Ever tried driving at 20 km/h (12 mph) for long?

LordSutch

LordSutch wrote: »

As the title says, ever tried it?

I had a go in our estate tonight and I couldn't get out of 1st gear.

30 km/h makes much more sense, but 20 is just not practical or logical.

Yes, drove a support van for a charity cycle, through Molls Gap etc in Kerry.

Quite do able and if in the likes of housing estates etc it should be an issue for no one.

Padraig Mor

Pinch Flat wrote: »

According to the RSA, "Of all fatalities and serious injuries recorded between 1997 and 2011, speed was a contributory factor in 22% of fatalities and in 19% of serious injuries.

Contributory, but not causal factor. Big difference, and one that is routinely ignored by the 'car = bad' brigade and RSA / Gardaí / politicians looking for an easy way to be seen to do something, without bothering their holes to actually do something genuinely productive. To be clear: I have no issue with speed enforcement as part of a holistic road safety strategy, but to make out it's some kind of road safety nirvana in the absence of enforcing other road regulations is objectionable.

The_Captain

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Yeah I'm not going to speculate on a single incident. However, my own experience of a death of a child in our locality, it was attributed to speeding.



According to the RSA, "Of all fatalities and serious injuries recorded between 1997 and 2011, speed was a contributory factor in 22% of fatalities and in 19% of serious injuries. The most recent RSA Free-Speed Surveys (an observational survey) indicates that speeding rates on rural roads, where most accidents occur, declined from a high of 22% in 2009, to 15.7% in 2011, but increased to 19.8% in 2012."http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Crash%20Stats/Provisional_Review_of_Road_Crash_2013.pdf

But I agree - iof we used the roads more responsible, these issues wouldn't arise in the first place. Or if they did, the outcome would be different.



My own estate has a speed limit of 50km/hr. Given that every second house has a few kids aged 10 or less due to the profile of the area, I'll happily drive the 200 yards or so to the main road at low speed - perhaps 30km/hr, maybe less - but always expecting the unexpected - a kid to dart after a football, or run after another kids playing tag. These things do and can happen. Others not so and will drive in their own bubble, oblivious of what's around them. More often or not the profile of these drivers will be different - young, more often than not without children of their own.

Some people have a strong concept of personal responsibility - others not so and find it easier to blame others, especially the kids, for what befalls them. People react differently in person than they do online - I'm sure if some one hit and injured or killed a kid, the reaction to the distraught parents be unlikely to be " ah sure he shouldn't be there in the first place, see you now" and drive off.

Some blame national speed limits for their child running out in front of a car unattended

Pinch Flat

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Contributory, but not causal factor. Big difference, and one that is routinely ignored by the 'car = bad' brigade and RSA / Gardaí / politicians looking for an easy way to be seen to do something, without bothering their holes to actually do something genuinely productive. To be clear: I have no issue with speed enforcement as part of a holistic road safety strategy, but to make out it's some kind of road safety nirvana in the absence of enforcing other road regulations is objectionable.

What do you think would be doing something that is genuinely productive? Perhaps if each estate had its own dedicated Garda with a speed gun checking everyone's speed this problem would go away in the morning. Not realistic. BTW, I dont equate 'car=bad" - just not suitable for every situation.

As I said, it's an element of personal responsibility - relying on the motorist (perhaps naively) to drive the the appropriate speed limit and take account of the consequences of their action might be stretching it a bit too far. In the absence of this, speed ramps (not perfect) or redesign of our streets cape that forces slower speeds as possible solutions. Maybe there's others?

The_Captain wrote: »

Some blame national speed limits for their child running out in front of a car unattended

Yeah maybe not so as cut and dried as that - and again it goes na l to the concept of personal responsibility. Although some of us would like to fosyer environments where the car isn't prioritised, acknowledges that children can and do play on residential streets and plan accordingly for this. It's done with great success in other counties as pointed out earlier in the thread.

