undyingking: (Default)
[personal profile] undyingking
Some policy ideas being kicked around by the Tories: among them left on red at traffic lights, like the right on red system in some parts of the US.

This seems a crazy idea to me -- surely it will encourage accidents and freak out pedestrians. Can you shed any light [livejournal.com profile] cardinalsin?

And as for the idea about putting more cycle lanes onto pavements, that's terrible, there are too many as it is!

I wonder if by "reviewing speed limits" they mean "making them faster"? That would tie in with what so far looks like part of a selfish motorist's wish list. Get all those troublesome slowcoaches out of my way!

Will people ever really believe that the Tories are environmentally friendly? I wonder.

Date: 2006-06-02 08:03 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] smiorgan.livejournal.com
And as for the idea about putting more cycle lanes onto pavements, that's terrible, there are too many as it is!

And yet it's preceded by a comment about removing "dangerous" cycle paths. I'd like to see how they marry those two together. Also, I wonder if the quotation marks are from the policy or (more likely) the BBC - perhaps the journalist doesn't believe that cycle paths can be dangerous.

Date: 2006-06-02 08:10 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] wimble.livejournal.com
Some pro-cyclist group has just recommended introducing a city-wide 20mph speed-limit in Oxford. They claim that it'll actually reduce congestion (possibly because the cars won't bunch together so much? I don't know: the details were somewhat lacking in the radio news coverage). Apararently, the council will be "taking it seriously" and "considering it". What they won't be doing is introducing more traffic calming measures to go along with proposal. So, frankly, I think, even if 20mph signs are put up, most of them will be ignored.

Date: 2006-06-02 08:14 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] undyingking.livejournal.com
There's an area of town near where my old house that has a 20 limit throughout, which is quite well observed through the traditional traffic calming method of being too narrow to go any faster without clipping the mirrors of parked cars. But really that should probably be 10 from a safety pov, as if someone steps from behind a parked car they're under your wheels almost immediately.

Date: 2006-06-02 08:16 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cardinalsin.livejournal.com
The current advice from DfT is indeed that without traffic calming and/or people driving slow anyway for some reason, one should not put 20mph speed limits in place. But it is up to the local authority - so who knows what they'll do!

Date: 2006-06-02 08:12 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] secondhand-rick.livejournal.com

The single thing I'd most like to see to improve road safety at the moment would be for every single speed camera to have the speed limit clearly displayed on it.

As it is, I often see people on the North Circular break sharply from 50 or 60 or so right down to 30, because they have clearly failed to take note of the actual limit. Suddenly spotting a speed camera, they slam on the anchors to get to a speed that's bound to be safe. I just don't like driving in traffic where that kind of behavior is reasonably common.

Date: 2006-06-02 08:16 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] undyingking.livejournal.com
Mm, good one, I'd vote for you on that.

Date: 2006-06-02 08:33 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] smiorgan.livejournal.com
Seconded

Date: 2006-06-02 09:28 am (UTC)
ext_44: (whoops)
From: [identity profile] jiggery-pokery.livejournal.com
I thought I read that that has been suggested as an Early Day Motion. Like ninety-mumble percent of Early Day Motions, it got lots of mutterings of support and then never got anywhere after that.

Five minutes' searching for evidence of this proves nothing, though, alas.

Date: 2006-06-02 09:48 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cardinalsin.livejournal.com
Private members bill I believe.

Date: 2006-06-02 12:16 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cardinalsin.livejournal.com
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm051213/debtext/51213-06.htm#51213-06_spnew3

According to Hansard linked above, if I have read it correctly, this Bill would have its second reading on 14th July.

Date: 2006-06-02 12:55 pm (UTC)
ext_44: (bankformonument)
From: [identity profile] jiggery-pokery.livejournal.com
Shot! *salutes*

It's That Man Again [*] behind the bill; I thought it was one of his, but couldn't prove it. The five minutes' searching to which I referred was a quick trawl through http://www.broxtowelabour.org/ and its search function, but either I didn't find the reference I was looking for or I didn't recognise it when I saw it.

[*] At different points, effectively an employer of yr host and myself.

Date: 2006-06-02 01:29 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] undyingking.livejournal.com
Heh, the sign probably only tells you the speed limit if you display your ID card.

Date: 2006-06-02 11:54 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vicarage.livejournal.com
That is partly because the NC speed limits are often inconsistent with the feel of the road. It is a difficult road to control because its an oasis of motorway type road that can suddenly sieze up, so you need to keep drivers alert when there are few visual clues of the dangers.

Speed cameras that enforce limits far from the 'natural' speed of a road are always likely to cause sudden braking, and any inconsistent speed policy needs to be heavily advertised.

Date: 2006-06-02 08:13 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cardinalsin.livejournal.com
Sorry, no - never heard of this practice until you mentioned it. It doesn't seem all that much more likely to cause accidents compared with a zebra crossing or a cross-roads with no lights; but on the other hand I have my doubts that it will seriously help with congestion.

