smithy]

if they die, well good, then they should show kids what happens when you "play" with cars.

An appalling attitude.

Though I suspect it isn't your true feeling. It's easy to type something like that without having to put much thought into it. Such is the nature of internet forums.

Would you feel no guilt or remorse for killing someone because they were careless for a split second? If not, the direction of which the 'moron' accusation is pointed at in this thread seems questionable.

While thinking about the above. Consider that you could have stopped your vehicle 40 metres earlier had you been travelling at 50 instead of 70.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Consider that you could have stopped your vehicle 40 metres earlier had you been travelling at 50 instead of 70.

Consider that if the kid wasnt in the road in the first place there would be no accident. Why does road safety focus on the law abiding driver?

 

[Smithy]

I'm concerned with sensible road safety measures. Cutting my speed will not, in the slightest, prevent 95% of accidents (see the TrL figures), and so the focus on speeding is stupid and pointless.

Are you refuting the claim that reducing your speed could have an outcome on whether you hit the person crossing the road or not?

The best way to prevent pedestrian/car casualities is to ensure that the two meet rarely. Given the amount of legalised theft that goes in to the NHS to repair the injuries suffered by people with no road sense, I'd say it's more than likely going to pay for itself quite happily.

Pedestrians should not be in the road, pavements are for pedestrians, roads are for cars, and they should cross as little as possible. Putting these measures into place will benefit pedestrians a lot, lot more.

Your ideals would work fine in a perfect world. However we live in a world where humans are prone to making poor/careless decisions. This applies also to pedestrians. Especially those who aren't of sound mind and judgement.

Since keeping pedestrians off the road is an impossibility, we as responsible road users should take every precaution necessary to ensure that if in the rare instance we do come across a midnight road wanderer, we are capable to avoid an accident. There is no doubt in my mind that a reduced speed would aid our capability.