I've an 8 years old son and he has road safety both as a pedestrian and cyclist pretty well drilled into him. However, most parents worse case scenario is where a child would follow a ball or a friend across the road without thinking - they are children at the end of the day and they will do shat children do.

If a car happens to drive by, I would as a parent prefer my child to be hit at 20km/hr than 50km/hr should the situation arise.

keithclancy

Pinch Flat wrote: »

What's your own opinion having lived there, compared to what we have here?

Is Dutch residential design all it's cracked up to be? I have only seen on brief visits - my own experience would relate to living in southern Germany where similar principles of residential design would have been evident

Planning in the Netherlands makes Ireland's planning look like it was drawn up using some Crayolas by a blind man.

All of the things necessary for a residential area are thought of in advance in the Netherlands.

In Ireland the houses are built first and then stuff is tacked on afterwards, thats why you usually see a massive housing estate in Ireland with f*ck all in them, most of the time they have to block off parts of the estate because people start using them as rat runs to beat traffic jams.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Maybe so, but completely avoidable if you stay within the limit

That's if you know what the limit is, I drove from Amsterdam to Eindhoven last night and the A2 has 20 kms of average speed cameras and also a speed limit of 100km/h between 0900 and 1900 on various parts of it :P

The rest is 130km/h if not marked and 120 if marked .... nobody .. not even the Dutch are sure what the speed limit is some of the time

Most speed limits in the Netherlands are for residential noise reasons as well, not for road safety.

The_Captain

Pinch Flat wrote: »

If a car happens to drive by, I would as a parent prefer my child to be hit at 20km/hr than 50km/hr should the situation arise.

And I'd prefer to not have my child hit at all, so we're back to banning cars.

20kmph is neither feasible nor enforceable. It's pandering to a family who have experienced a tragedy because no one really wants to be the one who turns around and says 'well I'm sorry your son died, but it was a freak accident and changing the law won't really do anything to prevent it happening again'

SeanW

Laois_Man wrote: »

What the hell do you....or the person you're asking.....know about it?

Just going by what I read on boards, one account said the driver was visibly speeding according to witness, I also read the figure of 80kph mentioned.

If that's true then speed limits had nothing whatsoever to do with it because the maximum limit is 50 kph but you're really speeding if the conditions don't warrant 50kph (which they wouldn't have).

Irrelevant.

Pinch Flat

The_Captain wrote: »

And I'd prefer to not have my child hit at all, so we're back to banning cars.

20kmph is neither feasible nor enforceable. It's pandering to a family who have experienced a tragedy because no one really wants to be the one who turns around and says 'well I'm sorry your son died, but it was a freak accident and changing the law won't really do anything to prevent it happening again'

Who said anything about banning cars? Pedestrians, children and cars can coexist as we've pointed out in the thread previously.

Not sure if it's pandering to a family - just one tragedy that the parents managed to high light and has gotten media attention. I wouldn't fault them for doing that. There's plenty if more concerned patents out there for whom this would be there worst nightmare.

Yeah perhaps it's a step to far for Ireland to consider the 20 kph limit and models that work in other countries. We have different attitudes on a personal and community level that would be a step too far for a lot if people. I frequently get overtaken doing 50 kph in residential areas, so 20 kph is going to blow a lot of people's minds.

As Keith points out above our own planning of residential areas is a mess so this is where it would have any hope of changing - as well perhaps out attitudes towards how we transport ourselves around. It may happen slowly at first but then become the norm in a few decades. Perhaps one for future generations to consider, but in the meantime all that we can do is exercise caution and personal responsibility - let's hope none of us end up being the driver who killed someone's young son or daughter.

Laois_Man

SeanW wrote: »

Just going by what I read on boards, one account said the driver was visibly speeding according to witness, I also read the figure of 80kph mentioned.

If that's true then speed limits had nothing whatsoever to do with it because the maximum limit is 50 kph but you're really speeding if the conditions don't warrant 50kph (which they wouldn't have).

Irrelevant.

