R2OK! Forum Index R2OK!
Contact R2OK! admin

Click here for R2OK! Website


 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Dutch Style Roundabouts For Cyclists.
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    R2OK! Forum Index -> News and Current Affairs
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mark occomore



Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 9955
Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 6:16 pm    Post subject: Dutch Style Roundabouts For Cyclists. Reply with quote

Is this dutch style roundabout safe for cyclists? Good idea to separate cars from cyclists at junctions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22350776
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ruddlescat



Joined: 16 Sep 2010
Posts: 18010
Location: Near Chester

PostPosted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 7:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good idea to ban cyclists from the roads unless they have passed something equivalent to the old Cycling Proficiency Test and hold full third party liability insurance Mad
_________________
Are you ready for a Ruddles?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Toggy



Joined: 18 Aug 2008
Posts: 1239

PostPosted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It won't stop car drivers pulling out and hitting a cyclist, nor will it prevent ignorant cyclists who think the world revolves around them from having accidents.
Living in Cambridge I see a lot of the latter.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ruddlescat



Joined: 16 Sep 2010
Posts: 18010
Location: Near Chester

PostPosted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Toggy wrote:
It won't stop car drivers pulling out and hitting a cyclist, nor will it prevent ignorant cyclists who think the world revolves around them from having accidents.
Living in Cambridge I see a lot of the latter.


But at least if cyclists were properly insured when innocent third parties suffer as a result of their stupidity they would have some form of redress
_________________
Are you ready for a Ruddles?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Toggy



Joined: 18 Aug 2008
Posts: 1239

PostPosted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes I agree, I think some kind of test would help.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
R2Icon



Joined: 10 Sep 2009
Posts: 1444

PostPosted: Wed May 01, 2013 4:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tis a good idea. Most adult cyclists have already passed a drivng test in a car, so are aware of the dangers other road users pose to them when on a bike. The only thing you need to do when riding a bike is this:- stay alive... cos most car/van/truck drivers won't even realise you're there and those that do, don't care until it's too late whether you live or die.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nod



Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 3555

PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2013 9:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ruddlescat wrote:
Good idea to ban cyclists from the roads unless they have passed something equivalent to the old Cycling Proficiency Test and hold full third party liability insurance Mad


And number plates so they can be recognised Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
R2Icon



Joined: 10 Sep 2009
Posts: 1444

PostPosted: Sat May 11, 2013 8:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You do of course need to remember the history of roads and also the rules. People on foot have first dips and right of way on all roads, except motorways, then horses and horse drawn vehicles, then cyclists, then PSVs etc and trucks. Cars are last in the right of way list. If you hit something or someone with your car, it's your fault, no exceptions. As a car driver you need to be and should be aware of that. You need to travel at speed suitable for any eventuality at all times. Where car drivers hit each other is another matter and that's where the arguments about whose fault it was, comes from but that argument cannot be read across to pedestrians and cyclists. That is the way it is , if you don't like it , don't drive.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nod



Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 3555

PostPosted: Sat May 11, 2013 10:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

R2Icon wrote:
You do of course need to remember the history of roads and also the rules. People on foot have first dips and right of way on all roads, except motorways, then horses and horse drawn vehicles, then cyclists, then PSVs etc and trucks. Cars are last in the right of way list. If you hit something or someone with your car, it's your fault, no exceptions. As a car driver you need to be and should be aware of that. You need to travel at speed suitable for any eventuality at all times. Where car drivers hit each other is another matter and that's where the arguments about whose fault it was, comes from but that argument cannot be read across to pedestrians and cyclists. That is the way it is , if you don't like it , don't drive.


Thats an interesting viewpoint Very Happy

Where does it stand with rule 170 in the highway code which says

"watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way"

This implies to me that they don't always have priority Rolling Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John W



Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 3360
Location: Warwickshire, UK

PostPosted: Sat May 11, 2013 11:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Think about it nod, what it means is that if they have already stepped onto the highway then pedestrians have priority.

And with pedestrian zebra crossings a pedestrian waiting on the kerb also has priority.

But of course there WILL be times when pedestrians step out in front of a car without looking, might be difficult to prove but there are cases when sufficient witnesses have supported the car driver.


nod wrote:

Where does it stand with rule 170 in the highway code which says

"watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way"

This implies to me that they don't always have priority Rolling Eyes

_________________
-
John W
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
nod



Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 3555

PostPosted: Sat May 11, 2013 11:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

John W wrote:
Think about it nod, what it means is that if they have already stepped onto the highway then pedestrians have priority.

And with pedestrian zebra crossings a pedestrian waiting on the kerb also has priority.

But of course there WILL be times when pedestrians step out in front of a car without looking, might be difficult to prove but there are cases when sufficient witnesses have supported the car driver.


nod wrote:

Where does it stand with rule 170 in the highway code which says

"watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way"

This implies to me that they don't always have priority Rolling Eyes


I had thought about it and the statement "People on foot have first dips and right of way on all roads," is not always correct.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
R2Icon



Joined: 10 Sep 2009
Posts: 1444

PostPosted: Sat May 11, 2013 12:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nod wrote:
John W wrote:
Think about it nod, what it means is that if they have already stepped onto the highway then pedestrians have priority.

And with pedestrian zebra crossings a pedestrian waiting on the kerb also has priority.

But of course there WILL be times when pedestrians step out in front of a car without looking, might be difficult to prove but there are cases when sufficient witnesses have supported the car driver.


nod wrote:

Where does it stand with rule 170 in the highway code which says

"watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way"

This implies to me that they don't always have priority Rolling Eyes


I had thought about it and the statement "People on foot have first dips and right of way on all roads," is not always correct.


Pedestrians always have priority, if they are already on or in the road. If they're on a footpath they're not on the road. Only when they step on the road do they attain priorty. Obviously it makes sense for a pedestrian to check they can get onto the road safely but even if someone steps right in front of you from around blind bend, it's your fault if you drive into them. No exceptions. Now you may not be charged with anything if witnesses say the pedestrian didn't look but it's still your fault. As a car driver it's your responisbility not to drive into things. You should always travel at a speed that would allow you stop in time under any eventuality.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nod



Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 3555

PostPosted: Sat May 11, 2013 1:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

R2Icon wrote:
nod wrote:
John W wrote:
Think about it nod, what it means is that if they have already stepped onto the highway then pedestrians have priority.

And with pedestrian zebra crossings a pedestrian waiting on the kerb also has priority.

But of course there WILL be times when pedestrians step out in front of a car without looking, might be difficult to prove but there are cases when sufficient witnesses have supported the car driver.


nod wrote:

Where does it stand with rule 170 in the highway code which says

"watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way"

This implies to me that they don't always have priority Rolling Eyes


I had thought about it and the statement "People on foot have first dips and right of way on all roads," is not always correct.


Pedestrians always have priority, if they are already on or in the road. If they're on a footpath they're not on the road. Only when they step on the road do they attain priorty. Obviously it makes sense for a pedestrian to check they can get onto the road safely but even if someone steps right in front of you from around blind bend, it's your fault if you drive into them. No exceptions. Now you may not be charged with anything if witnesses say the pedestrian didn't look but it's still your fault. As a car driver it's your responisbility not to drive into things. You should always travel at a speed that would allow you stop in time under any eventuality.


Still not convinced you can always say the car driver is at fault. Where did this list of priorities of 'pedestrian, cycle, hgv etc , then car' come from ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ruddlescat



Joined: 16 Sep 2010
Posts: 18010
Location: Near Chester

PostPosted: Sat May 11, 2013 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well the fact is that there is a difference between legal fault and moral fault in these situations

It's rather like if you're driving behind someone and they just suddenly slam on the brakes without warning and totally unnecessarily and as a result you run into them - legally it is your fault but most people would actually look at it as being the fault of the driver in front by braking unnecessarily

As Rachel says the law takes the view that a driver should always be able to stop in order to avoid hazards although I think that is a very naive view

Interestingly enough a friend of mine is a driving instructor and she regularly makes the point that if someone brakes on a driving test in order to avoid causing harm to an animal which runs into the road then that person automatically fails and they are expected to run the unfortunate animal over - so it seems that like most areas of life there are the usual double standards here Rolling Eyes
_________________
Are you ready for a Ruddles?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
R2Icon



Joined: 10 Sep 2009
Posts: 1444

PostPosted: Sat May 11, 2013 5:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ruddlescat wrote:
Well the fact is that there is a difference between legal fault and moral fault in these situations

It's rather like if you're driving behind someone and they just suddenly slam on the brakes without warning and totally unnecessarily and as a result you run into them - legally it is your fault but most people would actually look at it as being the fault of the driver in front by braking unnecessarily

As Rachel says the law takes the view that a driver should always be able to stop in order to avoid hazards although I think that is a very naive view

Interestingly enough a friend of mine is a driving instructor and she regularly makes the point that if someone brakes on a driving test in order to avoid causing harm to an animal which runs into the road then that person automatically fails and they are expected to run the unfortunate animal over - so it seems that like most areas of life there are the usual double standards here Rolling Eyes


In your first example Rudds, what is the differnce between someone, stopping suddenly when they don't need to and if they really needed to? Surely if you drive into the back of someone whom brakes, for any reason, you're too close or not paying attention, ergo, your fault. In your second example, what if the animal was , say, a cow, or a horse, or an elelphant that had escaped from a zoo? Smile Drive into one of those puppies and you won't be passing your driving test either, you might be lucky to still be alive but I do agree that as a pedestrian you have a moral if not a legal obligation to at least give car drivers a chance. Still, the best rule is to assume that everyone else is an idiot and give them all lots of space. Smile Remember half of all drivers are of below average intelligence and half are of below average driving ability, ( both could be the same half but not necessarily) Smile

It was my driving instructor back in the 80s who told me about the priority order. He also told me that the single dashed white line on a road junction you're turning into means pedestrians have priority, and if anyone is waiting to cross you should stop and wait while they do.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nod



Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 3555

PostPosted: Sat May 11, 2013 5:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Still, the best rule is to assume that everyone else is an idiot and give them all lots of space. "

I agree with that Very Happy

I wish more people would read the Highway code, and not ride / walk more than 1 abreast on busy roads, walk facing oncoming traffic etc etc, it would be a lot safer for them Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ruddlescat



Joined: 16 Sep 2010
Posts: 18010
Location: Near Chester

PostPosted: Sat May 11, 2013 6:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Absolutely - and I do agree that cyclists should be required to display number plates and they should be made to pay some kind of tax for using public roads although obviously nowhere near as much as cars or larger vehicles Smile )
_________________
Are you ready for a Ruddles?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Schizoidman



Joined: 20 Sep 2010
Posts: 1140
Location: Rural West Sussex

PostPosted: Sat May 11, 2013 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I disagree there Rudds. Most cyclists like me also drive a car and therefore would be paying twice Confused
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ruddlescat



Joined: 16 Sep 2010
Posts: 18010
Location: Near Chester

PostPosted: Sat May 11, 2013 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Schizoidman wrote:
I disagree there Rudds. Most cyclists like me also drive a car and therefore would be paying twice Confused


But if you own two cars Schiz you pay two lots of road tax so why should that principle be different for bikes - obviously I'm talking a nominal amount for a bike Smile
_________________
Are you ready for a Ruddles?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Schizoidman



Joined: 20 Sep 2010
Posts: 1140
Location: Rural West Sussex

PostPosted: Sat May 11, 2013 9:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ah...you've got me there. I suppose you're right, but you must admit that bicycles don't damage roads as much as cars and lorries do.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ruddlescat



Joined: 16 Sep 2010
Posts: 18010
Location: Near Chester

PostPosted: Sat May 11, 2013 9:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Schizoidman wrote:
Ah...you've got me there. I suppose you're right, but you must admit that bicycles don't damage roads as much as cars and lorries do.


Yes I take that point Schiz - I think it's more a question of bike riders contributing something in order to give them some kind of legitimacy on the roads

Of course 40 years ago this discussion would never have taken place because in those days the vast majority of cyclists were extremely responsible having usually had proper road safety training - as I am sure you are - but I currently drive over 50000 miles per year and I witness some dreadful road behaviour from many cyclists who seem to think that just because they're riding a bike the normal rules of the road do not apply to them Sad
_________________
Are you ready for a Ruddles?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
R2Icon



Joined: 10 Sep 2009
Posts: 1444

PostPosted: Sun May 12, 2013 7:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ruddlescat wrote:
Absolutely - and I do agree that cyclists should be required to display number plates and they should be made to pay some kind of tax for using public roads although obviously nowhere near as much as cars or larger vehicles Smile )

Where would you fit the numberplate, Rudds? Would it have to be the legally required size lettering? What purpose would it serve? Would the costs of administration for registering bicycles be covered by the cycle road tax? Would cycles need an M o T? If you introduced all of the requirements for cycles as are required for cars and car drivers, the cost to the tax payer would be enormous because you couldn't justify, for example a 55 fee for an M o T for bike , so someone else would have to pick up the bill, likewise for registrations, tax and insurance, the costs of administration would far exceed the revenue, unless the Government charged the same as for motor vehicles, which would simply mean no one would ride a bike, the roads would be busier than ever, and we'd all die waiting to get onto the roundabout on the A40.

Also as road tax is calculated on a sliding scale of COg/Km and some cars are as low as 20 per year ( the new Ford Focus diesel) then what is the charge for a bike at 0 COg/Km? Electric cars get free road tax.

At 50, 000 miles per year, you are part of the problem not the solution. Drive fewer journeys, get the train , get a bike, fly Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nod



Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 3555

PostPosted: Sun May 12, 2013 8:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am sure they can find a place to fit it, as motrobikes do Very Happy

To me the main purpose is to make them identifiable to other roads users, as are any other road vehicles, then we could ensure they comply with the rules of the road. Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ruddlescat



Joined: 16 Sep 2010
Posts: 18010
Location: Near Chester

PostPosted: Sun May 12, 2013 11:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Going back a few posts ago Rach although I live a few miles from Chester Zoo I can't say I've come across a large number of elephants running across the road in my path when driving - well except perhaps on April 1st Laughing - I'm talking small native animals and birds - although funnily enough a couple of years ago whilst driving on a country lane in the Lake District I did come across two Alpacas wandering down the road taking a break from the local wildlife park Shocked

As Nod says if number plates can be fitted on Motor cycles why not on ordinary bikes and I don't see the need for any MOT just like there are currently proposals on the table to exempt older and classic vehicles from requiring a MOT because they drive a very limited mileage - bikes would be in the same category

As for the cost of administering the system yes there would be some cost but money is already spent on many other things in order to keep our roads safe including crash barriers,traffic police,street furniture and general signs and a whole host of similar things - the fact is if you want to keep the roads safe there is usually some financial cost involved

As for my own position I can only suggest that when you have an appointment with a client in Shrewsbury at 10am and a second one in Bradford at 12.30pm just try attempting to service the situation using our wonderful rail service - I guarantee you'd end up being hours late resulting in the use of your services being dispensed with very quickly Smile
_________________
Are you ready for a Ruddles?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
R2Icon



Joined: 10 Sep 2009
Posts: 1444

PostPosted: Sun May 12, 2013 11:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

nod wrote:
I am sure they can find a place to fit it, as motrobikes do Very Happy

To me the main purpose is to make them identifiable to other roads users, as are any other road vehicles, then we could ensure they comply with the rules of the road. Very Happy


What about horses and riders, should they have a numberplate? And pedestrians? They cause accidents too ( although never their fault) , cars have numberplates but car drivers flout the rules every day, so the argument that having a number plate makes people drive safely is flawed, holed below the waterline even. Then there's the cost of road repairs, why shouldn't cyclists pay towards that via some road tax? Electric cars have a much more agressive power train than a normally aspersted driven car, so they cause more wear to the road surface but pay no road tax at all.

Rudds, your travel problems are a diary issue, not a transport issue. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ruddlescat



Joined: 16 Sep 2010
Posts: 18010
Location: Near Chester

PostPosted: Sun May 12, 2013 8:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No Rach - it's not really a diary issue as you suggest

If like me you're advising on matters in a very narrow specialist field obviously you're not going to have the luxury of all clients being within a close area although it would be nice if they were - the nature of the business is that the stuff is very spread out which involves an awful lot of driving

But you need to bear in mind that in an average week I probably spend well in excess of 250 in fuel costs alone and that doesn't include private mileage and since more than 80% of these costs comprise Government taxes then I reckon I'm paying a lot more than most to justify my place on our fantastic potholed roads so I'm sorry but I won't take criticism from anyone on this particular issue Smile
_________________
Are you ready for a Ruddles?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
R2Icon



Joined: 10 Sep 2009
Posts: 1444

PostPosted: Mon May 13, 2013 8:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ok Rudds, I'll cut you some slack.

I'm gonna fit one of my spare number plates to my bike... picture coming soon, just to see if it's possible and how it would look etc.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
unclebuck



Joined: 19 Apr 2010
Posts: 256
Location: Warwickshire

PostPosted: Mon May 13, 2013 12:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not sure road tax is the main issue for me.
There is a view within certain parts of the cycling fraternity that UK law should be changed to initially assume driver liability in any incident (as is the case in some other countries).

Truth is, there are poor cyclists just as there are poor drivers, but I am constantly surprised at how little regard for their own safety, as well as others, many cyclists seem to have.
It's not just individual cyclists, many have no idea how to behave when cycling as a pair or in the ever more common 'packs' that I encounter at weekends.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nod



Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 3555

PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2013 8:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

unclebuck wrote:
I'm not sure road tax is the main issue for me.
There is a view within certain parts of the cycling fraternity that UK law should be changed to initially assume driver liability in any incident (as is the case in some other countries).

Truth is, there are poor cyclists just as there are poor drivers, but I am constantly surprised at how little regard for their own safety, as well as others, many cyclists seem to have.
It's not just individual cyclists, many have no idea how to behave when cycling as a pair or in the ever more common 'packs' that I encounter at weekends.


Completely agree with your last statement.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
essexlady



Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 348
Location: Essex

PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2013 7:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I read yesterday about the car driver who boasted on Twitter? that she had knocked a cyclist off his bike. An idiot on all counts I think. Anyway as part of the article, added because the car driver mentioned by way of justification that cyclists did not pay road tax, the authority concerned said that there was no such thing as road tax and that road repairs and improvements were paid for out of general taxation. Car and lorry drivers paid a VEHICLE tax to compensate for the environmental damage they caused.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
R2Icon



Joined: 10 Sep 2009
Posts: 1444

PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2013 10:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2328397/Trainee-accountants-Twitter-boast-knocking-cyclist-bike-sparks-police-probe.html

Here is the DM piece. If she is typical of young drivers....I'm pleased I do most of my bike riding without leaving the garage.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
essexlady



Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 348
Location: Essex

PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2013 10:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I didn't realise that it had been written about in a newspaper (if the Daily Mail can be honoured with the description) I read it online.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
R2Icon



Joined: 10 Sep 2009
Posts: 1444

PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2013 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tis on jezza right now. There's a fantastic truck driver on at the moment.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ruddlescat



Joined: 16 Sep 2010
Posts: 18010
Location: Near Chester

PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2013 7:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's only in recent years that the road fund licence has been linked to exhaust emissions - for almost a century before that it was a payment for use of the roads although as has alredy been mentioned most of these funds now simply go into the general tax fund - that is wrong to me - it should be spent exclusively on road maintenance and improvement and if not all of the revenue is needed for that specific purpose then road fund tax should be reduced Smile
_________________
Are you ready for a Ruddles?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
unclebuck



Joined: 19 Apr 2010
Posts: 256
Location: Warwickshire

PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2013 10:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting BBC article......


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22614569
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nod



Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 3555

PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2013 1:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

essexlady wrote:
I read yesterday about the car driver who boasted on Twitter? that she had knocked a cyclist off his bike. An idiot on all counts I think. Anyway as part of the article, added because the car driver mentioned by way of justification that cyclists did not pay road tax, the authority concerned said that there was no such thing as road tax and that road repairs and improvements were paid for out of general taxation. Car and lorry drivers paid a VEHICLE tax to compensate for the environmental damage they caused.


So if you don't move your car etc in a year you get it back ? Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John W



Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 3360
Location: Warwickshire, UK

PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2013 6:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My 'road tax' is just 30 a tear. My 2009 Audi A3 has some special engine in it (which they don't do anymore).

So that's one good thing about it. Second thing, it has fab rear parking alarms too which are great as it's the first 'estate' car I ever drove.

Today, I attended Warwickshire's Speed Awareness Course, to avoid points on my licence Rolling Eyes

I learned a little bit about how to know the speed limit anywhere... but everything else I knew... nearly gave myself away knowing about road fatalities each year, even back in 1931, and I knew when driving licences started... and I was only one who knew STOP signs are now octagonal....

.... thankfully, the course presenter didn't ask me how come I knew all this stuff... I have as part of my business 'portfolio' a training course on Driver Safety for Company Car drivers...... and I'm not ashamed to admit, when I'm doing the training, that I once had 6 points on my licence... well, it's good 'experience' for a trainer to have had that, that's what I say anyway... Rolling Eyes Embarassed
_________________
-
John W
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
nod



Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 3555

PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2013 1:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

John W wrote:

I learned a little bit about how to know the speed limit anywhere...


Please tell us how (in case we don't know) Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John W



Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 3360
Location: Warwickshire, UK

PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2013 7:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, there are lots of situations where your observation can tell you what the speed limit is (in the absence of signposts).

Here's an interesting one, you are driving along a busy town road, it's a dual carriageway with houses, entrances to rear garage access, a narrow central grass verge, there's cars parked, street lights, so it could 30mph or 40mph..... how can you tell?

Look at junctions as you pass them, the side roads will be 30mph, look on their pavement, can you see a signpost - you won't be able to see what is on the signpost but if it's about 3m high and has a circle on top then it's telling approaching traffic what the speed limit will be - and it won't say 30 (because they are already on a 30) it will say 40, so the road you are on will be 40.

And if there are NO signposts at the end of the side road then as their road is 30 then so is the road you are on.

The explanation was much quicker with a photo Smile
_________________
-
John W
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
nod



Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 3555

PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2013 9:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks John,

Sadly some of it doesn't sound precise to me.

You would need to know you were on a 30 / 40mph imit road to start with, how did you determine that ? There are all sorts of limits these days 20,30,40,50 on similar roads with no agreed rules I can determine.

Looking at the signs for the oncoming traffic will only tell you the limit you may have just left was ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    R2OK! Forum Index -> News and Current Affairs All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group. Hosted by phpBB.BizHat.com