'20mph for West Hove'

[TR4ffic]

The pedestrians would normally have been going about their lawful business. Certainly they were not driving a tonne plus of metal, so bring little risk to the equation (unless carrying some other deadly weapon of course - I hardly think it likely that any significant number of drivers causing injury to pedestrians were acting in self defence though).

Enforcement of the 30mph limit would very likely produce results in terms of punishing those who exceed them. More pedestrian crossings would emphasise that pedestrians exist in the area and 'might' cause drivers to drive more responsibly; I suspect however that this (expensive) option would simply cause drivers to self-justify in the event of a collision with a pedestrian "What were they doing there? They should have been on the crossing". As for jay-walking laws, an emphatic NO! The roads (especially around residential areas do not belong to drivers of motor vehicles and the suggestion from an AD that they should is IMO seriously disturbing.

Everyone on the road, including pedestrians whilst crossing, have a responsibility for their own safety and the safety of others. Saying that pedestrians 'bring little risk to the equation' makes little sense if the pedestrian was acting in an irresponsible and reckless manner, with undue care and attention - If they act as such they risk being involved in a collision. We all appreciate that the consequences for the pedestrian in event of a collision are far worse but that's not the same as bringing little risk to the equation. Just as drivers need to be aware that they are driving a one tonne plus piece of metal, so pedestrians need to be aware that one tonne plus piece of metal go up and down the road.

Every day, we go about our journeys from A to B quite safely with an assumption that road users are abidding by a certain set of rules (albeit that quality of adherence will vary ) - that drivers will drive on the correct side of the road, stop when required, etc. (As AD's we will always assess hazards, adjust speed and position 'just in case' but we make the same basic assumption). We wouldn't get anywhere otherwise.

Assuming that you had your best AD head on and had taken into account all hazards whilst driving along a particular road; if another car 'shot out' from a side entrance/junction without looking or slowing down you'd hopefully be able to stop but, if a collision ensued, you'd hold the other driver responsible and you'd be rightly miffed. Re-run the scenario but instead of a car its a pedestrian that runs out without looking - why is it that you, the driver, are suddenly deemed to be at fault?

Don't get me wrong... I would be absolutely horrified if, on the way home from work this evening, I was involved in the above scenario. I would be thinking (as I'm sure we all would be), 'Should I have noticed something'... 'Done something differently'... Thankfully, I've not been in this situation - neither have I known anyone who has been the driver or pedestrian in such a situation.

[Kimosabe]

Education.

As ADers, we voluntarily do our very best to learn and improve our abilities beyond the DoT test but no such thing exists for pedestrians or cyclists, many of whom are also drivers. Wouldn't it be a better idea if pedestrians incurred some form of 'correction' for bimbling about on the road?; it's not as if there aren't enough crossings or safe places to cross a road. It's also one counter-argument I have against checking my mirrors soon after turning into a new road, because it's near the corners that people will treat as short cuts. Looking in my mirrors to see if anything would drive into the back of me should I need to suddenly stop for a bimbling pedestrian, in favour of first ensuring that nobody would be so daft to cause such an event, seems bizarrely unsafe to me. So I don't do it.

Nobody has the right to step into moving traffic without first knowing that their way is clear and that they won't cause an obstruction to moving traffic. To do otherwise is surely the equivalent of DCA. So how about some enforcement of pedestrians? The cycle paths around Brighton and Hove are generally abismal, except for the seriously expensive ones which hardly anyone either needed or uses but hey, that's Greenwash politics for ya!

Education for all. It's almost free after all!

[Kimosabe]

One more point regarding all that 'information' provided by the Council, who hardly anybody voted for, is that none of the data (at least none that i've seen) shows places where 20mph limits would not be 'safer', so on that basis why not make everywhere 20mph limits? Or even better, 10mph. Ya cannae go wrong at 10mph. Even the Russians could drive at 10mph without crashing...

[GJD]

The cycle paths around Brighton and Hove are generally abismal

Couldn't believe my eyes when we drove along this road on a trip to Brighton a couple of months ago. Surely that's got to do more harm than good!

[Ancient]

The pedestrians would normally have been going about their lawful business. Certainly they were not driving a tonne plus of metal, so bring little risk to the equation (unless carrying some other deadly weapon of course - I hardly think it likely that any significant number of drivers causing injury to pedestrians were acting in self defence though).

Enforcement of the 30mph limit would very likely produce results in terms of punishing those who exceed them. More pedestrian crossings would emphasise that pedestrians exist in the area and 'might' cause drivers to drive more responsibly; I suspect however that this (expensive) option would simply cause drivers to self-justify in the event of a collision with a pedestrian "What were they doing there? They should have been on the crossing". As for jay-walking laws, an emphatic NO! The roads (especially around residential areas do not belong to drivers of motor vehicles and the suggestion from an AD that they should is IMO seriously disturbing.

Everyone on the road, including pedestrians whilst crossing, have a responsibility for their own safety and the safety of others. Saying that pedestrians 'bring little risk to the equation' makes little sense if the pedestrian was acting in an irresponsible and reckless manner, with undue care and attention - If they act as such they risk being involved in a collision. We all appreciate that the consequences for the pedestrian in event of a collision are far worse but that's not the same as bringing little risk to the equation. Just as drivers need to be aware that they are driving a one tonne plus piece of metal, so pedestrians need to be aware that one tonne plus piece of metal go up and down the road.

Every day, we go about our journeys from A to B quite safely with an assumption that road users are abidding by a certain set of rules (albeit that quality of adherence will vary ) - that drivers will drive on the correct side of the road, stop when required, etc. (As AD's we will always assess hazards, adjust speed and position 'just in case' but we make the same basic assumption). We wouldn't get anywhere otherwise.

Assuming that you had your best AD head on and had taken into account all hazards whilst driving along a particular road; if another car 'shot out' from a side entrance/junction without looking or slowing down you'd hopefully be able to stop but, if a collision ensued, you'd hold the other driver responsible and you'd be rightly miffed. Re-run the scenario but instead of a car its a pedestrian that runs out without looking - why is it that you, the driver, are suddenly deemed to be at fault?

Don't get me wrong... I would be absolutely horrified if, on the way home from work this evening, I was involved in the above scenario. I would be thinking (as I'm sure we all would be), 'Should I have noticed something'... 'Done something differently'... Thankfully, I've not been in this situation - neither have I known anyone who has been the driver or pedestrian in such a situation.

So people with learning difficulties, older people who have difficulty concentrating, younger people who have not yet fully developed the realisation of consequences (which isn't complete until the mid 20s) or have not developed the ability to judge approach speed (develops some time between 6 an 10 on average) should be banned from walking in residential areas? I think not. Any driver, let alone an AD should fully expect these, deafness or other distraction from any road user, but especially from those who need no licence to use the roads. It is entirely up to the driver to manage the risk and be responsible for the consequences of his or her vehicle impacting any such legitimate road user; that is the responsibility which comes with being a licenced controller of a piece of large, dangerous machinery.

[Ancient]

The cycle paths around Brighton and Hove are generally abismal

Couldn't believe my eyes when we drove along this road on a trip to Brighton a couple of months ago. Surely that's got to do more harm than good!

Yes it does, the untrained cyclists think they have to keep within the 'lane' and are passed too closely at too great a speed by the overwhelming majority of drivers (anyone here would of course overtake correctly, using the opposite side of the road). At the island, the cycle lane narrows further so actively encouraging closer overtakes still with no margin for either vehicle.
Those of us who refuse to use such farcilities simply suffer abuse and 'punishment passes'.

[Kimosabe]

The cycle paths around Brighton and Hove are generally abismal

Couldn't believe my eyes when we drove along this road on a trip to Brighton a couple of months ago. Surely that's got to do more harm than good!

Yes it does, the untrained cyclists think they have to keep within the 'lane' and are passed too closely at too great a speed by the overwhelming majority of drivers (anyone here would of course overtake correctly, using the opposite side of the road). At the island, the cycle lane narrows further so actively encouraging closer overtakes still with no margin for either vehicle.
Those of us who refuse to use such farcilities simply suffer abuse and 'punishment passes'.

The speed at which i've seen cyclists travel towards that narrowing point after speeding through the roundabout and how they then react to it when they get there, is truly alarming. I'm not anti-cyclist and I want us all to have a great time on our roads.

[Ancient]

Indeed, it's terrible how some cyclists are able to keep up with traffic flows! One might almost consider it necessary to remain behind them

[TR4ffic]

Ancient, I know what you mean... You know what I mean... Let's leave it at that

...younger people who have not yet fully developed the realisation of consequences (which isn't complete until the mid 20s)

...It makes you wonder why we're (legally) allowed to have sex at 16, drive a car at 17 and vote at 18

[TripleS]

The cycle paths around Brighton and Hove are generally abismal

Couldn't believe my eyes when we drove along this road on a trip to Brighton a couple of months ago. Surely that's got to do more harm than good!

....and we wonder why govermnents and local authorities are always short of cash.

They'll always be short of cash if they continue to waste money on that sort of thing; and I'll bet there's plenty more examples of such waste.

[GJD]

any such legitimate road user

Pedestrians are legitimate road users, but is the manner in which they use the road always legitimate? Looking at culpability between a driver and a pedestrian in the event of a collision, can the pedestrian's actions and decisions ever be open to question?

[Kimosabe]

To put some personal perspective on this, I only drive at 30mph on a residential road when I can see that it is continually 100% safe to do so. Added to this is the fact that i've never had to take emergency evasive action to avoid a child,dog,cat,old person,disabled person... so the limit is totally irrelevant to me because i'm driving at below 30mph if I need to anyway. That, to me, is responsible driving.

Stopping distance at 20mph= 12m or 40ft.(dry)
http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg ... 188029.pdf

[TripleS]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... cuers.html

I wonder if a 20 mph limit, rather than the existing 30 mph limit, would have prevented this minor shunt.

[fungus]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2389437/Driver-Ashley-Locker-walked-away-Scarborough-wreckage-thanks-18st-frame-say-rescuers.html

I wonder if a 20 mph limit, rather than the existing 30 mph limit, would have prevented this minor shunt.

I doubt it.

It's joggers that get me. I always expect them to run out into the road, and then look, at junctions. I had one in a narrow country lane a few months back. I had just rounded a LH bend to see a jogger approaching the bend running against the traffic, so I slowed to a halt as there were oncoming cars with no room to pass. As the jogger got to the point where she had to stop, she started screaming that I had slowed her down and made her stop. I'm afraid I opened the passenger widow and reminded her that if I had continued I would have mown her down. Which would she prefer, for me to stop, or continue?

[lordgrover]

I was about to ask if she was fit, but I'm not on PH so probably inappropriate.