Other than mentioning what's already published, it is not appropriate to discuss this on Boards.ie at this time. All I'll say is, you're talking bull. By conditions, you can only mean visibility and weather conditions.......but it was a sunny, blue sky, June evening - If you can't drive to the speed limit in those perfect "conditions", then the speed limit is wrong, which is the point of the campaign.

Also there has never been a published witness account of what happened in respect to what speed the driver was doing. All I'll refer to is what's already published out there; the car had traveled only 35 meters from its stationary position to the time it hit Jake. So between that, and the conditions, you can make your own deductions (from the information that's actually out there - not the stuff that's made up) as to whether the speed limit mattered in this instance. And there is a lot more that will come out about it all eventually.

I actually tried, as a test, to go 50 KPH in my estate one day and I couldn't (even though some people do). There no way on this wide Earthly World that anyone of any sane mind can consider that to be safe....as local Government has for the last 11 years - and national level Government did before that.

SeanW

Laois_Man wrote: »

Other than mentioning what's already published, it is not appropriate to discuss this on Boards.ie at this time. All I'll say is, you're talking bull. By conditions, you can only mean visibility and weather conditions.......but it was a sunny, blue sky, June evening - If you can't drive to the speed limit in those perfect "conditions", then the speed limit is wrong, which is the point of the campaign.

Again, I'm just going by what I read, which is that the driver in question paid no heed to either the posted limit or safety. Excuse me for coming to the sane conclusion from that which is that - if true - the driver was a twat and the limit was completely irrelevant.

I actually tried, as a test, to go 50 KPH in my estate one day and I couldn't (even though some people do). There no way on this wide Earthly World that anyone of any sane mind can consider that to be safe....as local Government has for the last 11 years - and national level Government did before that.

"It's a limit, not a target"

I.E. a speed limit that's too high isn't a problem because it's a maximum limit, i.e. you're supposed to go slower if conditions warrant. A speed limit that's too low does not have the same flexibility because it isn't supposed to be exceeded even if circumstances show a higher speed would be safe and proportionate.

That said, 30kph may be appropriate in some cases. But 20kph is just taking the piss.

Edit: BTW, if you could safely travel at 35kph then the 50 limit is valid, because 50 is the next step up from 30.

CramCycle

SeanW wrote: »

the driver was a twat and the limit was completely irrelevant.

True

"It's a limit, not a target"

Words many people fail to realise.

I.E. a speed limit that's too high isn't a problem because it's a maximum limit. A speed limit that's too low is because it isn't supposed to be exceeded even if circumstances show a higher speed would be safe and proportionate.

I don't get you here. A speed limit thats too high might encourage the stupider among society to believe that the road they are on can be handled at that speed. It may not be an issue for you, me or most reasonable people but for some it is. If the limit is to high, its a problem.

As for the lower being too dangerous? I understand it on a motorway where slow drivers are a danger to themselves and others but on an estate? How is the higher speed safer on the estate?

That said, 30kph may be appropriate in some cases. But 20kph is just taking the piss.

Looked at my GPS this morning out of interest (Irealise not the most accurate thing in the world). Coming out of my estate I stay under 20kmph (all of the time) up until the exit on to the main road where I generally cross 20kmph for a second. If I wanted to go at 30kmph I probably could but its not the right choice, roads are too narrow and sight lines are not suitable with an over abundance of muppets parking on corners.

At most, it can't add much more than a minute to most peoples commute.

Other than the minor inconvenience, and thats all it is thats pissing people off at the end of the day, what is wrong with 20kmph.

General points to be made to those who claim they can't drive at 20kmph in an estate:

I can't drive at 20kmph in my estate: BS, you are too impatient to add 30seconds onto your commute.

My car does not allow me to drive at 20kmph: BS; with rare exception of some super car (and I don't know any on Irish roads myself), all cars can go at sub 20kmph, the M50 a few years ago is a testament to that fact.

I can't drive at 20kmph for long: first of all, BS, second of all, get your car to a garage, it needs a service.

I can't drive at 20kmph: BS, let me FYP, you can't drive.

