Driving and Roads

[Black Hole]

In the dead of night I ignore the no-right-turn!

Tut-tut!

The no-right-turn is there for traffic flow management when there is traffic. It's not unsighted, so not a safety issue, and when there is no other traffic there is nobody to catch me doing it.

People could argue the same about going through a red-light in the middle of the night when there's no other traffic.

Quite so. Nonetheless, I see it as a lesser offence, just a fraction above exceeding the default 20mph limit we have in these parts, and ignoring this particular no-right-turn means I don't then miss the left turn after the U-turn at the roundabout.

The arguments supporting 20mph limits for safety reasons are a crock of shit. If it's 20 because 20 is safer than 30, why stop at 20? Why not 3 (brisk walking speed)? It's a compromise, and a political decision where to balance the compromise – not a scientific one.

 

[mumble_myopia]

Quite so. Nonetheless, I see it as a lesser offence, just a fraction above exceeding the default 20mph limit we have in these parts, and ignoring this particular no-right-turn means I don't then miss the left turn after the U-turn at the roundabout.

The arguments supporting 20mph limits for safety reasons are a crock of shit. If it's 20 because 20 is safer than 30, why stop at 20? Why not 3 (brisk walking speed)? It's a compromise, and a political decision where to balance the compromise – not a scientific one.

Why not 3 (brisk walking speed)?

Bring back the man carry in the flag in front of cars? ;-)
In some countries traffic lights in low traffic areas change to flashing amber in all directions at night. Very sensible and one added benefit is the roads are quieter - less acceleration noise

 

[EEPhil]

In some countries traffic lights in low traffic areas change to flashing amber in all directions at night. Very sensible and one added benefit is the roads are quieter - less acceleration noise

When I was in Munich in the 1980s-90s (visiting, not working) I remember seeing main roads near the centre with something similar. I can't remember for sure but I think the main road traffic lights were turned off and the side road lights were flashing amber as an instruction to give-way. It's made more complicated by the strange rule (to us at least) of give way to traffic from the right at a junction except if there is a yellow diamond with white background sign at the junction (which there often is).

 

[mumble_myopia]

When I was in Munich in the 1980s-90s (visiting, not working) I remember seeing main roads near the centre with something similar. I can't remember for sure but I think the main road traffic lights were turned off and the side road lights were flashing amber as an instruction to give-way. It's made more complicated by the strange rule (to us at least) of give way to traffic from the right at a junction except if there is a yellow diamond with white background sign at the junction (which there often is).

The other thing they had (in the late 70s) in Germany were sets of signals after a traffic light junction on main roads that indicated the speed to drive at in order to reach the next set on green - I've never understood why they haven't caught on elsewhere :-(

BTW system can't seem to find your piccy

 

[EEPhil]

BTW system can't seem to find your piccy

You probably read the post before I edited it and took the pictures out - they didn't seem to add as much as I thought they would.

 

[Black Hole]

In some countries traffic lights in low traffic areas change to flashing amber in all directions at night. Very sensible and one added benefit is the roads are quieter - less acceleration noise

I did some driving in Canada in the 1980s, and IIRC country crossroads had a light suspended in the middle which was flashing red or flashing amber. I was told flashing amber had right of way over flashing red.

The big shock was driving at night (before I got used to it), pulling up at a red light only to find myself in the middle of the junction!

 

[trog]

The arguments supporting 20mph limits for safety reasons are a crock of shit. If it's 20 because 20 is safer than 30, why stop at 20? Why not 3 (brisk walking speed)? It's a compromise, and a political decision where to balance the compromise – not a scientific one.

The scientific reason is the survival rates at 20mph compared to higher speeds. Do you also think the drink drive limit is also a crock and just a compromise ?

