Long overdue. This should slow those killers down a bit.

"The speed limit on thousands of residential roads will be reduced to
20mph under government moves designed to cut road deaths by a third
over the next decade.

Variable limits will be introduced on main roads near schools, with
digital signs ordering drivers to cut their speed to 20mph or less
when pupils are arriving or departing.

Cameras that detect a vehicle’s average speed will be used instead of
road humps to enforce the limit in some of the new 20mph zones.

More than 3,000 people die on the roads each year, including
motorists, passengers, cyclists and pedestrians. The target, to be
reached by 2020, is expected to be set at about 2,000 deaths..."

More:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article3941769.ece

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Doug wrote:
> Long overdue. This should slow those killers down a bit.
>

What is this post intended to achieve?

On 16 May, 07:27, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > Long overdue. This should slow those killers down a bit.
>
> What is this post intended to achieve?

Awareness.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Doug wrote:
> On 16 May, 07:27, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> Long overdue. This should slow those killers down a bit.
>>
>> What is this post intended to achieve?
>
> Awareness.

What leads you to suppose that people are not aware and why do you believe 
it necessary to lead with such a pejorative introduction?

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:8988abd5-1d60-4164-9fb4-edbbaa336839@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On 16 May, 07:27, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>> > Long overdue. This should slow those killers down a bit.
>>
>> What is this post intended to achieve?
>
> Awareness.
>
Then you should be aware that 20 mph zones have been around for years. 
(Portsmouth, Hedge End, Eastleigh in this vicinity for a start).

Try posting something new.

Doug wrote:
> Long overdue. This should slow those killers down a bit.
> 
> "The speed limit on thousands of residential roads will be reduced to
> 20mph under government moves designed to cut road deaths by a third
> over the next decade.

I hope this is done in a reasonable manner, not in a blanket kneejerk way
> 
> Variable limits will be introduced on main roads near schools, with
> digital signs ordering drivers to cut their speed to 20mph or less
> when pupils are arriving or departing.
> 
And about time, lets just hope the timers work for the signs

> Cameras that detect a vehicle’s average speed will be used instead of
> road humps to enforce the limit in some of the new 20mph zones.
> 
More cameras! but I am all for getting rid of humps, I have enough back 
problems that humps only make worse.

> More than 3,000 people die on the roads each year, including
> motorists, passengers, cyclists and pedestrians. The target, to be
> reached by 2020, is expected to be set at about 2,000 deaths..."
> 
Any reduction is good.
> More:
> 
> http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article3941769.ece
> 
> --
> World Carfree Network
> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.


-- 
Tony the Dragon

On May 16, 7:25 am, Doug  wrote:
> Long overdue. This should slow those killers down a bit.
>
> "The speed limit on thousands of residential roads will be reduced to
> 20mph under government moves designed to cut road deaths by a third
> over the next decade.
>
> Variable limits will be introduced on main roads near schools, with
> digital signs ordering drivers to cut their speed to 20mph or less
> when pupils are arriving or departing.

Erm... this isn't new its been going on for years.

I for one support it.  Variable speed limits are a good idea.  Perhaps
we should have higher ones on certain roads at night when the traffic
is lighter?

Fod

On May 16, 7:29 am, Doug  wrote:
> On 16 May, 07:27, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>
> > Doug wrote:
> > > Long overdue. This should slow those killers down a bit.
>
> > What is this post intended to achieve?
>
> Awareness.
>


Hopefully you are now aware its a bit of a non story as its not
new....

Fod

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:da921db5-bf15-48ad-b9ef-626a7be71c53@24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Long overdue. This should slow those killers down a bit.

FUCK OFF!

"Graculus"  wrote in message 
news:69585oF30i0f8U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Doug"  wrote in message 
> news:da921db5-bf15-48ad-b9ef-626a7be71c53@24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Long overdue. This should slow those killers down a bit.
>
> FUCK OFF!

Don't hold back, say how you feel    :o)

In article <da921db5-bf15-48ad-b9ef-626a7be71c53@
24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
> Long overdue. This should slow those killers down a bit.
> 
> "The speed limit on thousands of residential roads will be reduced to
> 20mph under government moves designed to cut road deaths by a third
> over the next decade.
> 
> Variable limits will be introduced on main roads near schools, with
> digital signs ordering drivers to cut their speed to 20mph or less
> when pupils are arriving or departing.
> 
Won't make a shit of difference because the problem is with hoardes of 
kids just running out into the road without bothering to look.


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article , Tony Dragon 
says...
> Doug wrote:
> > Long overdue. This should slow those killers down a bit.
> > 
> > "The speed limit on thousands of residential roads will be reduced to
> > 20mph under government moves designed to cut road deaths by a third
> > over the next decade.
> 
> I hope this is done in a reasonable manner, not in a blanket kneejerk way

Sadly, that's not the case. I'm currently campaigning against a blanket 
20MPH limit on my entire estate. There's simply no need for it because 
people don't bomb up it, those that do don't care about limits and 
there's a sum total of 10 cars a day on the school run. People only 
come onto the estate if they live here or have business here as it 
doesn't lead anywhere so there's no rat runs.


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article , 
conor_turton@hotmail.com says...
> doesn't lead anywhere so there's no rat runs.
> 
I've always had this problem with the term "rat runs". When I had to 
drive to college and because there was a great deal of congestion, I 
worked out a route that used as many long roads as possible, ending in 
either a right turn, or a left turn across one lane of traffic. It was 
through residential areas, but these were all car lined, and I didn't 
speed. Apart from any peds who had decided to commit suicide there was 
no problem. I used less fuel, got there quicker, and everyone was happy. 
Then some concillor started on about rat runs.

It reminded me of a conversation I had with an LD canditate who wanted 
to close the last grammar schools because "they gave some children an 
unfair advantage". When I proposed that instead they closed the 
comprehensives and turned them into grammar schools, thereby giving all 
children the same advantage, he couldn't understand the concept.

Sometimes to be a politician requires only that you be as thick as shit.

"Conor"  wrote in message 
news:695ghvF3136h2U9@mid.individual.net...
> In article <da921db5-bf15-48ad-b9ef-626a7be71c53@
> 24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
>> Long overdue. This should slow those killers down a bit.
>>
>> "The speed limit on thousands of residential roads will be reduced to
>> 20mph under government moves designed to cut road deaths by a third
>> over the next decade.
>>
>> Variable limits will be introduced on main roads near schools, with
>> digital signs ordering drivers to cut their speed to 20mph or less
>> when pupils are arriving or departing.
>>
> Won't make a shit of difference because the problem is with hoardes of
> kids just running out into the road without bothering to look.

The alternative is to expect parents to take responsibility for educating 
their children in road safety, so speed cameras it will be.

Colin Bignell

On 16 May, 07:57, "Ian D Henden"  wrote:
> "Doug"  wrote in message
>
> news:8988abd5-1d60-4164-9fb4-edbbaa336839@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...> On 16 May, 07:27, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >> > Long overdue. This should slow those killers down a bit.
>
> >> What is this post intended to achieve?
>
> > Awareness.
>
> Then you should be aware that 20 mph zones have been around for years.
> (Portsmouth, Hedge End, Eastleigh in this vicinity for a start).
>
> Try posting something new.

Problem is there are not nearly enough of them and where they exist
they are not properly policed. Hopefully this is about to change.

--
RoadPeace
http://www.roadpeace.org/
For road crash victims.