If I drive at 20kmph some muppet will overtake me dangerously so I better drive faster: Really, FFS, you won't drive safely because it will "FORCE" others not to drive safely, this isn't just BS, this is BS in Gargantuan proportions.

Korat

A 20 kmph limit could be achieved on all roads if they just stopped maintaining them. It costs thousands to put in speed ramps and traffic calming measures when leaving a road alone until potholes appear actually saves money.

Pinch Flat

If I was to drive the 200 m through my estate to the main road at 20 km/hr, it would take me 24 seconds. At 30 km/hr it would take 36 seconds. I can live with the 12 seconds the lower speed takes from my day.

Skylinehead

Laois_Man wrote: »

Other than mentioning what's already published, it is not appropriate to discuss this on Boards.ie at this time. All I'll say is, you're talking bull. By conditions, you can only mean visibility and weather conditions.......but it was a sunny, blue sky, June evening - If you can't drive to the speed limit in those perfect "conditions", then the speed limit is wrong, which is the point of the campaign.

Conditions can also mean bends in the road, road surface, cars parked etc, it's not just weather.

In my eyes the speed limit is largely irrelevant here. There's parts of estates you certainly don't want to be going anywhere near as fast as 50kph, and other parts where you don't want to be going anywhere near as slow as 20. On the flip side, every single rural backroad in Ireland has a speed limit of 80kph. Do people drive at that speed on those roads? No, they don't, because they have the common sense to determine that 80 is far too fast there, just like people have the common sense not to go 50 in certain parts of estates.

Yeah_Right

Pinch Flat wrote: »

If I was to drive the 200 m through my estate to the main road at 20 km/hr, it would take me 24 seconds. At 30 km/hr it would take 36 seconds. I can live with the 12 seconds the lower speed takes from my day.

You might want to check your maths.

Pinch Flat

Yeah_Right wrote: »

You might want to check your maths.

Maths are right - got them mixed up, of course if I'm travelling faster it would mean I will cover the 200m quicker at 30 kph (24 seconds) rather than the slower 20kph (36 seconds).

Either way the result is the same - 12 seconds. I'll double it to 24 seconds assuming I go to and from the same place.

Laois_Man

Skylinehead wrote: »

Conditions can also mean bends in the road, road surface, cars parked etc, it's not just weather.

In my eyes the speed limit is largely irrelevant here. There's parts of estates you certainly don't want to be going anywhere near as fast as 50kph, and other parts where you don't want to be going anywhere near as slow as 20. On the flip side, every single rural backroad in Ireland has a speed limit of 80kph. Do people drive at that speed on those roads? No, they don't, because they have the common sense to determine that 80 is far too fast there, just like people have the common sense not to go 50 in certain parts of estates.

Yes, many do!

Laois_Man

SeanW wrote: »

Again, I'm just going by what I read, which is that the driver in question paid no heed to either the posted limit or safety. Excuse me for coming to the sane conclusion from that which is that - if true - the driver was a twat and the limit was completely irrelevant.

"It's a limit, not a target"

I.E. a speed limit that's too high isn't a problem because it's a maximum limit, i.e. you're supposed to go slower if conditions warrant. A speed limit that's too low does not have the same flexibility because it isn't supposed to be exceeded even if circumstances show a higher speed would be safe and proportionate.

That said, 30kph may be appropriate in some cases. But 20kph is just taking the piss.

Edit: BTW, if you could safely travel at 35kph then the 50 limit is valid, because 50 is the next step up from 30.

You shouldn't be believing everything you read on a site like Boards.ie
That's what is not sane about your conclusion!

A speed limit that is too high IS a problem because people DO see it as a target - and at times, it is very difficult to prosecute them when they get into an accident below that speed....because judgement of safety is subjective. There are no circumstances where a limit of over 30 KPH can be unsafe one day and safe the next day in a housing estate. If that was the case, why even have a speed limit of 120 KPH on a motorway!

And I have no idea what you mean by if you can safely travel at 35KPH or what it has to do with anything.