Survival Rate on 20mph Roads 17.5% Higher, Say Motor Safety Groups

With road fatalities rising, introducing 20mph roads across the UK could save hundreds of lives a year. Motoring safety experts at Road Angel

autoscommunity.com

 

[EEPhil]

Back in the 80s-90s there were loads of 30 signs on Munich side streets - Km/h of course.

 

[Black Hole]

The scientific reason is the survival rates at 20mph compared to higher speeds.

You still have to choose the threshold of acceptable risk, which is arbitrary. Survival rate is 100% at 0mph.

 

[EEPhil]

You still have to choose the threshold of acceptable risk, which is arbitrary. Survival rate is 100% at 0mph.

[Not a serious comment!] 0mph would be the total speed. I could conceive of an accident where one of those runners, who often block the pavement, misjudge an approach to a parked car and run into it and do themself some terminal damage. For perfect safety on the roads - nobody move at all.

The scientific reason is the survival rates at 20mph compared to higher speeds. Do you also think the drink drive limit is also a crock and just a compromise ?

Unless everyone is using electric vehicles there's extra pollution at 20mph, and with all the intentional and unintentional (pot-holes) speed bumps extra noise.
Drink-drive limit is a compromise. Don't drink and drive. Limit should be zero.

 

[mumble_myopia]

[Not a serious comment!] 0mph would be the total speed. I could conceive of an accident where one of those runners, who often block the pavement, misjudge an approach to a parked car and run into it and do themself some terminal damage. For perfect safety on the roads - nobody move at all.

Unless everyone is using electric vehicles there's extra pollution at 20mph, and with all the intentional and unintentional (pot-holes) speed bumps extra noise.
Drink-drive limit is a compromise. Don't drink and drive. Limit should be zero.

Don't drink and drive. Limit should be zero.

ISTR that even teetotallers register some alcohol ..... but I suppose that could be a roundabout way of enforcing 0 mph ;-)

 

[Black Hole]

For perfect safety on the roads - nobody move at all.

Exactly my point. It's woke PC thinking that we all need to be inconvenienced just so that if some idiot with more attention on their phone than where they're going doesn't get killed if they wander into traffic. Nanny state. Hazards are necessary to keep people alert.

Drink-drive limit is a compromise. Don't drink and drive. Limit should be zero.

So... you mean if you have a drink you're not allowed to drive even a week later?

 

[prpr]

For perfect safety on the roads - nobody move at all.

Brilliant. Then we wouldn't need expensive roads, and councils wouldn't need to (not) fill in all the potholes in them, and wouldn't even need to build expensive roads in the first place. We should rip up all roads now and make everybody stay in their little boxes for ever, which is what the gov'un'munt really wants. They'd probably tax you for dying without permission too.

Limit should be zero.

NO!
Imposing arbitrary unrealistic fixed limits is unworkable. There always needs to be a tolerance.
Like those press reports of people being done for non-zero 'drug' counts, when all they did was eat a slice of bread with poppy seeds, where the level of whatever substance is so microscopically low as to make no difference whatsoever to anything ever, but it is still greater than zero, so they automatically have their lives ruined by being fired/cancelled for nothing.

The reason more people (pedestrians) die on roads is being because they don't f**king look where they are going or listen to their surroundings, as they are too busy looking at their digital watches smartphones and plugged in to some racket blasting in their ears. Darwin's law should apply.
There are obviously areas and times where 20 is appropriate, and there are areas where it is not and is irritatingly slow, which just encourages people to go faster once they get out of it. Default 20 in all built up areas at all times is just stupid political pandering to their pet policies (but that goes for most Welsh politicians; and the Scottish ones too, except they are corrupt as well as stupid).

 

[HugeMaximum]

Having a drink now... we're in the Hummy Arms y'know!

Anyone remember the sketch - likely from Alas Smith and Jones, or Not the Nine O'Clock News... man pulls up to a T junction in the middle of nowhere, no cars around... looks left, looks right... no cars there... looks again... looks left, looks right, and this time also looks behind his car (audience laughs)... still no cars to be seen! Then...