On 16 May, 18:21, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
wrote:
> "Conor"  wrote in message
>
> news:695ghvF3136h2U9@mid.individual.net...
>
> > In article <da921db5-bf15-48ad-b9ef-626a7be71c53@
> > 24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
> >> Long overdue. This should slow those killers down a bit.
>
> >> "The speed limit on thousands of residential roads will be reduced to
> >> 20mph under government moves designed to cut road deaths by a third
> >> over the next decade.
>
> >> Variable limits will be introduced on main roads near schools, with
> >> digital signs ordering drivers to cut their speed to 20mph or less
> >> when pupils are arriving or departing.
>
> > Won't make a shit of difference because the problem is with hoardes of
> > kids just running out into the road without bothering to look.
>
> The alternative is to expect parents to take responsibility for educating
> their children in road safety, so speed cameras it will be.
>
Don't try to blame the parents of the vulnerable victims. In our
modern world dominated by the car culture there are few places left
where children can play and socialise in safety adjacent to their
homes. At 20mph a driver has a much better chance of stopping in time
than at 30mph.

--
RoadPeace
http://www.roadpeace.org/
For road crash victims.

In article <7a2205ba-3189-4237-8986-5c35e157b310
@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, jagmad@riseup.net says...
> On 16 May, 18:21, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
> wrote:
> > "Conor"  wrote in message
> >
> > news:695ghvF3136h2U9@mid.individual.net...
> >
> > > In article <da921db5-bf15-48ad-b9ef-626a7be71c53@
> > > 24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
> > >> Long overdue. This should slow those killers down a bit.
> >
> > >> "The speed limit on thousands of residential roads will be reduced to
> > >> 20mph under government moves designed to cut road deaths by a third
> > >> over the next decade.
> >
> > >> Variable limits will be introduced on main roads near schools, with
> > >> digital signs ordering drivers to cut their speed to 20mph or less
> > >> when pupils are arriving or departing.
> >
> > > Won't make a shit of difference because the problem is with hoardes of
> > > kids just running out into the road without bothering to look.
> >
> > The alternative is to expect parents to take responsibility for educating
> > their children in road safety, so speed cameras it will be.
> >
> Don't try to blame the parents of the vulnerable victims. In our
> modern world dominated by the car culture there are few places left
> where children can play and socialise in safety adjacent to their
> homes. At 20mph a driver has a much better chance of stopping in time
> than at 30mph.
> 
And at 0 mph a 100% chance. Lets put 0 mph limits on our estates.

On 17 May, 07:23, Me  wrote:
> In article <7a2205ba-3189-4237-8986-5c35e157b310
> @w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, jag...@riseup.net says...
>
> > On 16 May, 18:21, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
> > wrote:
> > > "Conor"  wrote in message
>
> > >news:695ghvF3136h2U9@mid.individual.net...
>
> > > > In article <da921db5-bf15-48ad-b9ef-626a7be71c53@
> > > > 24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
> > > >> Long overdue. This should slow those killers down a bit.
>
> > > >> "The speed limit on thousands of residential roads will be reduced to
> > > >> 20mph under government moves designed to cut road deaths by a third
> > > >> over the next decade.
>
> > > >> Variable limits will be introduced on main roads near schools, with
> > > >> digital signs ordering drivers to cut their speed to 20mph or less
> > > >> when pupils are arriving or departing.
>
> > > > Won't make a shit of difference because the problem is with hoardes of
> > > > kids just running out into the road without bothering to look.
>
> > > The alternative is to expect parents to take responsibility for educating
> > > their children in road safety, so speed cameras it will be.
>
> > Don't try to blame the parents of the vulnerable victims. In our
> > modern world dominated by the car culture there are few places left
> > where children can play and socialise in safety adjacent to their
> > homes. At 20mph a driver has a much better chance of stopping in time
> > than at 30mph.
>
> And at 0 mph a 100% chance. Lets put 0 mph limits on our estates.

Indeed, car free zones and cities.

--
Car Free Cities
http://www.carfree.com/
Carfree Cities proposes a delightful solution
to the vexing problem of urban automobiles.

In article <7a2205ba-3189-4237-8986-5c35e157b310
@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...

> Don't try to blame the parents of the vulnerable victims. In our
> modern world dominated by the car culture there are few places left
> where children can play and socialise in safety adjacent to their
> homes. 

That's more to do with the fact the councils sold the parks off to 
developers.

> At 20mph a driver has a much better chance of stopping in time
> than at 30mph.
> 
Hardly. At both speeds, you've sod all chance of even being able to 
react in time with the way some of these kids run out.



-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article <7c8d8e1a-b0dd-4e0c-8dad-
45c494a8e9da@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...

> > And at 0 mph a 100% chance. Lets put 0 mph limits on our estates.
> 
> Indeed, car free zones and cities.
> 
How will you survive without food in the shops, Doug?


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

Doug wrote:
> On 16 May, 07:57, "Ian D Henden"  wrote:
>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:8988abd5-1d60-4164-9fb4-edbbaa336839@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...>
>> On 16 May, 07:27, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> Long overdue. This should slow those killers down a bit.
>>
>>>> What is this post intended to achieve?
>>
>>> Awareness.
>>
>> Then you should be aware that 20 mph zones have been around for
>> years. (Portsmouth, Hedge End, Eastleigh in this vicinity for a
>> start).
>>
>> Try posting something new.
>
> Problem is there are not nearly enough of them and where they exist
> they are not properly policed.

Evidence?

> Hopefully this is about to change.

Doug wrote:
> On 17 May, 07:23, Me  wrote:
>> In article <7a2205ba-3189-4237-8986-5c35e157b310
>> @w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, jag...@riseup.net says...
>>
>>> On 16 May, 18:21, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Conor"  wrote in message
>>
>>>> news:695ghvF3136h2U9@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>>>> In article <da921db5-bf15-48ad-b9ef-626a7be71c53@
>>>>> 24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
>>>>>> Long overdue. This should slow those killers down a bit.
>>
>>>>>> "The speed limit on thousands of residential roads will be
>>>>>> reduced to 20mph under government moves designed to cut road
>>>>>> deaths by a third over the next decade.
>>
>>>>>> Variable limits will be introduced on main roads near schools,
>>>>>> with digital signs ordering drivers to cut their speed to 20mph
>>>>>> or less when pupils are arriving or departing.
>>
>>>>> Won't make a shit of difference because the problem is with
>>>>> hoardes of kids just running out into the road without bothering
>>>>> to look.
>>
>>>> The alternative is to expect parents to take responsibility for
>>>> educating their children in road safety, so speed cameras it will
>>>> be.
>>
>>> Don't try to blame the parents of the vulnerable victims. In our
>>> modern world dominated by the car culture there are few places left
>>> where children can play and socialise in safety adjacent to their
>>> homes. At 20mph a driver has a much better chance of stopping in
>>> time than at 30mph.
>>
>> And at 0 mph a 100% chance. Lets put 0 mph limits on our estates.
>
> Indeed, car free zones and cities.

The speed limit applies to all vehicles Doug. How are you going to eat and 
buy all the other goods you need?

Doug wrote:
> On 16 May, 07:57, "Ian D Henden"  wrote:
>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:8988abd5-1d60-4164-9fb4-edbbaa336839@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...> On 16 May, 07:27, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> Long overdue. This should slow those killers down a bit.
>>>> What is this post intended to achieve?
>>> Awareness.
>> Then you should be aware that 20 mph zones have been around for years.
>> (Portsmouth, Hedge End, Eastleigh in this vicinity for a start).
>>
>> Try posting something new.
> 
> Problem is there are not nearly enough of them and where they exist
> they are not properly policed. Hopefully this is about to change.
> 
> --
> RoadPeace
> http://www.roadpeace.org/
> For road crash victims.

They are quite often not properly signed.
e.g. the 20mph limit outside the school at Ewell Road Tolworth.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

Doug wrote:
> On 16 May, 18:21, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
> wrote:
>> "Conor"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:695ghvF3136h2U9@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>> In article <da921db5-bf15-48ad-b9ef-626a7be71c53@
>>> 24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
>>>> Long overdue. This should slow those killers down a bit.
>>>> "The speed limit on thousands of residential roads will be reduced to
>>>> 20mph under government moves designed to cut road deaths by a third
>>>> over the next decade.
>>>> Variable limits will be introduced on main roads near schools, with
>>>> digital signs ordering drivers to cut their speed to 20mph or less
>>>> when pupils are arriving or departing.
>>> Won't make a shit of difference because the problem is with hoardes of
>>> kids just running out into the road without bothering to look.
>> The alternative is to expect parents to take responsibility for educating
>> their children in road safety, so speed cameras it will be.
>>
> Don't try to blame the parents of the vulnerable victims. In our
> modern world dominated by the car culture there are few places left
> where children can play and socialise in safety adjacent to their
> homes. At 20mph a driver has a much better chance of stopping in time
> than at 30mph.
> 
> --
> RoadPeace
> http://www.roadpeace.org/
> For road crash victims.
> 

OK so if you live on a 20mph zone you do not have to teach your children
road safety!

-- 
Tony the Dragon

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:7a2205ba-3189-4237-8986-5c35e157b310@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On 16 May, 18:21, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
> wrote:
>> "Conor"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:695ghvF3136h2U9@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> > In article <da921db5-bf15-48ad-b9ef-626a7be71c53@
>> > 24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
>> >> Long overdue. This should slow those killers down a bit.
>>
>> >> "The speed limit on thousands of residential roads will be reduced to
>> >> 20mph under government moves designed to cut road deaths by a third
>> >> over the next decade.
>>
>> >> Variable limits will be introduced on main roads near schools, with
>> >> digital signs ordering drivers to cut their speed to 20mph or less
>> >> when pupils are arriving or departing.
>>
>> > Won't make a shit of difference because the problem is with hoardes of
>> > kids just running out into the road without bothering to look.
>>
>> The alternative is to expect parents to take responsibility for educating
>> their children in road safety, so speed cameras it will be.
>>
> Don't try to blame the parents of the vulnerable victims. In our
> modern world dominated by the car culture there are few places left
> where children can play and socialise in safety adjacent to their
> homes. At 20mph a driver has a much better chance of stopping in time
> than at 30mph.

Of course the parents are to blame for kids who run out into the road. I was 
a child in London when a couple of cars parked in a residential street was 
unusual. The few cars that would turn into our road were always travelling 
slowly. Nevertheless, while we were freely permitted to play and socialise 
on the footways, there were very strict rules on how and when we might enter 
the roadway. There was also a boundary of roads that we were never allowed 
to cross without adult supervision. Any child bound by the rules my friends 
and I had to abide by when I was a child would be perfectly safe even on 
today's roads.

Colin Bignell

"nightjar .me.uk>" <cpb@<insert my surname here> wrote in message 
news:z-idneC3ZKBGL7PVnZ2dnUVZ8sninZ2d@giganews.com...
>
>> Don't try to blame the parents of the vulnerable victims. In our
>> modern world dominated by the car culture there are few places left
>> where children can play and socialise in safety adjacent to their
>> homes. At 20mph a driver has a much better chance of stopping in time
>> than at 30mph.
>
> Of course the parents are to blame for kids who run out into the road. I 
> was a child in London when a couple of cars parked in a residential street 
> was unusual. The few cars that would turn into our road were always 
> travelling slowly. Nevertheless, while we were freely permitted to play 
> and socialise on the footways, there were very strict rules on how and 
> when we might enter the roadway. There was also a boundary of roads that 
> we were never allowed to cross without adult supervision. Any child bound 
> by the rules my friends and I had to abide by when I was a child would be 
> perfectly safe even on today's roads.

Yes, when I was growing up in the 1960s I was told to stay within the garden 
(which had gates and a hedge, back in the days before open-plan gardens!) 
until I'd proved to my parents that I knew the Kerb Drill and (later) the 
Green Cross Code.

I was allowed to walk to school, a journey of about half a mile through a 
maze of residential roads, which involced crossing two roads that carried 
through traffic as well as just residential traffic - and that was from the 
age of about seven.

If my mum took me to school or collected me, she often walked rather than 
taking me by car. In later years, several parents organised a rota for 
taking/collecting by car (the cars were probably dangerously overloaded with 
children by modern standards!) rather than the modern trend for a much 
larger number of cars (often huge 4x4s) each with just one child.

OK so traffic levels in the late 60s and early 70s were a lot less than 
nowadays, but I think the journey would probably still be safe, especially 
with a modern-day zebra crossing over one road and a lollipop-lady crossing 
over the other one by the school.

I think one of the differences was that it was drummed into me that however 
harum-scarum I may be in other things, I must *concentrate* and not lark 
about when I was crossing the road. It probably helped that I usually made 
the journey, especially at lunchtime, on my own so there wasn't the 
distraction and peer pressure of other kids.

Maybe the other fear that was less acknowledged in my youth was the fear of 
abduction or molestation. I can remember my grandpa (a head teacher) giving 
me stern warnings about not talking to strange men or accepting sweets from 
them, so obviously the threat existed to some extent then, but it seemed a 
more theoretical than actual hazard. And of course that's why modern 
children are encouraged to travel together: in lessening the chance of 
molestation we are increasing the chances of larking about and daring each 
other to play chicken when crossing the road or walking along it.

Tony Dragon wrote:
> Doug wrote:
>> On 16 May, 18:21, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
>> wrote:
>>> "Conor"  wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:695ghvF3136h2U9@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>> In article <da921db5-bf15-48ad-b9ef-626a7be71c53@
>>>> 24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
>>>>> Long overdue. This should slow those killers down a bit.
>>>>> "The speed limit on thousands of residential roads will be reduced to
>>>>> 20mph under government moves designed to cut road deaths by a third
>>>>> over the next decade.
>>>>> Variable limits will be introduced on main roads near schools, with
>>>>> digital signs ordering drivers to cut their speed to 20mph or less
>>>>> when pupils are arriving or departing.
>>>> Won't make a shit of difference because the problem is with hoardes of
>>>> kids just running out into the road without bothering to look.
>>> The alternative is to expect parents to take responsibility for 
>>> educating
>>> their children in road safety, so speed cameras it will be.
>>>
>> Don't try to blame the parents of the vulnerable victims. In our
>> modern world dominated by the car culture there are few places left
>> where children can play and socialise in safety adjacent to their
>> homes. At 20mph a driver has a much better chance of stopping in time
>> than at 30mph.
>>
>> -- 
>> RoadPeace
>> http://www.roadpeace.org/
>> For road crash victims.
>>
> 
> OK so if you live on a 20mph zone you do not have to teach your children
> road safety!
> 

Er, be fair! I don't think he's allowed to breed, so he's unable to base 
his wish list on experience - or even common sense.

-- 
Moving things in still pictures!

Doug wrote:
> On 16 May, 07:57, "Ian D Henden"  wrote:
>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:8988abd5-1d60-4164-9fb4-edbbaa336839@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...> On 16 May, 07:27, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> Long overdue. This should slow those killers down a bit.
>>>> What is this post intended to achieve?
>>> Awareness.
>> Then you should be aware that 20 mph zones have been around for years.
>> (Portsmouth, Hedge End, Eastleigh in this vicinity for a start).
>>
>> Try posting something new.
> 
> Problem is there are not nearly enough of them and where they exist
> they are not properly policed. Hopefully this is about to change.

Current limits of 20mph have no legal force, this could explain why they 
are not properly policed in your view.

-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

"John Wright"  wrote in message 
news:84idnfjgNPcrnLLVnZ2dnUVZ8trinZ2d@pipex.net...
> Doug wrote:
>> On 16 May, 07:57, "Ian D Henden"  wrote:
>>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:8988abd5-1d60-4164-9fb4-edbbaa336839@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...> 
>>> On 16 May, 07:27, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>> Long overdue. This should slow those killers down a bit.
>>>>> What is this post intended to achieve?
>>>> Awareness.
>>> Then you should be aware that 20 mph zones have been around for years.
>>> (Portsmouth, Hedge End, Eastleigh in this vicinity for a start).
>>>
>>> Try posting something new.
>>
>> Problem is there are not nearly enough of them and where they exist
>> they are not properly policed. Hopefully this is about to change.
>
> Current limits of 20mph have no legal force, this could explain why they 
> are not properly policed in your view.

Is that still the case? I thought the law had been changed a year or so ago 
to allow limits of less than 30 on a public road to be enforceable. I'm not 
sure I'd want to put the "no legal force" suggestion to the test by 
exceeding it in view of a police car or a camera.

20 limits are fine if they are used sparingly and only in situations where a 
responsible driver would be driving at that speed anyway (eg outside a 
school at times when children are arriving or leaving, in a dead-end 
residential road with parked cars behind which children could be playing). 
If they are used as a blanket policy wherever there are houses along a road, 
then driving will become dire.

Much better though to spend the money on Kerb Drill / Green Cross Code 
training, though, to remove the need for draconian speed limits (as opposed 
to sensible limits) in the first place. We need to send a clear message to 
all road users "It's a road, so don't be surprised if you find cars on it".

In message 
, Doug 
 writes
>On 16 May, 18:21, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
>wrote:
>> "Conor"  wrote in message
>> > Won't make a shit of difference because the problem is with hoardes of
>> > kids just running out into the road without bothering to look.
>>
>> The alternative is to expect parents to take responsibility for educating
>> their children in road safety, so speed cameras it will be.
>>
>Don't try to blame the parents of the vulnerable victims. In our
>modern world dominated by the car culture there are few places left
>where children can play and socialise in safety adjacent to their
>homes. At 20mph a driver has a much better chance of stopping in time
>than at 30mph.

So why have more people been killed in 20mph zones than 30mph zones in 
2006, according to DfT figures?

This obsessive focus on speed since 1995 has been a monumental failure. 
Despite all the tens of thousands of cameras and all the speed limit 
reductions (mostly at the behest of politicians, not road safety 
experts), the casualties are *still* the same level that they were 13 
years ago. It's a failure, Duhg, just like you.

If this scheme goes ahead, the fatalities will still keep happening 
because most pedestrian collision deaths are the pedestrian's fault. The 
Transport Research Laboratory says that 75% of accidents resulting in 
pedestrian injuries are the pedestrian's own fault. This rises to 84% in 
the case of pedestrian deaths.

So you really want to get pedestrian deaths down? Here's how you do it:

Install pedestrian cameras (existing CCTV installations will do in most 
cases) and issue serious fines for "crossing without due care", 
jaywalking, "not being in a position of safety whilst using a mobile, 
using an iPod etc". Oh, and jailing parents for letting their kids play 
in roads unsupervised.

>RoadPeace
>http://www.roadpeace.org/
>For road crash victims.

Have RoadPeace authorised you to speak on their behalf, Doug Bollen?


-- 
Ed Banger

"Ed Banger"  wrote in message 
news:d8+l7cIi8wLIFwDZ@nildram.co.uk...
> In message 
> , Doug 
>  writes
>>Don't try to blame the parents of the vulnerable victims. In our
>>modern world dominated by the car culture there are few places left
>>where children can play and socialise in safety adjacent to their
>>homes. At 20mph a driver has a much better chance of stopping in time
>>than at 30mph.
>
> So why have more people been killed in 20mph zones than 30mph zones in 
> 2006, according to DfT figures?
>
> This obsessive focus on speed since 1995 has been a monumental failure. 
> Despite all the tens of thousands of cameras and all the speed limit 
> reductions (mostly at the behest of politicians, not road safety experts), 
> the casualties are *still* the same level that they were 13 years ago. 
> It's a failure, Duhg, just like you.
>
> If this scheme goes ahead, the fatalities will still keep happening 
> because most pedestrian collision deaths are the pedestrian's fault. The 
> Transport Research Laboratory says that 75% of accidents resulting in 
> pedestrian injuries are the pedestrian's own fault. This rises to 84% in 
> the case of pedestrian deaths.

Sadly Doug is labouring under the belief that, by definition, it's *always* 
the motorist's fault, no matter what the circumstances, on the grounds that 
pedestrians are vulnerable and therefore "blameless". I bet if the car is 
stationary and the pedestrian walks into it, it's still the motorist's fault 
;-)

Ed Banger wrote:
> In message 
> , Doug 
>  writes
>> On 16 May, 18:21, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
>> wrote:
>>> "Conor"  wrote in message
>>> > Won't make a shit of difference because the problem is with hoardes of
>>> > kids just running out into the road without bothering to look.
>>>
>>> The alternative is to expect parents to take responsibility for 
>>> educating
>>> their children in road safety, so speed cameras it will be.
>>>
>> Don't try to blame the parents of the vulnerable victims. In our
>> modern world dominated by the car culture there are few places left
>> where children can play and socialise in safety adjacent to their
>> homes. At 20mph a driver has a much better chance of stopping in time
>> than at 30mph.
> 
> So why have more people been killed in 20mph zones than 30mph zones in 
> 2006, according to DfT figures?
> 
> This obsessive focus on speed since 1995 has been a monumental failure. 
> Despite all the tens of thousands of cameras and all the speed limit 
> reductions (mostly at the behest of politicians, not road safety 
> experts), the casualties are *still* the same level that they were 13 
> years ago. It's a failure, Duhg, just like you.
> 
> If this scheme goes ahead, the fatalities will still keep happening 
> because most pedestrian collision deaths are the pedestrian's fault. The 
> Transport Research Laboratory says that 75% of accidents resulting in 
> pedestrian injuries are the pedestrian's own fault. This rises to 84% in 
> the case of pedestrian deaths.
> 
> So you really want to get pedestrian deaths down? Here's how you do it:
> 
> Install pedestrian cameras (existing CCTV installations will do in most 
> cases) and issue serious fines for "crossing without due care", 
> jaywalking, "not being in a position of safety whilst using a mobile, 
> using an iPod etc". Oh, and jailing parents for letting their kids play 
> in roads unsupervised.
> 
>> RoadPeace
>> http://www.roadpeace.org/
>> For road crash victims.
> 
> Have RoadPeace authorised you to speak on their behalf, Doug Bollen?
> 
> 

The wrath of Doug will be upon you.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

Mortimer wrote:
> "John Wright"  wrote in message 
> news:84idnfjgNPcrnLLVnZ2dnUVZ8trinZ2d@pipex.net...
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 16 May, 07:57, "Ian D Henden"  wrote:
>>>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:8988abd5-1d60-4164-9fb4-edbbaa336839@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...> 
>>>> On 16 May, 07:27, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>>> Long overdue. This should slow those killers down a bit.
>>>>>> What is this post intended to achieve?
>>>>> Awareness.
>>>> Then you should be aware that 20 mph zones have been around for years.
>>>> (Portsmouth, Hedge End, Eastleigh in this vicinity for a start).
>>>>
>>>> Try posting something new.
>>> Problem is there are not nearly enough of them and where they exist
>>> they are not properly policed. Hopefully this is about to change.
>> Current limits of 20mph have no legal force, this could explain why they 
>> are not properly policed in your view.
> 
> Is that still the case? I thought the law had been changed a year or so ago 
> to allow limits of less than 30 on a public road to be enforceable. I'm not 
> sure I'd want to put the "no legal force" suggestion to the test by 
> exceeding it in view of a police car or a camera.