The_Captain

Pinch Flat wrote: »

If I was to drive the 200 m through my estate to the main road at 20 km/hr, it would take me 24 seconds. At 30 km/hr it would take 36 seconds. I can live with the 12 seconds the lower speed takes from my day.

What's your upper limit on time wastage? Why not walk to work and save more lives?

Pinch Flat

The_Captain wrote: »

What's your upper limit on time wastage? Why not walk to work and save more lives?

Yeah cos everyones in such a rush these days and that 24 seconds you will never get back. And a journey in a car as we all know is so much more important than everyone else's anyway.

It takes me 35 minutes to cycle the 14km to work - driving could take 1 - 1.5 hours depending on the magnitude of the cluster fcuk you encounter along the way. You are righ thoug - In some cases walking can be quicker than driving in rush hour traffic. I used to regularly walk 10km daily to and from work in a previous job.

24 seconds I wouldn't consider a huge imposition over a 2 hour plus return car commute. That's if I was crazy enough to take it on. Others differ I guess.

The_Captain

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Yeah cos everyones in such a rush these days and that 24 seconds you will never get back. And a journey in a car as we all know is so much more important than everyone else's anyway.

It takes me 35 minutes to cycle the 14km to work - driving could take 1 - 1.5 hours depending on the magnitude of the cluster fcuk you encounter along the way. You are righ thoug - In some cases walking can be quicker than driving in rush hour traffic. I used to regularly walk 10km daily to and from work in a previous job.

24 seconds I wouldn't consider a huge imposition over a 2 hour plus return car commute. That's if I was crazy enough to take it on. Others differ I guess.

Slower will pretty much always mean safer and it's on a sliding scale. Why are you so adamant on 20kmph, you could drop it to 15 and be safer. You could drop it to 5 and be safer.

Patrick2010

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Yeah cos everyones in such a rush these days and that 24 seconds you will never get back. And a journey in a car as we all know is so much more important than everyone else's anyway.

It takes me 35 minutes to cycle the 14km to work - driving could take 1 - 1.5 hours depending on the magnitude of the cluster fcuk you encounter along the way. You are righ thoug - In some cases walking can be quicker than driving in rush hour traffic. I used to regularly walk 10km daily to and from work in a previous job.

24 seconds I wouldn't consider a huge imposition over a 2 hour plus return car commute. That's if I was crazy enough to take it on. Others differ I guess.

Just a question but after you leave your estate do you go through residential areas that have kids living on them?, areas where people might walk in front of you without thinking?. Shouldn't you drive at 20 kph in those areas?.
I recently drove from Templeogue to Stillorgan (through Ballyroan,Nutgrove, Dundrum) recently and went through lots of residential areas with children and adults, is 20 kph a realistic speed for that kind of a drive?, where do you draw the line?

Pinch Flat

The_Captain wrote: »

Slower will pretty much always mean safer and it's on a sliding scale. Why are you so adamant on 20kmph, you could drop it to 15 and be safer. You could drop it to 5 and be safer.

I guess so. Speed is a huge factor in road deaths.

I would say that the traffic that trundles trough Dublin City centre at those speeds in pretty safe. In all my years of cycling in the city centre I've never come across a multi vehicle pile up. So it has its upsides as well.

But we are talking about a 20 kph limit here. People will accept it, others will resist it, what's your own driving style? Up the rear of someone who dares stay within the limit and overtake at the earliest opportunity, or chill out and plan your journey accordingly?

Dog of Tears

The_Captain wrote: »

Slower will pretty much always mean safer and it's on a sliding scale. Why are you so adamant on 20kmph, you could drop it to 15 and be safer. You could drop it to 5 and be safer.

The law of diminishing returns.

Pinch Flat

Patrick2010 wrote: »

Just a question but after you leave your estate do you go through residential areas that have kids living on them?, areas where people might walk in front of you without thinking?. Shouldn't you drive at 20 kph in those areas?.
I recently drove from Templeogue to Stillorgan (through Ballyroan,Nutgrove, Dundrum) recently and went through lots of residential areas with children and adults, is 20 kph a realistic speed for that kind of a drive?, where do you draw the line?