I am sure that reviewing speed limits is indeed code for raising them. The question is, how will they do this? Currently most speed limits are set by local authorities, and I'm not sure whether it will involve re-patriating some power or other to DfT in order to change that. It's pretty contrary to the Tories' usual anti-centralisation stance.

As for environmentally friendly - I'm quite prepared to believe the Tories are as environmentally friendly as Labour, i.e. not at all. For those who would consider voting Tory in the first place, the noises Mr. Cameron is making about the environment will reassure them that they aren't voting for the Nasty Party(TM). That is all that is really required.

Date: 2006-06-02 08:22 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] undyingking.livejournal.com
Mm, it seems to that it could only really help with congestion in situations when there wasn't really any! But yes, from the accidents angle I meant compared with the existing pelican crossings, which I was assuming were safer than zebras -- is that actually true do you know?

My one hope is that Cameron has taken over far enough in front of the next election that there's going to be occasion between now and then to disastrously expose the true nasty colours. Although tat may require Labout getting its act back into gear (ie. Blair resigning) quick enough that the media see an interest in ending the Cameron honeymoon.

Date: 2006-06-02 09:39 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] teawith.livejournal.com
I think they do the left turn on red in Australia and don't have any problems. But then, I imagine they don't have the congestion we have either :) I don't think it can do any harm though.

Date: 2006-06-02 09:55 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] undyingking.livejournal.com
That's the thing -- in situations where there isn't any congestion, it's great, because it saves you waiting drumming your fingers at empty traffic lights. But here the danger is that it'll encourage people to try and zip left quickly through the gaps in the crossing traffic stream / the pedestrians.

Date: 2006-06-02 08:57 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bateleur.livejournal.com
I am sure that reviewing speed limits is indeed code for raising them.

It'll be quite hard to tell, since IMO well over 3/4 of stupid limits are too low. The fact that it's the too fast ones that are more important to fix will doubtless get swept under the carpet.

will reassure them that they aren't voting for the Nasty Party(TM)

I thought that's what the BNP were for - to make the Conservatives look fluffy by comparison ?

Date: 2006-06-02 09:54 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dr-bob.livejournal.com
Michael Howard was on the radio talking about it this morning. 'Turn left on Red' means treat the junction as a STOP sign if you are turning left (ie give way to anything else using the junction, including pedestrians).
His speed limit comments were focussed on introducing variable speed limits, such as 20mph ouside schools only during access hours, and allowing higher speed limits at night. Primarily legislation will allow councils to do this.

Date: 2006-06-02 10:01 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] undyingking.livejournal.com
I thought that at a STOP you must always stop, even if there isn't anything coming, unlike a GIVE WAY where you can carry on without stopping if it's clear? Or is this one of those piece of the Highway Code that's universally ignored by experienced drivers?

Round here we already have 20 outside all the schools during certain hours, so unless Ipswich Council are exceeding their powers, they must be already permitted to do this?

Date: 2006-06-02 02:03 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] wimble.livejournal.com
I can't comment on the universalness of my behaviour :)

I don't honestly know whether I do entirely stop at STOP signs, but I think I do.

If I'm approaching a suitably "shallow" Give Way I might look at the traffic situation, and accelerate through it (eg, coming out of HomeBase here, I have to turn left, and merge in with the traffic that's coming off the ring road. If the lights are just changing, I might make a run for it, rather than having to wait for the entire queue of traffic to go past).

If I'm approaching a STOP sign, my first reaction is to slow down, and only after that, look for any trouble. As a result of that, I'll probably end up below 5 mph or so, even if I don't actually come to a complete standstill. But I suspect that, even if I can see the junction clearly in every direction, I still stop.

I don't know for certain if that's what I always, really do. But it's what I think I do. :)

Date: 2006-06-02 12:06 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vicarage.livejournal.com
Right on red is used here because there are lots of traffic lights where Europeans would have roundabouts, and it eases the flow on light traffic streets. People rarely try to nip out into gaps, but I suspect that's a consequence of low traffic, low stress driving where you don't have the pressure to get on. The sightlines are so good at most junctions that its not too much of a problem for pedestrians, but British conditions would be a lot worse. The biggest consequence is that when cycling straight on a 4 lane city street I stop on the left of the right turning lane to allow cars to turn right inside me. When setting off I aim diagonally right across the road back to the curb again. This works in bike conscious Boulder, not sure how safe this would be in other parts of the country


diagonally right across the road

Date: 2006-06-02 01:35 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] undyingking.livejournal.com
I guess as long as only people who are turning are in the inside lane, ie. no-one will be coming up inside you, that shouldn't be too much of a problem... assuming the straight-on people are OK to wait for you to get back to the kerb (NB spelling! -- surely you haven't gone native already?) before roaring past your shoulder.

