Vote blue, get left on red?
Jun. 2nd, 2006 08:38 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
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
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.
This seems a crazy idea to me -- surely it will encourage accidents and freak out pedestrians. Can you shed any light
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-02 08:03 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-02 08:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-02 08:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-02 08:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-02 08:12 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-02 08:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-02 08:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-02 09:28 am (UTC)Five minutes' searching for evidence of this proves nothing, though, alas.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-02 09:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-02 12:16 pm (UTC)According to Hansard linked above, if I have read it correctly, this Bill would have its second reading on 14th July.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-02 12:55 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-02 01:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-02 11:54 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-02 08:13 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-02 08:22 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-02 09:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-02 09:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-02 08:57 am (UTC)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 ?
no subject
Date: 2006-06-02 09:54 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-02 10:01 am (UTC)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?
no subject
Date: 2006-06-02 02:03 pm (UTC)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. :)
no subject
Date: 2006-06-02 12:06 pm (UTC)diagonally right across the road
Date: 2006-06-02 01:35 pm (UTC)Re: diagonally right across the road
Date: 2006-06-02 02:02 pm (UTC)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)no subject
Date: 2006-06-02 04:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-02 06:02 pm (UTC)as naturally anti-Labour as we're anti-Tory
Date: 2006-06-04 12:35 pm (UTC)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!
no subject
Date: 2006-06-02 06:28 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-03 01:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-02 08:13 pm (UTC)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...