A car falling from the sky squashes his car flat!

 

[mumble_myopia]

Having a drink now... we're in the Hummy Arms y'know!

Anyone remember the sketch - likely from Alas Smith and Jones, or Not the Nine O'Clock News... man pulls up to a T junction in the middle of nowhere, no cars around... looks left, looks right... no cars there... looks again... looks left, looks right, and this time also looks behind his car (audience laughs)... still no cars to be seen! Then...

A car falling from the sky squashes his car flat!

No .... but love the image that created

 

[EEPhil]

if some idiot with more attention on their phone than where they're going doesn't get killed if they wander into traffic

he reason more people (pedestrians) die on roads is being because they don't f**king look where they are going or listen to their surroundings, as they are too busy looking at their digital watches smartphones and plugged in to some racket blasting in their ears. Darwin's law should apply.

For those of you who watched Star Trek: The Next Generation - wasn't there an episode where all the crew apart from Weasily Crusher were addicted to some sort of game played through a type of spectacles or similar? Every time I go on public transport I'm reminded of it. Nearly everyone looking at their phones. Yes there are some many wallies walking the streets, looking at the phone whilst walking the dog, looking at the phone while pushing their offspring, or just looking at the phone. What with them, cycles, parked cars and runners the pavement is an obstacle course. Very occasionally I've taken my life in my hands and grumbled "Look where you're going." These days that's a dangerous thing to do.

So... you mean if you have a drink you're not allowed to drive even a week later?

I was going to suggest a very low limit. But I was responding to the comment that the drink-drive limit is a compromise. The compromise is between being 100% safe and personal freedom.

 

[trog]

You still have to choose the threshold of acceptable risk, which is arbitrary. Survival rate is 100% at 0mph.

The fact that a compromise has to be made to make it workable does not mean that compromise should not be made. Your logic is ridiculous and just routed in your own selfish desires. The difference in fatality rates between 20mph and 30mph is large enough to make it a very valid compromise. You would never suggest the speed limit should be totally abolished allowing anyone to get the maximum speed their vehicle was capable of rather than all the other various speed limits. Sadly though the 20mph limit does not really work as too many people ignore it anyway but I would welcome it introduced here if enforced and all the revenue raised from fines went to local councils to reduce council tax along with a total ban and large fine for pavement parking. I now have my free bus pass so little need for a car and am just as selfish as you .

 

[Black Hole]

The fact that a compromise has to be made to make it workable does not mean that compromise should not be made. Your logic is ridiculous and just routed in your own selfish desires.

I think we can see what side of the street you're on, unless you are playing devil's advocaat! Your position is the ridiculous one. Sensible drivers don't need telling where they need to be driving at 20 or even 15, and don't need fixed speed limits imposed at all times of the day and night. Non-sensible drivers shouldn't be on the road and what's needed is a better licensing scheme properly enforced, along with proper education for other highway users. How many pedestrians know there is a section in the Highway Code especially for them?

You would never suggest the speed limit should be totally abolished allowing anyone to get the maximum speed their vehicle was capable of

Tell that to the Germans.

 

[trog]

Non-sensible drivers shouldn't be on the road and what's needed is a better licensing scheme properly enforced, along with proper education for other highway users. How many pedestrians know there is a section in the Highway Code especially for them?

I agree, Nobody under the age of 30 should be given a driving licence to prevent the foolishness of youth and anyone over the age of 60 should have their licence revoked due to cognitive decline. If this was done then " Sensible drivers don't need telling where they need to be driving at 20 or even 15, and don't need fixed speed limits imposed at all times of the day and night." might become something that could be rectified.

 

[RobH1]

I agree, Nobody under the age of 30 should be given a driving licence to prevent the foolishness of youth and anyone over the age of 60 should have their licence revoked due to cognitive decline.

A joke, right? If not you come over as anti-motorist and are talking bollocks!