Re: diagonally right across the road

Date: 2006-06-02 02:02 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
For 2 lanes of waiting traffic, the left lane is for turning left, right is for straight on and right turn, so there is an issue of people undertaking, but generally they don't (as they'll have 2 bikes in the back of the pickup anyway, as they go mountain biking)

I think I've always miss-spelt it curb, a bigger worry is I'm forgetting which side of the road people drive on at home!

Re: diagonally right across the road

Date: 2006-06-02 02:15 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] undyingking.livejournal.com
You'll be reminded soon enough once you're back here, I'm sure!

Date: 2006-06-02 04:52 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] a-llusive.livejournal.com
crazy crazy

Date: 2006-06-02 06:02 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] waistcoatmark.livejournal.com
Remember an entire generation of students are graduating with record levels of debt and facing house prices that they wouldn't be able to afford even if they're debt free. They're going to grow up as naturally anti-Labour as we're anti-Tory. With a bit of luck that means the LibDems might get in and it'll take a good few years before Big Business get over their shock and corrupt them.

as naturally anti-Labour as we're anti-Tory

Date: 2006-06-04 12:35 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] undyingking.livejournal.com
Not sure that parallel applies exactly -- we were anti-Tory not because they'd made us personally worse off, but because they'd made large swathes of the country (and in particular the poor) worse off. To be anti-Labour now because they've hit you in your own pocket, despite the fact they've made things better for people less well off than you and for the national economy in general, seems a tad selfish to say the least...

I suspect big business is already sizing up the LDs for just such an eventuality. I give them about six months tops of incorruption if they do get in. But I guess they could do quite a bit of good in that time if they worked at it!

Date: 2006-06-02 06:28 pm (UTC)
ext_44: (whoops)
From: [identity profile] jiggery-pokery.livejournal.com
My view is that such a move would cause 5-10 years of (relative) chaos, confusion, danger and misery, but 20 years down the line it would be eventually regarded as having been a beneficial move. Accordingly: in principle, I'm in favour.

I would be much more strongly in favour had it come from an independent traffic regulation reform group than a political party, though. Weird issue to be partisan about.

Date: 2006-06-03 01:20 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] fractalgeek.livejournal.com
There's an infamous story that when the stories were last in power, they tested all the transport modeling packages, to see which was best. They picked that one, than ran all the election proposals through it. The result was that their policy was the one that was worst (and apparently worse than doing nothing). So they banned the model as being "politically biased".

Date: 2006-06-02 08:13 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] fractalgeek.livejournal.com
They seemed like an eminently sensible set of proposals.

Variable Speed limits. They work on the M25, and should be applied eg during school hours outside schools - why have a 20MPH limit outside a school at night.
Appropriate Speed limits. Most roads have a "natural" speed. Setting the speed limit nearer this MAY even increase observation, as people are more likely to stick to the limit, and cruise without keeping their nose on the speedo all the way. There's lots of research to support this one. Many speed limits were set assuming people will drive 10mph above them to start with. A higher but enforced limit is better for everyone.

Oh, and in London again (not sure about elsewhere), there has been a deliberate policy of "detrunking" - usually involving dropping speed limits from 70 to 50 or 50 to 40 while simultaneously bringing in cameras, traffic calming and annoyingly in many cases, road improvements that removed most of the original risk. Take the A2 as a case in point - originally it was a 3 lane 70 from Falconwood to Bexley, with dangerous short slips. They then rebuilt as a 2 lane 50, with the third lane as slip roads running for miles. In other areas, such as the Blackwall tunnel A102M (yes, M for motorway), the reduction was justified as a "noise reduction" - presumably for the windowless storage warehouses backing onto it. Porous asphelt would have resulted in a higher reduction of accident and noise, but that's upfront investment, and now they make oodles of money with the cameras...

Dangerous cycle lanes. In London, particularly, there are a couple reckoned to be lethal. Search for "Cycle Lane" and "Blackfriars Bridge", and you'll see exactly what they're talking about.

No more unnecessary 4-way reds. They're not needed at all junctions, and even if they are, that part of the cycle should be pedestrian controlled. Cars sitting still pump out pollutants, so extra delays are baad

Turn on Red. Provided nothing is coming and pedestrians aren't endangered, it's a good idea. In the US, some junctions simply have "no red turn" signs on them. They may even be safer, as it makes the drivers on the green route more cautious.

What most people forget is that current transport policy is about making driving unpleasant, though that is not said publically. Given that by the DoT's own figures only 50% of journeys are even reasonably possible by public transport, that's hard on the rest of us. OTOH, most of the above policies will also improve bus speeds too...

Profile

undyingking: (Default)
undyingking

March 2012

S M T W T F S
     123
4 5678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 27th, 2025 06:43 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios