Nuxx:0847c8a1-d491-49d9-97e7-4e69de50524f@n1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!n1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <0847c8a1-d491-49d9-97e7-4e69de50524f@n1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: Confused about URCM in UNNM Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 08:41:43 -0700 (PDT) References:  <8uu1h9Fh5jU4@mid.individual.net>  <8uu5l9Fg4gU1@mid.individual.net>  Lines: 55 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.71.49.124 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1300895000 32296 127.0.0.1 (23 Mar 2011 15:43:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 15:43:20 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: n1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.71.49.124; posting-account=WrLs9woAAAD151hWKA9yknAtxFHW4kE4 User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Firefox/3.6.15,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 4464 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:39325

On Mar 23, 12:14=A0pm, Geoff Berrow  wrote: > > What gets me is that it is still 20 mph when the school is closed.

One of many things which shows that the primary reason for these restrictions is to inconvenience drivers rather than improve safety.

> Then there is the just plain stupid such as this one, near my mother's > house, the 20 mph main road gives way to the 30 mph side streets which > are much narrower and more congested.

...but there are more drivers to be inconvenienced on the main road. It's a similar situation when a wide, safe national speed limit road is pointlessly reduced to 50mph, but there are single track roads coming off it where the limit increases to NSL.

I really wish that the main aim of these things actually was safety, but unfortunately there are far too many pieces of evidence which mutually suggest otherwise. Safety measures which *don't* inconvenience motorists (or improve things for them) don't seem to be considered; conversely, there are countless so-called "safety" measures which do inconvenience motorists and are used all over the place. In almost all cases, there has not even been any *attempt* made at researching whether they really do improve safety or not (and they may even make things worse). Examples (other than speed limit reductions) include chicanes, removal of safe overtaking opportunities, and of course the hated speed cameras.

If one considers what would happen if the aim was indeed to make things harder for motorists, and use safety as an excuse, then it's hard to see how things would be much different to how they actually are. Thankfully, things now seem to have improved somewhat at the national level, and in a few isolated localities; I can only hope that common sense and genuine measures to improve safety filter through to everywhere soon. This idea that making things safer necessarily entails making things harder for motorists is complete rubbish which has been dreamt up by anti-car organisations like Brake and Campaign for "Better" Transport (who have speed camera manufacturers and bus/ train/tram companies respectively as major donors...no vested interests there then!)

It would be lovely if the Chapmans of this world just accepted that people have a perfect right to drive if they wish to, and in a free society, the best thing to do is genuinely aim to accommodate *all* modes of transport as safely as possible without seeking to prescribe how people should be travelling at the same time. This Simon Mason- type mentality that it's great to see empty bus lanes everywhere because they deter driving has really got to be kept out of councils and seen as the dangerous, lunatic nonsense that it is (although fair play to Simon for admitting that he thinks that, unlike Chapman).

(BTW Geoff, expressing opinions like the above is the real reason why the psycholists hate me...you may or may not agree with me, but why should I not be allowed to say what I think? Why does it get their backs up so much...are they perhaps afraid of losing the debate?)