I live in quite a large estate that is made up of houses, apartments and townhouses. It is laid out along the "Essex Design" principles - so my own area is a cul-de-sac off the main road, as many of them are. It consists of meandering roads, designed to slow traffic. Ideal for keeping to lower limits.

Once I'm on the main road as such it's a road more suited for a 50 km/hr limit - but as I said earlier it's impossible to maintain these speeds without (more often than not) aggressive tailgating, overtaking etc. The roads have had traffic calming fitted to try and reduce what was quote a big speeding problem.

Some other estates adjoining us are a mix of older areas - perhaps laid out in the 70's and 80's. Over time, they've become merged so what was once an estate access road is now a main thorough fare or rat run to another road. Things have slowly gotten better with new distribution roads that can maintain faster speeds.

So I guess I drive to the conditions - long straight road with plenty of set back and good visibility - 50 km/hr no problem. Other areas with cars parked on the roads, poor sight lines and more options for kids to dart out perhaps slower. Also summer time / longer evenings I'm more cautious - plenty of kids out kicking balls, chasing each other and doing what kids so - so plenty of chance for one to stray out in front of me.

Pherekydes

Pinch Flat wrote: »

If I was to drive the 200 m through my estate to the main road at 20 km/hr, it would take me 24 seconds. At 30 km/hr it would take 36 seconds. I can live with the 12 seconds the lower speed takes from my day.

This is the best bit of maths I've seen on boards, ever.

Pinch Flat

Pherekydes wrote: »

This is the best bit of maths I've seen on boards, ever.

Typo more than a maths problem.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Maths are right - got them mixed up, of course if I'm travelling faster it would mean I will cover the 200m quicker at 30 kph (24 seconds) rather than the slower 20kph (36 seconds).

Either way the result is the same - 12 seconds. I'll double it to 24 seconds assuming I go to and from the same place.

But carry on :pac:

jack presley

You haven't factored in the time/distance it takes you to accelerate to 20 and 30kmph into your calculations so can you take another look and let us know the real time savings please?

Pinch Flat

jack presley wrote: »

You haven't factored in the time/distance it takes you to accelerate to 20 and 30kmph into your calculations so can you take another look and let us know the real time savings please?

Oh yeah, silly me. it's going to take another 5 seconds to accelerate. Lets double it to get there and back. That's going to be make or break in someone's commute. :rolleyes:

That's makes 3 budding sub-editors for my posts. Are you all available?

CramCycle

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Oh yeah, silly me. it's going to take another 5 seconds to accelerate. Lets double it to get there and back. That's going to be make or break in someone's commute. :rolleyes:

That's makes 3 budding sub-editors for my posts. Are you all available?

Actually, over a short distance, while the acceleration/deceleration will increase the time in your car in your estate. The presumption that you will also decelerate to stop before leaving means that while noting it will take longer than you thought, they will not be as far apart, relatively speaking, as you have presumed.

Pinch Flat

CramCycle wrote: »

Actually, over a short distance, while the acceleration/deceleration will increase the time in your car in your estate. The presumption that you will also decelerate to stop before leaving means that while noting it will take longer than you thought, they will not be as far apart, relatively speaking, as you have presumed.

Ok I'll run the figures with a micra and a bmw m5 and come back.

Maybe factor in wind resistance and coefficient of drag for the pedants on the thread :pac:

CramCycle

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Ok I'll run the figures with a micra and a bmw m5 and come back :pac:

So long as your not in an Audi as this invalidates the entire test, as you would have to hit 1.5times the speed limit in the area, as well as only stop at junctions where you are not first in the queue as your warranty will be invalidated otherwise. Then of course you would have to also be on the phone, I presume to ring Audi to tell them your following all the rules of being an Audi driver :pac: :pac: :pac:

paulbok

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Ok I'll run the figures with a micra and a bmw m5 and come back.

Maybe factor in wind resistance and coefficient of drag for the pedants on the thread :pac:

Just wear your own clothes.

Pinch Flat

paulbok wrote: »

Just wear your own clothes.

But the windows would be up on the car






























See what you did there:pac:

Cienciano

This thread is crazy. First of all, a child is someone under 18.

LexieOnRale wrote: »

THE ROAD IS NOT A SAFE PLACE FOR A CHILD TO PLAY.
The garden, the park, the green. They're all safe places to play.
The road was build as a thoroughfare for mechanically propelled vehicles, not as a playground.

Parents/Guardians need to accept responsibility for their own child and if they are on the road, they need to be supervised.

You cannot place the sole responsibility of your Childs life with a total stranger.
You cannot blame a motorist 100% for the death (God forbid) of a child if the child's parents placed the child in a place that it was reasonable to forsee danger.

You cannot supervise a child all the time. It's impossible.

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Haha it's "victim blaming" to expect a parent to mind their sprogs. What a complete idiotic statement. Are you the type of parent that would call a solicitor before an ambulance?

I can't believe you actually think chilfren should be allowed play on the road and their parents free from all responsibility? This is what's wrong with this country.

Of course they can. A parent can't be responsible for a child running onto a road. Next you'll be saying everyone under 18 should have an adult around at all times

26sdrawkcab wrote: »

I don't think anybody is saying that kids shouldn't play outside, that sort of nonsense statement is ridiculous and taking things to the extreme. I think everyone can agree that kids should of course be allowed play on the green areas around where they live. People are saying kids should not treat the roadway, where vehicles are being driven, as a playground. People are saying that kids should be supervised when outside playing on the green areas. And of course all children should be taught about how to use the footpaths and roadway safely etc.
Of course instances can happen where a ball is kicked out onto the roadway and that is where a supervising adult comes into it.

How many of you can say that when your children are outside playing there is at least one adult supervising keeping an eye on everybody and everything? Not just to avoid kids running into the roadway and into the path of cars, but to avoid kids picking on each other, excluding anyone, fighting, hurting other kids, "stranger danger" etc. When your kids are playing in the school yard it is expected that a teacher be supervising them to avoid any of the stuff I just mentioned.

Jesus wept, you're actually suggesting that an "adult" should have to accompany children everywhere they go!
All this to avoid having to drive at 20kph in estates! :eek:

Pherekydes

Pinch Flat wrote: »

That's makes 3 budding sub-editors for my posts. Are you all available?

For what? A fight behind the bike shed?

Pinch Flat

Pherekydes wrote: »

For what? A fight behind the bike shed?

I suggest a run at 20kph. Last man standing is the winner.

Pherekydes

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I suggest a run at 20kph. Last man standing is the winner.

You win. I give in now, then.

Capt'n Midnight

a little out of date but pretty much all commuter routes into the city centre average less than 20Km/h just in case anyone is under the delusion that leaving the estate is the bottleneck :rolleyes:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/stuck-in-second-gear-the-commuting-nightmare-25956833.html

Patrick2010

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

a little out of date but pretty much all commuter routes into the city centre average less than 20Km/h just in case anyone is under the delusion that leaving the estate is the bottleneck :rolleyes:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/stuck-in-second-gear-the-commuting-nightmare-25956833.html

10 years out of date and only about commuter routes into the city centre at rush hour.

Pinch Flat

Patrick2010 wrote: »

10 years out of date and only about commuter routes into the city centre at rush hour.

It's all those cyclists holding traffic up. Haven't noticed a major drop of in traffic in the last 10 years - or am I missing something?

CramCycle

Patrick2010 wrote: »

10 years out of date and only about commuter routes into the city centre at rush hour.

Newspaper dated November 2012 and I think the posters point was in relation to commuters.

Dartz

Wasn't too hard. Found a nice stretch of motorway and opened her up.

Nobody else around and it just cruised on up. Only problem was a bit of a vibration that came in thanks to a lost wheel balance weight.