I have it on good authority from one of our local county councillors - 
who just happens to live down the road from me. I am thinking that with 
the blanket introduction of 20mph limits which would seem to be 
indicated this might bring about new legislation. Local authorities have 
been allowed to introduce 20mph limits since 1999 but I can't find any 
other related change.

-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

Mortimer wrote:
> "Ed Banger"  wrote in message 
> news:d8+l7cIi8wLIFwDZ@nildram.co.uk...
>> In message 
>> , Doug 
>>  writes
>>> Don't try to blame the parents of the vulnerable victims. In our
>>> modern world dominated by the car culture there are few places left
>>> where children can play and socialise in safety adjacent to their
>>> homes. At 20mph a driver has a much better chance of stopping in time
>>> than at 30mph.
>> So why have more people been killed in 20mph zones than 30mph zones in 
>> 2006, according to DfT figures?
>>
>> This obsessive focus on speed since 1995 has been a monumental failure. 
>> Despite all the tens of thousands of cameras and all the speed limit 
>> reductions (mostly at the behest of politicians, not road safety experts), 
>> the casualties are *still* the same level that they were 13 years ago. 
>> It's a failure, Duhg, just like you.
>>
>> If this scheme goes ahead, the fatalities will still keep happening 
>> because most pedestrian collision deaths are the pedestrian's fault. The 
>> Transport Research Laboratory says that 75% of accidents resulting in 
>> pedestrian injuries are the pedestrian's own fault. This rises to 84% in 
>> the case of pedestrian deaths.
> 
> Sadly Doug is labouring under the belief that, by definition, it's *always* 
> the motorist's fault, no matter what the circumstances, on the grounds that 
> pedestrians are vulnerable and therefore "blameless". I bet if the car is 
> stationary and the pedestrian walks into it, it's still the motorist's fault 
> ;-) 

Not so much a belief as wishful thinking (if that is possible) on his 
part. Its got more in common with Wahabi Islam than our system of laws.

-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

Ed Banger wrote:
> In message 
> , Doug 
>  writes

>> RoadPeace
>> http://www.roadpeace.org/
>> For road crash victims.
> 
> Have RoadPeace authorised you to speak on their behalf, Doug Bollen?

I doubt that very much. If they allowed someone with no claimed identity 
  to speak for them their credibility would fall to less than zero.

-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

John Wright wrote:
> Mortimer wrote:
> 
>> "John Wright"  wrote in message 
>> news:84idnfjgNPcrnLLVnZ2dnUVZ8trinZ2d@pipex.net...
>>>
>>> Current limits of 20mph have no legal force, this could explain why 
>>> they are not properly policed in your view.
>>
>>
>> Is that still the case? I thought the law had been changed a year or 
>> so ago to allow limits of less than 30 on a public road to be 
>> enforceable. I'm not sure I'd want to put the "no legal force" 
>> suggestion to the test by exceeding it in view of a police car or a 
>> camera.
> 
> 
> I have it on good authority from one of our local county councillors - 
> who just happens to live down the road from me. I am thinking that with 
> the blanket introduction of 20mph limits which would seem to be 
> indicated this might bring about new legislation. Local authorities have 
> been allowed to introduce 20mph limits since 1999 but I can't find any 
> other related change.

  What makes either of you think that 20mph limits have no legal force?

  ("A guy down the road told me" isn't convincing).

Nick Finnigan wrote:
> John Wright wrote:
>> Mortimer wrote:
>>
>>> "John Wright"  wrote in message 
>>> news:84idnfjgNPcrnLLVnZ2dnUVZ8trinZ2d@pipex.net...
>>>>
>>>> Current limits of 20mph have no legal force, this could explain why 
>>>> they are not properly policed in your view.
>>>
>>>
>>> Is that still the case? I thought the law had been changed a year or 
>>> so ago to allow limits of less than 30 on a public road to be 
>>> enforceable. I'm not sure I'd want to put the "no legal force" 
>>> suggestion to the test by exceeding it in view of a police car or a 
>>> camera.
>>
>>
>> I have it on good authority from one of our local county councillors - 
>> who just happens to live down the road from me. I am thinking that 
>> with the blanket introduction of 20mph limits which would seem to be 
>> indicated this might bring about new legislation. Local authorities 
>> have been allowed to introduce 20mph limits since 1999 but I can't 
>> find any other related change.
> 
>  What makes either of you think that 20mph limits have no legal force?
> 
>  ("A guy down the road told me" isn't convincing).

He's not just a "guy down the road" - as I said he sits on the local 
county council. Additionally I can't find any reference to this limit 
having any legal force. Read what I said - don't just post from the hip.

The question of putting a 20mph limit in our neighbourhood was discussed 
not so long ago at a residents association meeting, of which I happen to 
be the chairperson. This was his response when he opposed the concept in 
his role as advisor to the RA group.

The county council has a policy of installing 20mph limits close to 
schools, controlled by flashing lights that say "20mph limit when lights 
flash". No one has ever been prosecuted for exceeding this.

Its the duty of councillors to know what they're dealing with. I know 
this rarely works with MPs or MSPs but that's a different matter.

What evidence do you have that these limits have legal force? The 
concept of how 30mph limits are imposed are well known - street lights 
and repeaters etc. There are no such criteria for a 20mph limit.

-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

On 17 May, 08:52, Conor  wrote:
> In article <7a2205ba-3189-4237-8986-5c35e157b310
> @w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
>
> > Don't try to blame the parents of the vulnerable victims. In our
> > modern world dominated by the car culture there are few places left
> > where children can play and socialise in safety adjacent to their
> > homes.
>
> That's more to do with the fact the councils sold the parks off to
> developers.
>
> > At 20mph a driver has a much better chance of stopping in time
> > than at 30mph.
>
> Hardly. At both speeds, you've sod all chance of even being able to
> react in time with the way some of these kids run out.
>
Do stop trying to blame vulnerable victims and blame the killers for a
change.

Quote from the same source.

'Research from the Department for Transport indicates that 1 in 40
pedestrians struck by a car at 20mph dies, compared with 1 in 5 at
30mph. At 40mph the survival rate falls to 10 per cent. A 1mph cut in
average vehicle speed reduces crash frequency by about 5 per cent.'

In other words, as they say, 'Speed kills'.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Doug wrote:
> On 17 May, 08:52, Conor  wrote:
>> In article <7a2205ba-3189-4237-8986-5c35e157b310
>> @w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
>>
>>> Don't try to blame the parents of the vulnerable victims. In our
>>> modern world dominated by the car culture there are few places left
>>> where children can play and socialise in safety adjacent to their
>>> homes.
>>
>> That's more to do with the fact the councils sold the parks off to
>> developers.
>>
>>> At 20mph a driver has a much better chance of stopping in time
>>> than at 30mph.
>>
>> Hardly. At both speeds, you've sod all chance of even being able to
>> react in time with the way some of these kids run out.
>>
> Do stop trying to blame vulnerable victims and blame the killers for a
> change.
>
> Quote from the same source.
>
> 'Research from the Department for Transport indicates that 1 in 40
> pedestrians struck by a car at 20mph dies, compared with 1 in 5 at
> 30mph. At 40mph the survival rate falls to 10 per cent. A 1mph cut in
> average vehicle speed reduces crash frequency by about 5 per cent.'
>
> In other words, as they say, 'Speed kills'.

Lots of people have been saying for many years that you spout endless crap, 
but you still don't take any notice.

Doug wrote:
> On 17 May, 08:52, Conor  wrote:
>> In article <7a2205ba-3189-4237-8986-5c35e157b310
>> @w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
>>
  .
>>
>>> At 20mph a driver has a much better chance of stopping in time
>>> than at 30mph.
>> Hardly. At both speeds, you've sod all chance of even being able to
>> react in time with the way some of these kids run out.
>>
> Do stop trying to blame vulnerable victims and blame the killers for a
> change.
> 
>  
> --
> World Carfree Network
> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
> 
Do try to keep up, victims can often be to blame, you know it, I know 
it, in fact we all know it, so why don't you admit it?

-- 
Tony the Dragon

John Wright wrote:
> Nick Finnigan wrote:
> 
>>
>>  What makes either of you think that 20mph limits have no legal force?
>>
>>  ("A guy down the road told me" isn't convincing).
> 
> 
> He's not just a "guy down the road" - as I said he sits on the local 
> county council. 

  That's just a guy down the road.

>Additionally I can't find any reference to this limit 
> having any legal force. 

  I can't find any reference to this limit not having legal force.

 > Read what I said - don't just post from the hip.

  I've read what you've posted several times.

> The county council has a policy of installing 20mph limits close to 
> schools, controlled by flashing lights that say "20mph limit when lights 
> flash". No one has ever been prosecuted for exceeding this.

  Well, if your LCC doesn't put up proper signs, the police will 
certainly prefer to spend time catching proper criminals.

> What evidence do you have that these limits have legal force? The 
> concept of how 30mph limits are imposed are well known - street lights 
> and repeaters etc. There are no such criteria for a 20mph limit.

  A 20mph limit has to have signs, and has to have a traffic order.
Just like 40mph limits, 50mph limits and some 30mph limits.

Nick Finnigan wrote:
> John Wright wrote:
>> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>  What makes either of you think that 20mph limits have no legal force?
>>>
>>>  ("A guy down the road told me" isn't convincing).
>>
>>
>> He's not just a "guy down the road" - as I said he sits on the local 
>> county council. 
> 
>  That's just a guy down the road.

Strange definitions in your world. Should I delete the bit about him 
living down the road and just say he is a local county councillor? We 
have two - I know both. The other one lives somewhere, but not down the 
road.

>> Additionally I can't find any reference to this limit having any legal 
>> force. 
> 
>  I can't find any reference to this limit not having legal force.
> 
>  > Read what I said - don't just post from the hip.
> 
>  I've read what you've posted several times.
> 
>> The county council has a policy of installing 20mph limits close to 
>> schools, controlled by flashing lights that say "20mph limit when 
>> lights flash". No one has ever been prosecuted for exceeding this.
> 
>  Well, if your LCC doesn't put up proper signs, the police will 
> certainly prefer to spend time catching proper criminals.

These are proper signs for the situation. They were recently criticised 
in a local paper for putting some signs of the type I mention above in 
an inappropriate place however - in this case because it was rarely if 
ever used, rather than wrong per se. There are also residential areas on 
the entry to which there are signs like "Twenty's Plenty" and the like. 
These don't seem particularly official to me.

>> What evidence do you have that these limits have legal force? The 
>> concept of how 30mph limits are imposed are well known - street lights 
>> and repeaters etc. There are no such criteria for a 20mph limit.
> 
>  A 20mph limit has to have signs, and has to have a traffic order.
> Just like 40mph limits, 50mph limits and some 30mph limits.

Of course they have to have signs otherwise no one will know they exist. 
That's not the same as a statutory enforceable limit though.
-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

John Wright wrote:
> Nick Finnigan wrote:
> 
>> John Wright wrote:
>>
>>> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>  What makes either of you think that 20mph limits have no legal force?
>>>>
>>>>  ("A guy down the road told me" isn't convincing).
>>>
>>> He's not just a "guy down the road" - as I said he sits on the local 
>>> county council. 
>>
>>  That's just a guy down the road.
> 
> Strange definitions in your world. Should I delete the bit about him 
> living down the road and just say he is a local county councillor? 

  If you like, it will make no difference to anyone else.

In article <ad9fbf46-80e2-459e-a9af-
71df5f4d692a@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...

> 'Research from the Department for Transport indicates that 1 in 40
> pedestrians struck by a car at 20mph dies, compared with 1 in 5 at
> 30mph. At 40mph the survival rate falls to 10 per cent. A 1mph cut in
> average vehicle speed reduces crash frequency by about 5 per cent.'

And when someone travelling at 30 brakes when someone runs out in front 
of them, the impact speed is likely to be 20MPH or less as the driver 
will have slammed all on. To hit them at 30 either they've been 
exceeding the 30 limit by a large amount or failed to brake at all.


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article , 
conor_turton@hotmail.com says...
> In article <ad9fbf46-80e2-459e-a9af-
> 71df5f4d692a@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
> 
> > 'Research from the Department for Transport indicates that 1 in 40
> > pedestrians struck by a car at 20mph dies, compared with 1 in 5 at
> > 30mph. At 40mph the survival rate falls to 10 per cent. A 1mph cut in
> > average vehicle speed reduces crash frequency by about 5 per cent.'
> 
> And when someone travelling at 30 brakes when someone runs out in front 
> of them, the impact speed is likely to be 20MPH or less as the driver 
> will have slammed all on. To hit them at 30 either they've been 
> exceeding the 30 limit by a large amount or failed to brake at all.
> 
Well, the only time I've been in collision with a pedestrain I thank my 
lucky stars that I was doing slightly more than 30. She crossed the road 
as part of a family group, and then suddenly turned and ran back across 
the road. She ran into the front wing of my car. If I'd have been doing 
30 then she probably have gone underneat.

On 18 May, 09:34, Tony Dragon  wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 17 May, 08:52, Conor  wrote:
> >> In article <7a2205ba-3189-4237-8986-5c35e157b310
> >> @w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
>
>   .
>
> >>> At 20mph a driver has a much better chance of stopping in time
> >>> than at 30mph.
> >> Hardly. At both speeds, you've sod all chance of even being able to
> >> react in time with the way some of these kids run out.
>
> > Do stop trying to blame vulnerable victims and blame the killers for a
> > change.
>
> > --
> > World Carfree Network
> >http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> > Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
>
> Do try to keep up, victims can often be to blame, you know it, I know
> it, in fact we all know it, so why don't you admit it?
>
Victim - from the Latin victima, sacrificial animal

In this case sacrificed in the cause of 'the right to drive'.

Victim - Anyone who is physically harmed by another.

In this case harmed by a motorist.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Doug wrote:
> On 18 May, 09:34, Tony Dragon  wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 17 May, 08:52, Conor  wrote:
>>>> In article <7a2205ba-3189-4237-8986-5c35e157b310
>>>> @w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
>>
>>   .
>>
>>>>> At 20mph a driver has a much better chance of stopping in time
>>>>> than at 30mph.
>>>> Hardly. At both speeds, you've sod all chance of even being able to
>>>> react in time with the way some of these kids run out.
>>
>>> Do stop trying to blame vulnerable victims and blame the killers
>>> for a change.
>>
>>> --
>>> World Carfree Network
>>> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
>>> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
>>
>> Do try to keep up, victims can often be to blame, you know it, I know
>> it, in fact we all know it, so why don't you admit it?
>>
> Victim - from the Latin victima, sacrificial animal
>
> In this case sacrificed in the cause of 'the right to drive'.
>
> Victim - Anyone who is physically harmed by another.
>
> In this case harmed by a motorist.

What about when the injured party is the perpetrator, are they still the 
"victim"?

Doug wrote:
> On 18 May, 09:34, Tony Dragon  wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 17 May, 08:52, Conor  wrote:
>>>> In article <7a2205ba-3189-4237-8986-5c35e157b310
>>>> @w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
>>   .
>>
>>>>> At 20mph a driver has a much better chance of stopping in time
>>>>> than at 30mph.
>>>> Hardly. At both speeds, you've sod all chance of even being able to
>>>> react in time with the way some of these kids run out.
>>> Do stop trying to blame vulnerable victims and blame the killers for a
>>> change.
>>> --
>>> World Carfree Network
>>> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
>>> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
>> Do try to keep up, victims can often be to blame, you know it, I know
>> it, in fact we all know it, so why don't you admit it?
>>
> Victim - from the Latin victima, sacrificial animal
> 
> In this case sacrificed in the cause of 'the right to drive'.
> 
> Victim - Anyone who is physically harmed by another.
> 
> In this case harmed by a motorist.
> 
> --
> World Carfree Network
> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
> 
You are moving the goalposts again.
Sidestepping the issue
Not responding to what was posted
Ignoring the point that was posted
Not answering the question,

-- 
Tony the Dragon

Nick Finnigan wrote:
> John Wright wrote:
>
>> What evidence do you have that these limits have legal force? The
>> concept of how 30mph limits are imposed are well known - street
>> lights and repeaters etc. There are no such criteria for a 20mph
>> limit.
>
>  A 20mph limit has to have signs, and has to have a traffic order.
> Just like 40mph limits, 50mph limits and some 30mph limits.

Many people have been prosecuted for doing over 20mph on Tower Bridge.

On 19 May, 08:24, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 18 May, 09:34, Tony Dragon  wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >>> On 17 May, 08:52, Conor  wrote:
> >>>> In article <7a2205ba-3189-4237-8986-5c35e157b310
> >>>> @w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
>
> >>   .
>
> >>>>> At 20mph a driver has a much better chance of stopping in time
> >>>>> than at 30mph.
> >>>> Hardly. At both speeds, you've sod all chance of even being able to
> >>>> react in time with the way some of these kids run out.
>
> >>> Do stop trying to blame vulnerable victims and blame the killers
> >>> for a change.
>
> >>> --
> >>> World Carfree Network
> >>>http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> >>> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
>
> >> Do try to keep up, victims can often be to blame, you know it, I know
> >> it, in fact we all know it, so why don't you admit it?
>
> > Victim - from the Latin victima, sacrificial animal
>
> > In this case sacrificed in the cause of 'the right to drive'.
>
> > Victim - Anyone who is physically harmed by another.
>
> > In this case harmed by a motorist.
>
> What about when the injured party is the perpetrator, are they still the
> "victim"?

How can someone hit by a dangerous out-of-control machine be a
perpetrator? Are machines more important than human beings now? I know
they are on this NG but I mean in the world at large?


--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

On 19 May, 08:37, Tony Dragon  wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 18 May, 09:34, Tony Dragon  wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >>> On 17 May, 08:52, Conor  wrote:
> >>>> In article <7a2205ba-3189-4237-8986-5c35e157b310
> >>>> @w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
> >>   .
>
> >>>>> At 20mph a driver has a much better chance of stopping in time
> >>>>> than at 30mph.
> >>>> Hardly. At both speeds, you've sod all chance of even being able to
> >>>> react in time with the way some of these kids run out.
> >>> Do stop trying to blame vulnerable victims and blame the killers for a
> >>> change.
> >>> --
> >>> World Carfree Network
> >>>http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> >>> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
> >> Do try to keep up, victims can often be to blame, you know it, I know
> >> it, in fact we all know it, so why don't you admit it?
>
> > Victim - from the Latin victima, sacrificial animal
>
> > In this case sacrificed in the cause of 'the right to drive'.
>
> > Victim - Anyone who is physically harmed by another.
>
> > In this case harmed by a motorist.
>
> > --
> > World Carfree Network
> >http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> > Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
>
> You are moving the goalposts again.
> Sidestepping the issue
> Not responding to what was posted
> Ignoring the point that was posted
> Not answering the question,
>
There are lots of stupid points and questions I don't answer for
obvious reasons, which ones do you have in mind?

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Doug wrote:
> On 19 May, 08:24, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 18 May, 09:34, Tony Dragon  wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> On 17 May, 08:52, Conor  wrote:
>>>>>> In article <7a2205ba-3189-4237-8986-5c35e157b310
>>>>>> @w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
>>
>>>>   .
>>
>>>>>>> At 20mph a driver has a much better chance of stopping in time
>>>>>>> than at 30mph.
>>>>>> Hardly. At both speeds, you've sod all chance of even being able
>>>>>> to react in time with the way some of these kids run out.
>>
>>>>> Do stop trying to blame vulnerable victims and blame the killers
>>>>> for a change.
>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> World Carfree Network
>>>>> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
>>>>> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
>>
>>>> Do try to keep up, victims can often be to blame, you know it, I
>>>> know it, in fact we all know it, so why don't you admit it?
>>
>>> Victim - from the Latin victima, sacrificial animal
>>
>>> In this case sacrificed in the cause of 'the right to drive'.
>>
>>> Victim - Anyone who is physically harmed by another.
>>
>>> In this case harmed by a motorist.
>>
>> What about when the injured party is the perpetrator, are they still
>> the "victim"?
>
> How can someone hit by a dangerous out-of-control machine be a
> perpetrator?

What makes you think that the machine is out of control in all instances?

> Are machines more important than human beings now? I know
> they are on this NG but I mean in the world at large?

"Importance" doesn't eneter into it.

Doug wrote:

> There are lots of stupid points and questions I don't answer for
> obvious reasons, which ones do you have in mind?

Why is it that it's only other people's posts that are "stupid" and never 
yours and who are you to deciide that a perfectly valid question is 
"stupid"?

"Brimstone"  wrote in message 
news:4-adnXO_Td80E6_VnZ2dnUVZ8qbinZ2d@bt.com...
> Doug wrote:
>>> What about when the injured party is the perpetrator, are they still
>>> the "victim"?
>>
>> How can someone hit by a dangerous out-of-control machine be a
>> perpetrator?

Anything which is moving requires a finite time/distance in which is can 
stop: this varies according to weight and speed.

Because of this, there are rules - certainly on the road, railways and 
waterways - to minimise the chances of anything getting in the way of the 
moving vehicle. Anyone who fails to abide by those rules runs the risk of 
being hit.

If a person walks in front of a bicycle, they may be hit. If they walk in 
front of a person who is running fast, they may be hit. Injuries may be less 
but the principle is exactly the same.

In DougWorld, it seems that the person/vehicle who is moving and obeying the 
rules is always to blame and the person/vehicle who invades the stopping 
distance of the moving person/vehicle is always the innocent victim. To most 
of the rest of us in the real world, this logic is arse-about-face.

"Mortimer"  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

> In DougWorld, it seems that the person/vehicle who is moving and obeying
> the rules is always to blame and the person/vehicle who invades the
> stopping distance of the moving person/vehicle is always the innocent
> victim.

No, no, no.

You forgot something. If a pedestrian steps out in front of Duhg on his 
bike, it's the pedestrians fault for not looking. It's _always_ the fault 
of anybody but Duhg and those he approves of.

