More lunacy from the Council

[melias shoes]

Anyone capable of controlling a career should be able to maintain 20 in 4th. Just because the limit is lower it doesn't mean you have to use more RPM, unless you are riding the clutch.

your engine won't like it.trust me.

 

[Woodchip]

your engine won't like it.trust me.

You driving a Ferrari or a lotus?

I'd highly recommend you go on an IAM course.

 

[melias shoes]

You driving a Ferrari or a lotus?

I'd highly recommend you go on an IAM course.

Ferrari. thanks for the advice.

 

[wellquickwoody]

That includes the 3 year old who loses their life?

Yeh, you're alright Jack, you miserable excuse for humanity

But what about the children?

 

[Easy 10]

Disagree.

Some people have the attitude that because they can drive at 30mph, they will, irrespective of enforceability, and irrespective of whether it's safe or not. I think in some places where there is no 30mph limit, a 20mph limit is necessary - some streets adjacent to me for instance. If £1.5m over four years saves one life on the back of this rule (some rules can be self-enforced), I think it's money well spent. I suspect it will save many more than one - and prevent more accidents. Unless you think this isn't a price worth paying?

I agree it's true that some people will drive at whatever speed they like, an enforced or unenforced limit won't make any difference. But they're beyond the pale. Face it, taking away the human costs (even though that the central issue here), even from a legal perspective - knocking down someone at 30mph is bad enough, knocking down someone at 30mph in a 20mph zone - double bad news. Therefore, I believe there will be a hefty dose of self-enforcement - aside from the afore-mentioned idiots.

Oh please, PLEASE don't give me the tired old "if is saves one life" argument. If we follow that logic to its conclusion, the car will be cancelled completely, and we'll all be moving around in hessian-weaved cushioned carriages drawn by 500 voles at 6mph.

Bottom line - 30mph is a perfectly safe speed if its not an utter spacko behind the wheel. And if it IS a spacko, an (uninforcable) 10mph difference ain't gonna mean jack, because a spack will hit something regardless, and almost certainly won't be doing 20 anyway.

 

[The Large One]

Oh please, PLEASE don't give me the tired old "if is saves one life" argument. If we follow that logic to its conclusion, the car will be cancelled completely, and we'll all be moving around in hessian-weaved cushioned carriages drawn by 500 voles at 6mph.

Bottom line - 30mph is a perfectly safe speed if its not an utter spacko behind the wheel. And if it IS a spacko, an (uninforcable) 10mph difference ain't gonna mean jack, because a spack will hit something regardless, and almost certainly won't be doing 20 anyway.

We're not following it to a conclusion. We're following it to slightly adjusting some people's behaviour.

0.2% of the council's budget is spent on this aspect of road safety - and you think it's a bad move?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

0.2% of the council's budget is spent on this aspect of road safety - and you think it's a bad move?

As opposed to funding Sure Start, getting homeless people places to live, funding care home places etc etc etc - yes it's a bad move. It's unproven as a safety measure ( it was only 3 or 4 years ago that there was a campaign to get people to drive at 30mph because THAT would save a life as there was a huge percentage chance that a child hit at 30 would survive while at 40mph they would die ). Far more lives can be improved for £1.5m that the hypothetical "1" life saved on a scheme that is not going to be enforced and isn't actually necessary as a majority of the city streets you would struggle to hit 30mph. Why spend money on something that effectively will make bugger all difference ?

 

[Easy 10]

We're not following it to a conclusion. We're following it to slightly adjusting some people's behaviour.

0.2% of the council's budget is spent on this aspect of road safety - and you think it's a bad move?

I do. Because it will achieve nothing except slowing down the 98% of drivers who drive sensibly in 30mph zones, whilst making absolutely NAFF-ALL difference to the 2% of dickheads who do what they want.

Plus, Norman Baker is in favour of it. Therefore it MUST be wrong. That is inarguable fact.

 

[queens park pete]

Average speed round town for this old cyclist runs from about 12-15mph. Genuine nutters "training" can average closer to 20, but this would appear to involve breaking the highway code which I try not to, for example by not using a phone like a significant minority of drivers. It is possible to beat 30 on safer long downhill stretches like Wilson Ave, but going in the other direction will bring you down to 5-8mph especiaaly if the wind is blowing the wrong way.

Cue loads of egotists trumping these safe and sensible average speeds- the same mentality shared by prat drivers and prat cyclists,shame we can't keep both these prats off the streets.

 

[BadFish]

you try driving at 20 mph in 4th or 5th gear, Good luck!

Every time I pass a school zone slow down without changing down, no problems at al.

Even my automatic doesn't feel the need to change down.

 

[BadFish]

Oh please, PLEASE don't give me the tired old "if is saves one life" argument. If we follow that logic to its conclusion, the car will be cancelled completely, and we'll all be moving around in hessian-weaved cushioned carriages drawn by 500 voles at 6mph.

Bottom line - 30mph is a perfectly safe speed if its not an utter spacko behind the wheel. And if it IS a spacko, an (uninforcable) 10mph difference ain't gonna mean jack, because a spack will hit something regardless, and almost certainly won't be doing 20 anyway.

There has been plenty of research done in Australia showing the difference in the effects of hitting someone at 30mph compared to 20mph. According to this research that 10mph makes a huge difference.

Speed Matters

There are many reasons why higher speed has a major influence on safety:

greater distance is needed to stop a vehicle in order to avoid a crash
there is less time to react to quickly changing road and traffic conditions and make the right decisions
dangerous situations can arise more easily, for example, a vehicle veering onto an unsealed shoulder of the road and the driver losing all control
the time to react to critical errors that other drivers make or respond correctly to emergencies is reduced.

In crashes at higher speeds:

the body is subjected to greater physical forces that will cause severe injury or death
the protection that seat belts and air bags are designed to provide is reduced
pedestrians and bicyclists will almost certainly be killed if struck by a vehicle at higher speeds - and severely injured even at relatively low speeds.

http://www.tacsafety.com.au/jsp/content/NavigationController.do?areaID=13&tierID=2&navID=91BE41FD7F0000010002585EF287344F&navLink=null&pageID=179

 

[Super Steve Earle]

There has been plenty of research done in Australia showing the difference in the effects of hitting someone at 30mph compared to 20mph. According to this research that 10mph makes a huge difference.

Speed Matters

There are many reasons why higher speed has a major influence on safety:

greater distance is needed to stop a vehicle in order to avoid a crash
there is less time to react to quickly changing road and traffic conditions and make the right decisions
dangerous situations can arise more easily, for example, a vehicle veering onto an unsealed shoulder of the road and the driver losing all control
the time to react to critical errors that other drivers make or respond correctly to emergencies is reduced.

In crashes at higher speeds:

the body is subjected to greater physical forces that will cause severe injury or death
the protection that seat belts and air bags are designed to provide is reduced
pedestrians and bicyclists will almost certainly be killed if struck by a vehicle at higher speeds - and severely injured even at relatively low speeds.

http://www.tacsafety.com.au/jsp/content/NavigationController.do?areaID=13&tierID=2&navID=91BE41FD7F0000010002585EF287344F&navLink=null&pageID=179

All very well, but most people don't have crashes or hit people.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

All very well, but most people don't have crashes or hit people.

Good point. Identify the people who are going to crash or hit someone and make them drive at 20mph. Sorted.

 

[BadFish]

All very well, but most people don't have crashes or hit people.

Brilliant.

 

[DumLum]

Heard council vote takes place today?

20mph limit in following boundaries:

North: Old Shorham Road
East: Sussex county Hospital
South: A259
West: Sackville Road Hove

 

[The Birdman]

Lets face it Brighton will be a no go area for cars. Brighton needs to build a subway?

 

[Tory Boy]

The madness from this Green Council continues.

TB

 

[severnside gull]

Lets face it Brighton will be a no go area for cars. Brighton needs to build a subway?

a moat filled with water to further deter visitors might be more aopropriate


Chris Evans on Radio 2 ripping the council a new one this morning over concreting holes at Rottingdean golf course

 

[albion534]

This election needs to hurry up

Wonder if they are gonna clamp down on cyclists going through red lights! OR if one does and gets hit by a car, blame the car?

 

[The Large One]

This election needs to hurry up

Wonder if they are gonna clamp down on cyclists going through red lights! OR if one does and gets hit by a car, blame the car?

Not exactly Mr Current Affairs, are you?