Bazj Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 I suspect one of them was doing rather more than 30 mph never mind 20 Look where that Police car is!!! I reckon the reckless Police driver has come out of the side road without looking; caused the red car to swerve and hit the blue car...... The standards of police drivers these days Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Shouldn't the two cars in the background be booked for obstruction? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 No because the mini is actually in the process of either comming or going as indicated by it's breaklights (reflecting on the parked car). The car parked close to the bend has at least had the sense to park off road unlike the one in the forground. In fact had the one in the forground parked also parked responsibly then cars passing it would at least be on the right side of the road while passing the junction. I rest my case. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 The car parked close to the bend has at least had the sense to park off road unlike the one in the forground. ) But parking on the pavement/grass verge is illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 The car parked close to the bend has at least had the sense to park off road unlike the one in the forground. ) But parking on the pavement/grass verge is illegal. Not in St.Heath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Wolfie May be so, but in forty odd years of driving neither I nor anyone else I know have ever been done for it. In any case that's probably one of those silly rules that doesn?t reflect real life but usually gets brought up in debates like this. Take some real life examples like the road where I live, it?s quite narrow and all but one car puts it's wheels up on the pavement to make it easier for other to get past. Ironically the only one that doesn't has the biggest car on the road and it's common to see others driving up the pavements to pass. He may well argue that he's in the right but ask anyone on our road and he gets called a, well I won?t go there. For sure anyone that deliberately blocks the pavement for no good reason should be ticked off but if a wheel up the kerb or a verge makes for a safer road then I'm all for it and bugger the rules. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 You are correct Bill, nobody normally gets done for it ............ until someone complains. My parents live on such a road where there is very little off road parking and the road is quite narrow. A young woman pushing a pram complained to the Police that because cars were parked on the pavement, the only way she could get from her house to some shops further up the road was to push the pram into the road. The Police went to every house in the road and advised/warned them that parking on the pavement was an obstruction offence. The following day they returned and booked every driver that had continued to park on the pavement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Well if people are stupid enough to ignore a police warning then they deserve to be fined. I have grandchildren myself and I know what its like to get a double buggy past some cars so my rule of thumb is make it easier for drivers but never to obstructing the pavement too much. Like most things in life you have to look at the issue and apply some common sense and by and large, most people are capable of doing this. There?s some though be they drivers or pedestrians for whom consideration doesn?t come into the equation and for them it?s just a point of law. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Whoops! how did that happen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry hayes Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 I have to use the junction of Mayfield Road and Knutsford road, Grappenhall. Residents park on the road and alongside on the grass verge so you can't see a thing coming from town. It makes for a chancy exit and it annoys me to see the grass verge being churned up. Still, they have no garages so it's perhaps 50/50. A bit like cycling on the footpath. Half want the law enforced and the rest don't. Happy days Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 The car parked close to the bend has at least had the sense to park off road unlike the one in the forground. ) But parking on the pavement/grass verge is illegal. The car parked on the verge is far safer there than if it was to park legally on the road due to the bend. Wide pavement so no problem for pedestrians either. PS Bill Your case is slightly flawed as the car in the foreground parks in such a way that any car having to pass it will be back on the correct side of the road as they get to the junction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 I stand corrected but then you would know this having taken the photograph and knowing the area. I think they call it picture fore shortening? The reason I suggested this was that where I used to live in Woolston, there was an old bloke that used to always parked his car right near a awkward junction. Cars passing it were therefore on the wrong side of the road right at this point and to make matters worse, visibility to the right was perfect but blind to the left. Cars had to stick their noses out a bit to be able to see then whack, two crumpled front ends. I seriously lost track of how many crashes occurred. I and others tried to talk with the man to suggest he might use his drive but he was a bit of an odd one and adamant he had the right to park where he wanted. I did manage to get the council to repaint the faded road makings but it had no effect and the crashes and scrapes continued. Eventually the old guy passed away, the car disappeared and so did the crashes. I suppose what I'm saying is simply being on the right side of the law doesn't necessarily make a person right in the eyes of the wider community. The rules are there for a reason, but they're general rules and may not be appropriate to all situations. At the end of the day people make their own decisions based on what they believe is safe and thankfully most police officers recognise this. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 Another view of the so called "successful" 20mph implimentation on all residential roads in Portsmouth! http://www.freedomfordrivers.org/Portsmouth_20Mph_Zones.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 I wonder how many in the group have any idea of why they are standing there? Especially the little mite at the back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodk Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Here is a view from the Director of Public Health for Blackburn with Darwen in the BBC's Scrubbing Up article:- Most residential areas have speed limits, set by local councils, of 30mph. But in this week's Scrubbing Up Dominic Harrison, the director of Public Health for Blackburn with Darwen argues a nationwide 20mph speed limit would prevent road accidents and so save thousands of lives. Road death as been described by the campaign group as "the greatest avoidable public health epidemic", in my view justifiably so. We need governments, both national and local, to act to reduce this preventable risk to children by introducing mandatory 20mph limits on all residential streets in the UK. If the speed limits in all of the residential areas were changed from 30mph to 20mph we could save thousands of children's lives. The evidence for this is now very strong. It is very hard to understand why we are not scandalised by our collective inaction. Saving lives A recent report by the North West Public Health Observatory concluded that 140 killed or seriously injured child casualties could have been prevented each year between 2004-8 if 20mph traffic speed zones had been introduced in residential areas (other than main roads) across the North West. ?Most children will live and recover if hit by a vehicle travelling at 20mph whereas most risk a lifetime of disability or death if hit at 30mph? A 2008 World Health Organization report on preventing child injuries also recommended 20mph limits in residential areas. "Limits" are cheaper than 20mph "zones", which feature traffic-calming measures, and could be in place across the country within 12 months. Coupled with a strong social marketing campaign they could make a massive difference to the lives of children and adults alike. No driver really wants to drive at 20mph when it looks safe to drive at 30. But most children will live and recover if hit by a vehicle travelling at 20mph whereas most risk a lifetime of disability or death if hit at 30mph. The risk each driver creates and the risk to each child of having the current 30mph limit is small - but at a population level over time it becomes very significant. System failure We have had this evidence since 2003 when the English Health Development Agency produced a report saying there was "good evidence for 20mph zones and injury reduction". ?We need to ask what 'cultural disease' has allowed us to tolerate this preventable risk to our children for so long - without action. ? Little action was taken then because there was no one solely responsible for taking the evidence to a Local Authority Transport Committee to decide whether to act, no government minister had to say yes or no to a universal 20mph limit in all residential areas of England, no professional could be found in 'dereliction of duty' for not acting on the evidence and hounded by the media for their culpable failure. This death and injury to children is a 'whole system failure'. With few exceptions, that failure is still unresolved now, in 2011 and our children are paying the price with their lives. Several towns have implemented a default 20 mph limit for all residential roads, including Portsmouth, Oxford and Warrington. The first county to take this approach is Lancashire County Council, which announced on the 25th January 2011 that it would make all residential areas 20mph by 2013 at a predicted cost of ?9m. At a time of efficiencies and cuts this was a brave and honourable decision. Collective responsibility Although we will never know just who was saved we will know how many lives (and lifetime disabilities) were prevented. The Department for Transport estimates the cost of each road traffic death (police and hospital costs, lost taxes etc) at over ?1.5m. A 20mph Lancashire speed limit will pay for itself - even in monetary teams (far less important than human life) many times over. We need to ask what "cultural disease" has allowed us to tolerate this preventable risk to our children for so long without action. Perhaps also, we all need to extend our moral imaginations. We need to take collective responsibility for our part in predictable and preventable events that affect the lives of others. We are in collective denial of one of the biggest safeguarding risks to children. It is both predictable and preventable and it is time to do something about it. ---------------- Regards Rod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 There are obviously arguments for and against..... but why stop at 20 Rod.... think of all the extra lives you can save if it was 10..... or 5! Lets ban cars altogether and go back to the stoneage; because if every life is as precious as you say then where do we stop? I have had a thought though Rod; if you are so against the unnecessary waste of life; you are obviously in favour of something like capital punishment? repeat offender murderers killing after being released account for 3-4 deaths a year on average..... if we had capital punishment, those victims would still be alive. between 1997 and 2007 there were 32 people who were killed by convicted murderers on license Would you agree that it is a crime that these people are released to kill again? Just thought I'd try your tactics for a change!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wahl Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 so rod believes that public health people are now road safety experts. Who next? anyone who agrees with his view? As I have stated before the report from nwpho are to be taken with a pinch of salt as their use of statistics is insecure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodk Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Baz I think you are going rather off topic. You need to create a new one on "Capital Punishment". Wahl Well rather than put my point of view I thought that it might be interesting to see what others were saying. Did I say they were road safety experts? But I do reckon that the health profession probably has the best overall view of the scale and human cost of road casualties. But why not address yourself to the comments that DH makes rather than simply dismissing it out of hand? Regards Rod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 If stats are the basis and justification of all Gov policy development, it would first help if we were all aware of their full range and scale in order to develop a sense of perspective. For example, we're now being told that booze consumption is causing 250,000 deaths per year, then we have smoking and the latest obsession with obesity, not forgetting non-pedestrian/cyclist road deaths; deaths through drugs use, arson and infanticide etc etc. To take "preventative" action against the full panoply of "risks" out in the big wide world, could have us all wrapped in cotton wool and confined to our homes - alas, I believe accidents in the home account for a large proportion of death stats! Whatever happened to the idea of creating a sense of awareness about "the risks" out there and hoping that folk will behave in a cautious manner to avoid them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 Baz I think you are going rather off topic. You need to create a new one on "Capital Punishment". but Rod, you would not comment on that because it doesn't involve 20mph and bikes...... I asked on this thread because I wanted to see if your desire to save human life was as important as you say it is. You never comment on anything unless it is to do with your campaigns..... How about helping me start a campaign to bring back capital punishment for murder? I'm sure together we can save a lot more lives than knocking 10mph of a speed limit! and tbh it is no more off topic than the post you put previously! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodk Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 Baz If you feel concerned then by all means start a thread on Capital Punishment, or anything else which interests you. Am I concerned with life and the quality of life? Well certainly. And I am quite happy to debate how 20 mph speed limits can both prevent needless death and injury and create a better street environment for us all. And if you want to debate against that and somehow argue for 30mph being the right speed limit for where cars and motor vehicles have to co-exist with people's living spaces then I am pleased to enter that debate. So coming back to the comments from DH, is that the sum total of your arguments against what he has written? Best regards Rod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverlady54 Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 A girl was killed because she stepped out into the road while wearing ear-phones for an i-player and was not paying attention. I think there will be many more casualties of this nature as people seem to be in a world of their own when using these things. Certainly not attributable to traffic at whatever speed it was travelling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 Indeed - or driving while trying to text their mates; life's a jungle and if you don't have your wits about you, you get eaten by it's predators! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 The decision on the 20 mph roads is to be made tomorrow night (Tues) Rather surprised to see there were only 6 objections submitted although some are very detailed and rather good. They can be seen in full at the bottom of the report. Even more suprising after all the hype is that there were only 4 letters of support submitted (again shown in full at the bottom of the report) Sorry about the rather long link but well worth a read if not only to see how the officers whittled down the large objection letters into one small paragraph and reply http://cmis.warrington.gov.uk/cmis5/Document.ashx?czJKcaeAi5tUFL1DTL2UE4zNRBcoShgo=pezbGjayIxzxMOOt2eDg%2b%2brDHcwrRjZZhPS%2fcECrYiL18wblFlxOuA%3d%3d&mCTIbCubSFfXsDGW9IXnlg%3d%3d=hFflUdN3100%3d&kCx1AnS9%2fpWZQ40DXFvdEw%3d%3d=hFflUdN3100%3d&uJovDxwdjMPoYv%2bAJvYtyA%3d%3d=ctNJFf55vVA%3d&FgPlIEJYlotS%2bYGoBi5olA%3d%3d=NHdURQburHA%3d&d9Qjj0ag1Pd993jsyOJqFvmyB7X0CSQK=ctNJFf55vVA%3d&WGewmoAfeNR9xqBux0r1Q8Za60lavYmz=ctNJFf55vVA%3d&WGewmoAfeNQ16B2MHuCpMRKZMwaG1PaO=ctNJFf55vVA%3d Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wahl Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 Interesting as to the way all the comments have been dismissed. rather like a communist state. The document seems to support the RAC statement that controls over vehicular traffic are imposed by councils without due consideration of the need, cost and consultation with the public. Although not is secret, the notice of the traffic meeting is only seen if you can find the details in the wbc web site. I wonder if all the people who have commented on the scheme have been told? is this democracy at work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.