20mph zones coming.
spindrift
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle3941769.ece
The speed limit on thousands of residential roads will be reduced to
20mph under government moves designed to cut road deaths by a third
over the next decade.
Variable limits will be introduced on main roads near schools, with
digital signs ordering drivers to cut their speed to 20mph or less
when pupils are arriving or departing.
Cameras that detect a vehicle’s average speed will be used instead of
road humps to enforce the limit in some of the new 20mph zones.
More than 3,000 people die on the roads each year, including
motorists, passengers, cyclists and pedestrians. The target, to be
reached by 2020, is expected to be set at about 2,000 deaths.
End quote.
Rob Morley
spindrift <newt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Some truly twatty pro-speeding comments below:
>
> http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle3941769.ece
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article3941769.ece
Mark McNeill
> http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article3941769.ece
"The Government is preparing a road safety strategy for the next decade
and will publish proposals in a consultation document this year. Unlike
previous strategies, it is expected to include a specific target to
reduce road deaths and a series of tough measures.
In addition to more 20mph zones, measures are likely to include a lower
drink-drive limit, six penalty points for serious breaches of the speed
limit and harsher penalties for not wearing seatbelts."
This would of course be a perfect time for the government to introduce a
MHL: any cyclists' lives saved by introducing 20mph speed limits would
thereafter be cited as evidence of the marvellous efficacy of h*lm*ts.
</cynic>
"Read all 172 comments"
Oh, sure, that's *just* how I'll be spending my day off...
--
Mark, UK
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always
so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
Sir Jeremy
and a lot of wanky anti-car ones too
spindrift
road deaths. We've a long way to go.
6 points for "excessive" speeding is a step in the right direction,
but the pro-speeding drivers comparing road safety measure to
"Stalinism" is laughable.
Sir Jeremy
>
> "The Government is preparing a road safety strategy for the next decade
> and will publish proposals in a consultation document this year. Unlike
> previous strategies, it is expected to include a specific target to
> reduce road deaths and a series of tough measures.
>
> In addition to more 20mph zones, measures are likely to include a lower
> drink-drive limit, six penalty points for serious breaches of the speed
> limit and harsher penalties for not wearing seatbelts."
>
> This would of course be a perfect time for the government to introduce a
> MHL: any cyclists' lives saved by introducing 20mph speed limits would
> thereafter be cited as evidence of the marvellous efficacy of h*lm*ts.
> </cynic>
>
> "Read all 172 comments"
>
> Oh, sure, that's *just* how I'll be spending my day off...
>
> --
> Mark, UK
> "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always
> so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
The variable limits outside schools was an ABD idea years ago so glad
to see the Government agreeing.
Compulsory helmets on cycles for children - only a matter of time now.
Can't see how it'd be enforced for adults though except perhaps by
insurance companies refusing to pay out on injury claims if a helmet
isn't worn
spindrift
now. "
What's your evidence for that bogus remark or its relevance to the
subject?
spindrift
The minister quoted a Transport Research Laboratory study of 250 20mph
schemes across Britain, which found that, after the limit was reduced,
crashes fell by 60 per cent, child casualties by 67 per cent and
average speeds by 9mph.
I don't think many sane people would argue for more dead children or
claim that saving their lives is "anti-car".
_
You don't read u.r.tosspot?
spindrift
wrote:
Sometimes.
The more extreme thugs and criminals who used to post of
safespeeding and compete in both absurd hysterical comparisons of
traffic wardens to the Gestapo and sticking their tongue up dead
Smith's bottom seem to have disappeared.
budstaff
"spindrift" <newt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9cb4f913-a3b5-4873...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
Don't get me wrong, I'm pro reducing speed limits near schools (and any road
safety measure which is likely to reduce accidents), but I'm rather glad
that we have a long way to go to match the Swedes. The only way that we
could achieve a target of zero road deaths would be to close all the roads -
to bikes 'n'all.
Zero targets are ludicrous propagandism.
spindrift
wrote:
> "spindrift" <newty...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Vision Zero was adopted by the Swedish Parliament in 1997 and has
taken road safety in a new direction by emphasising that:
road safety is an ethical issue and deaths and serious injuries are
not acceptable
society does not expect people to die or be seriously injured while
flying or while working and it should be the same with using roads
it is possible to design the road environment and vehicles to make
sure that any ‘mistakes’ that are made do not result in death
Sweden is the only country in the world to move in this direction,
though others are considering adopting the Swedish approach.