Mortimer wrote:
> "Brimstone"  wrote in message
> news:4-adnXO_Td80E6_VnZ2dnUVZ8qbinZ2d@bt.com...
>> Doug wrote:
>>>> What about when the injured party is the perpetrator, are they
>>>> still the "victim"?
>>>
>>> How can someone hit by a dangerous out-of-control machine be a
>>> perpetrator?
>
> Anything which is moving requires a finite time/distance in which is
> can stop: this varies according to weight and speed.
>
> Because of this, there are rules - certainly on the road, railways and
> waterways - to minimise the chances of anything getting in the way of
> the moving vehicle. Anyone who fails to abide by those rules runs the
> risk of being hit.
>
> If a person walks in front of a bicycle, they may be hit. If they
> walk in front of a person who is running fast, they may be hit.
> Injuries may be less but the principle is exactly the same.
>
> In DougWorld, it seems that the person/vehicle who is moving and
> obeying the rules is always to blame and the person/vehicle who
> invades the stopping distance of the moving person/vehicle is always
> the innocent victim. To most of the rest of us in the real world,
> this logic is arse-about-face.

Whilst I agree with your comments, it is helpful if you click on the post 
you actually want to reply to rather than another and try to modify it. I 
didn't write the post you are replying to.

On 20 May, 09:41, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 19 May, 08:24, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >>> On 18 May, 09:34, Tony Dragon  wrote:
> >>>> Doug wrote:
> >>>>> On 17 May, 08:52, Conor  wrote:
> >>>>>> In article <7a2205ba-3189-4237-8986-5c35e157b310
> >>>>>> @w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
>
> >>>>   .
>
> >>>>>>> At 20mph a driver has a much better chance of stopping in time
> >>>>>>> than at 30mph.
> >>>>>> Hardly. At both speeds, you've sod all chance of even being able
> >>>>>> to react in time with the way some of these kids run out.
>
> >>>>> Do stop trying to blame vulnerable victims and blame the killers
> >>>>> for a change.
>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> World Carfree Network
> >>>>>http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> >>>>> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
>
> >>>> Do try to keep up, victims can often be to blame, you know it, I
> >>>> know it, in fact we all know it, so why don't you admit it?
>
> >>> Victim - from the Latin victima, sacrificial animal
>
> >>> In this case sacrificed in the cause of 'the right to drive'.
>
> >>> Victim - Anyone who is physically harmed by another.
>
> >>> In this case harmed by a motorist.
>
> >> What about when the injured party is the perpetrator, are they still
> >> the "victim"?
>
> > How can someone hit by a dangerous out-of-control machine be a
> > perpetrator?
>
> What makes you think that the machine is out of control in all instances?
>
If it was in control it wouldn't hit anyone or anything. The driver
would be able to take avoiding action. The reality is, on the other
hand, that cars are driven much too fast in virtually all
circumstances and so lack adequate control.
>
> > Are machines more important than human beings now? I know
> > they are on this NG but I mean in the world at large?
>
> "Importance" doesn't eneter into it.
>
You are defending motorists who kill by blaming their dead victims who
happen to get in their way, as usual. You obviously consider car use
to be more important than human life.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Doug wrote:
> On 20 May, 09:41, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 19 May, 08:24, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> On 18 May, 09:34, Tony Dragon  wrote:
>>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>>> On 17 May, 08:52, Conor  wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <7a2205ba-3189-4237-8986-5c35e157b310
>>>>>>>> @w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
>>
>>>>>>   .
>>
>>>>>>>>> At 20mph a driver has a much better chance of stopping in time
>>>>>>>>> than at 30mph.
>>>>>>>> Hardly. At both speeds, you've sod all chance of even being
>>>>>>>> able to react in time with the way some of these kids run out.
>>
>>>>>>> Do stop trying to blame vulnerable victims and blame the killers
>>>>>>> for a change.
>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> World Carfree Network
>>>>>>> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
>>>>>>> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
>>
>>>>>> Do try to keep up, victims can often be to blame, you know it, I
>>>>>> know it, in fact we all know it, so why don't you admit it?
>>
>>>>> Victim - from the Latin victima, sacrificial animal
>>
>>>>> In this case sacrificed in the cause of 'the right to drive'.
>>
>>>>> Victim - Anyone who is physically harmed by another.
>>
>>>>> In this case harmed by a motorist.
>>
>>>> What about when the injured party is the perpetrator, are they
>>>> still the "victim"?
>>
>>> How can someone hit by a dangerous out-of-control machine be a
>>> perpetrator?
>>
>> What makes you think that the machine is out of control in all
>> instances?
>>
> If it was in control it wouldn't hit anyone or anything. The driver
> would be able to take avoiding action. The reality is, on the other
> hand, that cars are driven much too fast in virtually all
> circumstances and so lack adequate control.

Since people walk into each other and into stationary objects should they 
also be banned or have their speed controlled?

>>> Are machines more important than human beings now? I know
>>> they are on this NG but I mean in the world at large?
>>
>> "Importance" doesn't eneter into it.
>>
> You are defending motorists who kill by blaming their dead victims who
> happen to get in their way, as usual.

Staying safe requires the co-operation of all those involved. If a car is 
travelling along the road set aside for it and within the law it is not out 
of control and others have a duty to keep clear just as the driver has a 
duty to comply with the rules.

> You obviously consider car use
> to be more important than human life.

Evidence?

In message <d8+l7cIi8wLIFwDZ@nildram.co.uk>, Ed Banger 
 writes
>In message 
>, 
>Doug  writes
>>On 16 May, 18:21, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
>>wrote:
>>> "Conor"  wrote in message
>>> > Won't make a shit of difference because the problem is with hoardes of
>>> > kids just running out into the road without bothering to look.
>>>
>>> The alternative is to expect parents to take responsibility for educating
>>> their children in road safety, so speed cameras it will be.
>>>
>>Don't try to blame the parents of the vulnerable victims. In our
>>modern world dominated by the car culture there are few places left
>>where children can play and socialise in safety adjacent to their
>>homes. At 20mph a driver has a much better chance of stopping in time
>>than at 30mph.
>
>So why have more people been killed in 20mph zones than 30mph zones in 
>2006, according to DfT figures?
>
>This obsessive focus on speed since 1995 has been a monumental failure. 
>Despite all the tens of thousands of cameras and all the speed limit 
>reductions (mostly at the behest of politicians, not road safety 
>experts), the casualties are *still* the same level that they were 13 
>years ago. It's a failure, Duhg, just like you.
>
>If this scheme goes ahead, the fatalities will still keep happening 
>because most pedestrian collision deaths are the pedestrian's fault. 
>The Transport Research Laboratory says that 75% of accidents resulting 
>in pedestrian injuries are the pedestrian's own fault. This rises to 
>84% in the case of pedestrian deaths.
>
>So you really want to get pedestrian deaths down? Here's how you do it:
>
>Install pedestrian cameras (existing CCTV installations will do in most 
>cases) and issue serious fines for "crossing without due care", 
>jaywalking, "not being in a position of safety whilst using a mobile, 
>using an iPod etc". Oh, and jailing parents for letting their kids play 
>in roads unsupervised.
>
>>RoadPeace
>>http://www.roadpeace.org/
>>For road crash victims.
>
>Have RoadPeace authorised you to speak on their behalf, Doug Bollen?

Well, Duhg?


-- 
Ed Banger

On 21 May, 08:50, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 20 May, 09:41, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >>> On 19 May, 08:24, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> >>>> Doug wrote:
> >>>>> On 18 May, 09:34, Tony Dragon  wrote:
> >>>>>> Doug wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 17 May, 08:52, Conor  wrote:
> >>>>>>>> In article <7a2205ba-3189-4237-8986-5c35e157b310
> >>>>>