Jump to content

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, march46 said:

It’s all deflection from the seriousness of road danger.

Yes, the joke that someone made and the fact people posted it here and tried to draw attention to said joke is definitely deflecting from the seriousness of road danger. Hey, let's all laugh at the car on the wall that could have killed someone - honestly....

  • Like 1
1 hour ago, Rockets said:

Yes, the joke that someone made and the fact people posted it here and tried to draw attention to said joke is definitely deflecting from the seriousness of road danger. Hey, let's all laugh at the car on the wall that could have killed someone - honestly....

What are you on about now?

The original post made no joke if it:

the blue sky post makes a comment about how illegal driving was now happening in real life on Lordship Lane.

Perhaps ask your children what GTA IRL means? 

Police catching motorists doing 90mph on 30mph roads - BBC News

Almost half of UK police forces have caught motorists driving more than 90mph (144km/h) on 30mph roads in the 20 months to the end of August, the RAC says.

A total of 48% of forces found drivers going more than three times the 30mph limit, while 90% had clocked people driving at 60mph.

23 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Police catching motorists doing 90mph on 30mph roads - BBC News

Almost half of UK police forces have caught motorists driving more than 90mph (144km/h) on 30mph roads in the 20 months to the end of August, the RAC says.

A total of 48% of forces found drivers going more than three times the 30mph limit, while 90% had clocked people driving at 60mph.

Any minute now, those deeply concerned about fast pedalling cyclists, will be voicing their ideas on how we address the fact that 90% of UK police forces have clocked people driving cars at 60mph and over, in 30mph zones.

Edited by Earl Aelfheah
21 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

on how we address the fact that 90% of UK police forces have clocked people driving cars at 60mph and over, in 30mph zones.

What is not clear from the reports is what proportion of drivers are driving so recklessly? Any who do so should of course be prosecuted, this has nothing to do with carelessly drifting over a limit by a few mph but is clearly a willful breaking of the law in a reckless manner. But how many and with what frequency? The way this is being reported here is lots and all the time, but I suspect this isn't so. 

But this doesn't say by how much. The figures being quoted were for drivers doing double or more the relevant limit, which is clearly awful, but people doing 80 in a 70 mph limit, or 35 in a 30 limit, or 25 in a 20 limit are also breaking the law, but not, I would suggest, quite as awfully. 

Deleted earlier post as it repeated what Snowy had attached.

Drawing from this: The proportion of cars exceeding the speed limit by over 10mph on 30mph roads was
5%, whilst 1% and 11% exceeded the speed limit by more than 10mph on NSL single carriageway roads and motorways respectively.  That is 40 mph, 70 mph and 80 mph.  One could argue that motorways have much less collisions than other roads so the latter is the least concern, certainly to those of us living in cities,

There is no longer a rule of thumb that you can exceed speed limits by 10% and it is fine, this goes back to the accuracy of speedometers from another age, If you were done for 22 mph in a 20 zone (as you will be) then you would have to pay to show that your speedo was under by 10% (which it wont be).

I've attached a table on speed distribution showing a sizeable number exceed the speed limit by 5mph or more. 

Figure1-Cars.svg

Further (according to the road safety charity Brake) : 

A vehicle travelling at 20mph would stop in time to avoid a child running out three car-lengths in front. The same vehicle travelling at 25mph would not be able to stop in time, and would hit the child at 18mph. This is roughly the same impact as a child falling from an upstairs window.

The greater the impact speed, the greater the chance of death. A pedestrian hit at 30mph has a very significant (one in five) chance of being killed. This rises significantly to a one in three chance if they are hit at 35mph. Even small increases in speed can lead to an increase in impact severity.

So if we judge 35 mph as being 'dangerous' in a 30 mph then around 15 percent of drivers on these roads are dangerous.

All this of course gives greater credibility to 20 mph zones.

 

Edited by malumbu

More than half of UK drivers believe there is a culture of it being OK to break the speed limit. I would agree. Excessive speeding now commonplace on UK roads | RAC Drive

According to the DfT: “under free-flowing conditions, 44% of cars exceeded the speed limit on 30 mph roads”

So picture is one of frequent / regular speeding, with some examples of really extreme speeds. Overall it appears (and a majority of drivers agree), that there is a culture of speeding being considered acceptable.

Edited by Earl Aelfheah

This is a bit disingenuous, firstly this is a forum where we can share opinions and secondly views like mine are often supported by reports and data.

There is a lot of reactionary stuff on the transport part of this forum and an awful lot of complaining.  At times some of us try to provide some balance.

  • Agree 2
5 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

Perhaps read back on your collected works, as a start? ... I'm guessing that's where the comment was pointed, inter alia. 

Ok, so you think I've talked down to people. Perhaps it would be fair to provide an example. It's interesting how people rant in really general terms about 'cyclists', make wild claims with zero evidence to back them up, but as soon as one tries to discuss the danger motor vehicles represent, using data, it's 'talking down to everyone'. 

This is the problem, speeding and dangerous driving is completely normalised.

  • Agree 3
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 3 months later...

Cycling down Crystal Palace Road this morning and a van just pulled out of a side road without looking, cutting straight in front of me. I swerved and braked, and they proceeded to shout at me. I was literally cycling straight down the road, wearing bright colours. Sometimes people look without seeing, and I’m always watching out for people like this; But the lack of an apology (or even neutral response) really annoyed me. The idea that you can just pull straight out in front of someone in a van and be annoyed at them displays a pretty incredible sense of entitlement. 

  • Haha 1
1 hour ago, alice said:

It’s funny because when you make a statement about a bad driver, it’s not ranting but when someone makes a statement about a bad cyclist it becomes ranting. What is the technical difference?

I am ranting a bit (more just complaining). It was annoying.

Perhaps you can say why you think I’ve suggested there is some sort of ‘technical difference’ / explain your response?

Edited by Earl Aelfheah

2 weeks ago a driver pulled out on Champion Hill without looking and narrowly missed a cyclist in front of me.  She didn't even acknowledge or apologise for her mistake.

This morning a van driver shot past me going down hill on Underhill, and then braked in front of me as he headed towards stationary traffic. I politely asked him what was the point of that.

There are in deed inconsiderate drivers everywhere

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • bizarre responses from everyone but Cancerian 🤷🏾‍♀️ As an LL resident surely a perfectly normal enquiry in that one might wish to know who to look out for if lawless/feral kids are wreaking havoc? any distinguishing marks on the perpetrators? presumably the objection is that a physical description might reveal the alleged culprits as non-white? (nothing else makes sense with this bourgeois over-sensitivity). same botched thinking that causes police descriptions of suspects on the loose to omit this info  (top way to protect the public / solve the crime) FYI i'm a mixed-race female and interested in THE TRUTH. hence, i want to protect myself & my family against criminals. so please DESCRIBE the physical appearance of criminals or suspected criminals to help to keep us safe. thankyou.  "underlying agenda... strange" 😂😂😂 strange agenda to wish to be safe in my community. well played 🤯   working the nightshift here & getting mildly obsessed/infuriated with the peculiar responses. someone please explain how wishing to be able to attempt to identify, physically, the perpetrator(s) of an alleged local assault is "strange", with an "agenda"? God help us. (wait... "God"? must be a far-right religious maniac) "Unless there were distinctive features such as unusual clothing, how is that going to identify them"... green & purple mohican with accompanying buffalo 🦬 horns through the nose might do it; or simply hairstyle, skin colour, sartorial outfit... 🤔 "and even if it did, what would be the point, without photographic evidence that they had done anything wrong?" eyewitness reports? 😏    
    • Unless they were wearing school uniform with name tags otherwise children do change their clothes you know. 
    • I'd also recommend Silvano for anyone in the area looking to learn automatic, having just passed first time with 5 minors. He's a very patient teacher and ensured I learned how to drive safely above all. 
    • You don't need to do the research. I had to know the numbers as a TV buyer. I analysed the potential advertising revenue and Channel Four didn't cover their costs. They had some nice 'Channel Four' signs when someone hit the ropes but, In all honesty, a lot a potential revenue was lost because most old knackers were pissed off because they couldn't perve at Carol Vorderman on 'Countdown'.       Sorry, cross-post. I was replying to Malumbu. Give me a minute, if you will. I listened to the first two sessions (today) on TMS and popped down to the pub for the evening one.   I do miss the days of Peter West, Richie Benaud and Tom Graveney on BBC2.   But, the BBC are at least putting on 'Today At The Test' on at around 7pm instead of after midnight.   And it was on the 10pm news.      
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...