The Stockholm Environment Institute's report was based on detailed
evidence gathering which included interviews with key policy makers
and officials in Sweden, interviews with European stakeholders, focus
groups with over 200 people in 15 locations in England and an on-line
survey of UK road safety professionals.
The report concludes that:
Vision Zero has had a significant impact on re-invigorating efforts to
eliminate deaths and serious injuries on the roads in Sweden
Vision Zero is generally welcomed by citizens in the UK who see it as
a goal which road safety policy should aim to achieve
Policy makers and professionals in the UK are less enthusiastic about
Vision Zero
Vision Zero has the potential to produce in the UK cumulative benefits
of approximately £100 billion over a 10-year period.
Vision Zero has the potential to deliver on a large number of policy
objectives including reducing air pollution, greenhouse gases, road
traffic danger and improving the quality of life and sustainability of
our communities.
Respondents to the on-line survey identified some potential problems
including the lack of realism in the Vision Zero concept and the
unacceptability of large scale barrier segregation on highways
"Our report looks in detail at the radical new direction in road
safety set by Swedish politicians and professionals, and concludes
that it has a lot to offer Britain"
Professor John WhiteleggProfessor John Whitelegg, of the Stockholm
Environment Institute at York, said: "Swedish road safety policy is
based on the maxim that the only acceptable level of death on the
roads is zero. Our report looks in detail at the radical new direction
in road safety set by Swedish politicians and professionals, and
concludes that it has a lot to offer Britain.
"Setting a target of zero has the potential to galvanise action on
every front and in every profession and simply transfers everyday
practice in aviation to the road environment. Our research shows that
the public are ready to move in this direction and want decision
makers and policy makers to be much bolder in eliminating death and
serious injury from the road environment"
The report recommends five key policy areas to secure improved
performance in road safety:
Speed control (20mph in all urban areas)
Accident investigation agency modelled on the Swedish experience and
independent of the police
Law reform to deal with citizen concern about severe outcomes being
dealt with ‘leniently’
Road traffic reduction
Urban design to lock in danger reduction for vulnerable users
http://www.york.ac.uk/admin/presspr/pressreleases/zerotolerance.htm
Sir Jeremy
IMHO
budstaff
The report concludes that:
http://www.york.ac.uk/admin/presspr/pressreleases/zerotolerance.htm
Fantastic bit of swift cut-and-paste-ing, but the only bit relevant to what
I said was:
"Setting a target of zero has the potential to galvanise action on
every front and in every profession and simply transfers everyday
practice in aviation to the road environment. Our research shows that
the public are ready to move in this direction and want decision
makers and policy makers to be much bolder in eliminating death and
serious injury from the road environment"
and I just don't buy it. In aviation they may have an aim of eliminating as
many accidents as possible, but they don't attempt to sell 'zero deaths' to
the public as an achievable objective, and they have a long history of
expedience in recognising the operational requirements of air operators in
the mix (if zero deaths was the aim all the seats would face backwards, for
instance). Also, asking the public whether they would like to see bold
measures to eliminate death on the roads is only ever going to yield one
answer, but if the question made clear the personal restrictions such a goal
would entail (which taken to the only logical conclusion would include
closing all roads completely - presumably allowing us only to travel
off-road) then the answer would be very different.
spindrift
man with a red flag walking in front of the car.
95% of accidents involve driver error according to ROSPA. Fatal RTA's
are invariably avoidable.
budstaff
Then let's set a target of a 95% reduction (and recognise that it will be
unachievable)
Just zis Guy, you know?
<pete...@virgin.net> said in
<3d0041c8-505c-4a20...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:
>The variable limits outside schools was an ABD idea years ago so glad
>to see the Government agreeing.
I heard it suggested long before they took it on, but of course they
mainly mean it in the sense of not having low limits when they want
to go fast rather than having them when it will make the roads
safer.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Sir Jeremy
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 05:58:51 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
> <3d0041c8-505c-4a20-a1fb-28668a485...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >The variable limits outside schools was an ABD idea years ago so glad
> >to see the Government agreeing.
>
> I heard it suggested long before they took it on, but of course they
> mainly mean it in the sense of not having low limits when they want
> to go fast rather than having them when it will make the roads
> safer.
>
> Guy
> --
>
> 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Adds up to the same thing despite your typically ant-car spin
spindrift
will be
unachievable) "
Not at all, in Denmark slower speeds as well as other measures have
resulted in cycling being four times safer than in the UK.
Slashing the carnage on our roads is achievable, and essential.
David Hansen
Jeremy <pete...@virgin.net> wrote this:-
>The variable limits outside schools was an ABD idea years ago so glad
>to see the Government agreeing.
Really. If it was then their "idea" was no-doubt no speed limit most
of the time and only one at school in/out times. That is rather
different to the variable speed limits that are set up outside
schools and for which the ABD can take no credit.
>Compulsory helmets on cycles for children - only a matter of time now.
Why should a cycle used by children wear a helmet?
>Can't see how it'd be enforced for adults though except perhaps by
>insurance companies refusing to pay out on injury claims if a helmet
>isn't worn
They have tried. However, when taken to court they have, as far as
we know, failed <http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1048>.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
David Hansen
Jeremy <pete...@virgin.net> wrote this:-
>> >The variable limits outside schools was an ABD idea years ago so glad
>> >to see the Government agreeing.
>>
>> I heard it suggested long before they took it on, but of course they
>> mainly mean it in the sense of not having low limits when they want
>> to go fast rather than having them when it will make the roads
>> safer.
>
>Adds up to the same thing
Wrong. It adds up to a very different thing.
>despite your typically ant-car spin
Excellent, a personal attack.
Now I must stop feeding the troll.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<pete...@virgin.net> said in
<d209aeff-33df-47ee...@24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
>Adds up to the same thing despite your typically ant-car spin
Um, no it doesn't. And anti-ABD is not anti-car, ABD are extremist
militant cagers.
ABD's stance is that anything that interferes with them going fast
is, by default, bad. Their willingness to tolerate VSLs round
schools was, in my view, simply a way of opposing slower speeds
around schools, since they didn't believe it would happen.
Let's wait and see what they say when the tickets start rolling in.
"Oh, what a good idea" is not in my top ten lists of quotes I'm
expecting to hear from them once that happens.
spindrift
The ABD, like safespeeding, is an irrelevance. Fewer than 3000
members, linked to extreme-right groups, given to hysterical whining
about law enforcement.
They also lie about their size:
ABD's chairman, Brian Gregory, initially told the Guardian that the
association had 9,000 members. But when challenged, the ABD lowered
its claim to 2,256 paying subscribers and 3,775 "affiliate" members
who it said were automatically included by virtue of their membership
of eight connected associations.
Several of the so-called affiliate organisations denied that their
members had any link to the ABD. The Renault Clio Owners' Club, which
numbers 1,000 people, said it did not consider that its members could
be counted by the ABD. The Fiat Motor Club, which also has 1,000
members, insisted it had "no official link to the ABD".
Peter Jones, chairman of the Fiat Motor Club, said the club had once
paid a £20 fee to receive the ABD's magazine but had no close
connection: "This is well out of order. Some of our members would
probably take exception to being counted as members of something
they've never heard of and probably don't agree with."
budstaff
Since when has this thread been about cycling safety? You put up 'zero
deaths' a a worthy objective, then talked about 95% of accidents being due
to driver error. When I pointed out that neither 100% or 95% reduction in
deaths was achievable, you respond that 'slashing' is achievable. It may
well be, but when you slash something there is a remainder, and a
significant p[art of that remainder is the bit that is unachievable.
Sir Jeremy
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 07:38:37 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
> <d209aeff-33df-47ee-897a-478fe0d8c...@24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >Adds up to the same thing despite your typically ant-car spin
>
> Um, no it doesn't. And anti-ABD is not anti-car, ABD are extremist
> militant cagers.
>
> ABD's stance is that anything that interferes with them going fast
> is, by default, bad. Their willingness to tolerate VSLs round
> schools was, in my view, simply a way of opposing slower speeds
> around schools, since they didn't believe it would happen.
>
> Let's wait and see what they say when the tickets start rolling in.
> "Oh, what a good idea" is not in my top ten lists of quotes I'm
> expecting to hear from them once that happens.
>
> Guy
> --
>
> 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
If Brake had come up with the same idea then you'd be all for it
budstaff
"Sir Jeremy" <pete...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:605166f1-50ec-4a8a...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
I'm all for it, but I too suspect the ABD's motives
Sir Jeremy
> The ABD, like safespeeding, is an irrelevance. Fewer than 3000
> members, linked to extreme-right groups, given to hysterical whining
> about law enforcement.
>
>
Plenty of people agree with the ABD and aren't members. Most of the
people who voted for Boris last week aren't members of the
Conservative Party.
BTW stay clear of Lords tomorrow Spindrift. If I spot you I'll stick
my umbrella in your spokes
Just zis Guy, you know?
<pete...@virgin.net> said in
<64a5a635-85fa-4853...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:
>Plenty of people agree with the ABD and aren't members.
And "the lurkers support you by email".
Just zis Guy, you know?
<pete...@virgin.net> said in
<605166f1-50ec-4a8a...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>:
>If Brake had come up with the same idea then you'd be all for it
Actually, no, I don't go a bundle on Brake, and I am all for it
anyway. I am a big fan of VSLs, they work really well on the M25 and
should be implemented round Birmingham and Manchester ASAP.
Sir Jeremy
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 08:21:20 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
> <605166f1-50ec-4a8a-a360-e99532abb...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >If Brake had come up with the same idea then you'd be all for it
>
> Actually, no, I don't go a bundle on Brake, and I am all for it
> anyway. I am a big fan of VSLs, they work really well on the M25 and
> should be implemented round Birmingham and Manchester ASAP.
>
> Guy
> --
>
> 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
There are some VSLs on the M42
Roger Merriman
> Some truly twatty pro-speeding comments below:
>
> http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle3941769.ece
>
> The speed limit on thousands of residential roads will be reduced to
> 20mph under government moves designed to cut road deaths by a third
> over the next decade.
>
> Variable limits will be introduced on main roads near schools, with
> digital signs ordering drivers to cut their speed to 20mph or less
> when pupils are arriving or departing.
>
> Cameras that detect a vehicleís average speed will be used instead of
> road humps to enforce the limit in some of the new 20mph zones.
>
> More than 3,000 people die on the roads each year, including
> motorists, passengers, cyclists and pedestrians. The target, to be
> reached by 2020, is expected to be set at about 2,000 deaths.
>
>
> End quote.
certinly be better than the present system with the odd 20 zone. got a
20 zone here, it's on the A308 trunk road though hampton, yet all the
roads off it, are 30mph
the A308 20mph zone is largly ingnored out of rush hour, and pointless
during, you can comftably out walk the rush hour traffic.
and the narrow streets off and around are far from safe at 30mph.
roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
John Clayton
"spindrift" <newt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:471d86aa-d79c-4d56...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
I'm certainly entering this discussion in the "wrong place", but as I can't
easily see a better spot here goes;-
Little point in more 20mph zones when (in my town) the present ones are
absolutely ignored and quite unenforced.
I'm very happy to see a target of "nil deaths" on our roads - but until we
can find (or seriousely attempt) some way of pacifying the mad aggression we
ALL encounter as road users this figure is unachievable.
Simple, obvious and very true.
John
_
We know the way; it's been posted here before.
Long gaol terms, suspended with conditions. Second offense, and plod takes
them straight there - they've broken the terms, no trial necessary.
And car crushing, irrespective of the owner/keeper/driver.
Quite simply, the cost of error must be high enough that ther eroors
decrease.
JNugent
> On 16 May, 13:51, Mark McNeill <markonnewsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Response to Rob Morley
>>
>>> http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/trans...
>> "The Government is preparing a road safety strategy for the next decade
>> and will publish proposals in a consultation document this year. Unlike
>> previous strategies, it is expected to include a specific target to
>> reduce road deaths and a series of tough measures.
>>
>> In addition to more 20mph zones, measures are likely to include a lower
>> drink-drive limit, six penalty points for serious breaches of the speed
>> limit and harsher penalties for not wearing seatbelts."
>>
>> This would of course be a perfect time for the government to introduce a
>> MHL: any cyclists' lives saved by introducing 20mph speed limits would
>> thereafter be cited as evidence of the marvellous efficacy of h*lm*ts.
>> </cynic>
>>
>> "Read all 172 comments"
>>
>> Oh, sure, that's *just* how I'll be spending my day off...
>>
>> --
>> Mark, UK
>> "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always
>> so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
>
>
> The variable limits outside schools was an ABD idea years ago so glad
> to see the Government agreeing.
I know of one school where it has been in operation for more than a
decade. There are probably many others.
It seems to work fine.
Who would be against it (as long as the lower limits did not operate at
silly times, like Sundays in August or New year's Day)?
JNugent
Have you thought of a way of stopping people from making mistakes?
Want to share it, or is the patent pending?
JNugent
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 05:58:51 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Sir
> Jeremy <pete...@virgin.net> wrote this:-
>
>> The variable limits outside schools was an ABD idea years ago so glad
>> to see the Government agreeing.
>
> Really. If it was then their "idea" was no-doubt no speed limit most
> of the time and only one at school in/out times. That is rather
> different to the variable speed limits that are set up outside
> schools and for which the ABD can take no credit.
>
>> Compulsory helmets on cycles for children - only a matter of time now.
>
> Why should a cycle used by children wear a helmet?
Is there a proposal that bikes should wear helmets?
JNugent
> Sir Jeremy <pete...@virgin.net> said:
>> Adds up to the same thing despite your typically ant-car spin
> Um, no it doesn't. And anti-ABD is not anti-car, ABD are extremist
> militant cagers.
> ABD's stance is that anything that interferes with them going fast
> is, by default, bad. Their willingness to tolerate VSLs round
> schools was, in my view, simply a way of opposing slower speeds
> around schools, since they didn't believe it would happen.
But it DOES happen already.
Did you not know that?
Maybe it's a pilot, maybe not, but there is at least one case of a
variable limit ouitside a school that can be instanced (on the A21 trunk
road in Hurst Green, Sussex).
<http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&ll=51.014983,0.472176&spn=0.005029,0.010042&t=h&z=17>
The limit (30 normally, IIRC) reduces to 20 at school opening and
closing times. It's been like that for well over ten years. I assume it
is still operating, but I haven't been that way for several years.
Ekul Namsob
> On 16 May, 15:56, spindrift <newty...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > The ABD, like safespeeding, is an irrelevance. Fewer than 3000
> > members, linked to extreme-right groups, given to hysterical whining
> > about law enforcement.
> >
> >
Snip Sir Jeremy's bollocks. ;-)
Luke
--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
Dead Paul
>
> "spindrift" <newt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9cb4f913-a3b5-4873...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
>> 2000 road deaths is the target- Sweden's stated aim is to achieve zero
>> road deaths. We've a long way to go.
>>
>>
>> 6 points for "excessive" speeding is a step in the right direction, but
>> the pro-speeding drivers comparing road safety measure to "Stalinism" is
>> laughable.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm pro reducing speed limits near schools (and any
> road safety measure which is likely to reduce accidents), but I'm rather
> glad that we have a long way to go to match the Swedes. The only way that
> we could achieve a target of zero road deaths would be to close all the
> roads - to bikes 'n'all.
>
> Zero targets are ludicrous propagandism.
A bit like "zero tolerance"? I don't think so.
A target of zero road deaths is laudable.
--
___ _______ ___ ___ ___ __ ____
/ _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \ / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
/ // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
/____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/ /_/ |_\____/____/
JNugent
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 15:09:17 +0100, budstaff wrote:
>
>> "spindrift" <newt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:9cb4f913-a3b5-4873...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
>>> 2000 road deaths is the target- Sweden's stated aim is to achieve zero
>>> road deaths. We've a long way to go.
>>>
>>>
>>> 6 points for "excessive" speeding is a step in the right direction, but
>>> the pro-speeding drivers comparing road safety measure to "Stalinism" is
>>> laughable.
>> Don't get me wrong, I'm pro reducing speed limits near schools (and any
>> road safety measure which is likely to reduce accidents), but I'm rather
>> glad that we have a long way to go to match the Swedes. The only way that
>> we could achieve a target of zero road deaths would be to close all the
>> roads - to bikes 'n'all.
>>
>> Zero targets are ludicrous propagandism.
>
> A bit like "zero tolerance"? I don't think so.
>
> A target of zero road deaths is laudable.
It's a laudable preference, but not a realistic target. Targets are set
at achievable levels.
Zero isn't achievable (people will always make mistakes, pedestrians
will always dash across roads without looking or whilst drunk and there
will always be drivers who die at the wheel from heart attacks).
Timothy Baldwin
<J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
> It's a laudable preference, but not a realistic target. Targets are set
> at achievable levels.
>
> Zero isn't achievable (people will always make mistakes, pedestrians
> will always dash across roads without looking or whilst drunk
Not if fences force them to use bridges, or gates that are automatically
locked when there are moving vehicles about.
> and there
> will always be drivers who die at the wheel from heart attacks).
Variable speed limiters, automatic steering, dead man's handle, and a
driver's vigilance device to stop the vehicle if the driver is
incapacitated; just like a train.
Adam Lea
"Timothy Baldwin" <T.E.Ba...@members.leeds.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:TPqdndn4uoHl2K3V...@pipex.net...
Any one of which could malfunction, unless 100% reliability is achievable
which I doubt.
Neil Williams
wrote:
>> Variable speed limiters, automatic steering, dead man's handle, and a
>> driver's vigilance device to stop the vehicle if the driver is
>> incapacitated; just like a train.
>
>Any one of which could malfunction, unless 100% reliability is achievable
>which I doubt.
And with a car they, especially any forced braking device, would be
more likely to *cause* an accident than *prevent* one. Cars and
trains are very different things indeed.
Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.
JNugent
> In message <ItWdnYiTWet8vbLV...@pipex.net>, JNugent
> <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>
>> It's a laudable preference, but not a realistic target. Targets are set
>> at achievable levels.
>>
>> Zero isn't achievable (people will always make mistakes, pedestrians
>> will always dash across roads without looking or whilst drunk
>
> Not if fences force them to use bridges, or gates that are automatically
> locked when there are moving vehicles about.
Well, yes - but I think the discussion had at least been semi-serious
until now.
>> and there
>> will always be drivers who die at the wheel from heart attacks).
> Variable speed limiters, automatic steering, dead man's handle, and a
> driver's vigilance device to stop the vehicle if the driver is
> incapacitated; just like a train.
If you say so.
David Hansen
<asr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote this:-
>> Variable speed limiters, automatic steering, dead man's handle, and a
>> driver's vigilance device to stop the vehicle if the driver is
>> incapacitated; just like a train.
>
>Any one of which could malfunction, unless 100% reliability is achievable
>which I doubt.
100% reliability is not achievable. However, if the systems are
designed to fail safe, which vital railway systems are, then one can
get as close to 100% safety in that particular aspect as makes
little difference. For instance, due to the design of railway brakes
failure of these systems is as close to zero as makes no difference
[1].
There is also the question of only doing enough. For example railway
speed limits are only enforced automatically in certain
circumstances, for example where the speed limit is reduced by a
large amount [2]. If there is a small reduction in speed limit then,
because the train will still remain on the rails if the driver does
nothing, there is no automatic enforcement. However, all trains are
now fitted with data recorders which record, amongst many other
things, speed and location. These data recorders are regularly
downloaded by inspectors and checked for obedience to speed limits
and other things. Those drivers considered at risk have their data
recorders downloaded more often. Drivers can also encounter a
lineside speed check anywhere, they use similar devices to those
used on the roads and there are no warning signs to warn
drivers,though like all lineside staff those checking speeds will be
wearing orange clothing. There are also numerous places where the
speed of every train is recorded by the signalbox.
On the roads steering is a possible problem. However, provided the
systems work together the problem disappears. For example if the
driver fails to react to a vigilance alert the system must not just
apply the brakes, it must also steer the car around any bend until
it stops. Should be easy enough to arrange.
[1] I can think of one brake failure in the past decade, two in the
1980s and two in the 1970s.
[2]in general. There are lines where the train speed limit is
constantly compared to the line limit and the brakes applied if the
line limit is exceeded.