20 mph Speed Limit Rejected - A Rare Win

[Dr Jekyll]

singlecoil said:

Dr Jekyll said:

First of all those whose job it is to set limits are councillors, who often totally ignore the advice of traffic engineers. So why shouldn't we know better?

Secondly this argument of 'you must not object to the level at which limits are set because they are set by superior beings whose reasoning is beyond your comprehension' only applies when someone suggests the limit is too low. If someone says the limit is set too high, then their view must be taken into consideration because they are 'the people who elected them'. We have votes as well you know.


Thirdly, in this case the omnipotent superbeing who set the limit clearly feels an appropriate speed is higher than the limit, so who are we to argue?

Let me know if you ever want to discuss this subject sensibly.

Your assumption not mine.

Why exactly is it wrong to suggest a limit could possibly be too low, but fine to suggest it's too high?

[singlecoil]

Dr Jekyll said:

singlecoil said:

Dr Jekyll said:

First of all those whose job it is to set limits are councillors, who often totally ignore the advice of traffic engineers. So why shouldn't we know better?

Secondly this argument of 'you must not object to the level at which limits are set because they are set by superior beings whose reasoning is beyond your comprehension' only applies when someone suggests the limit is too low. If someone says the limit is set too high, then their view must be taken into consideration because they are 'the people who elected them'. We have votes as well you know.


Thirdly, in this case the omnipotent superbeing who set the limit clearly feels an appropriate speed is higher than the limit, so who are we to argue?

Let me know if you ever want to discuss this subject sensibly.

Your assumption not mine.

Why exactly is it wrong to suggest a limit could possibly be too low, but fine to suggest it's too high?

What assumption?

I'm simply objecting to your using phrases such as the one emboldened above, that sort of thing detracts from the discussion.

[Dr Jekyll]

singlecoil said:

Complaining about the levels at which limits are set is in effect [b]claiming that you are better able to decide on an appropriate speed than those people whose job it is to do so[//b], guided by what they understand the wishes of the people who elected them to be.

[singlecoil]

Formatting failure + obscured point.

[Blakewater]

People complain about all sorts of things from immigration to the NHS, from potholes in the road to provision for cyclists. We live in a democracy. We're allowed to complain about things and, theoretically at least, those in charge should take into account our complaints.

The problem is, sensible discussion and the wishes of the majority can sometimes be overruled by those who shout loudest and make silly accusations that people are being antisocial. If you want to discuss benefits, you want poor people to starve. If you want to discuss immigration, you're racist. If you want to discuss speed and speed limits, you're a maniac making an attack on children and the elderly. Far more emotive and over the top language has been used by 20mph campaigners than anything you've criticised on here.

As I've said before, people can get so absorbed in a campaign and their determination to be right they can lose all sense of reason and become angrily defensive simply because they don't want to lose face by conceding to anyone else's point of view.

It also helps if you have a mate to tell the papers a heart warming story like this:

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/20mph-speed-limit-sto...

Having been involved in your business dealings a few years before like this:

http://thebristolian.net/tag/arne-ringer/

Politics isn't all straightforward and idealistic.

[Dr Jekyll]

singlecoil said:

Formatting failure + obscured point.

My point is perfectly clear. You stated that we must not criticise the level at which speed limits are set because the authorities always know best, but have still not explained why it's OK for those who want limits reduced to criticise.

Can you really not see the contradiction between

singlecoil said:

Complaining about the levels at which limits are set is in effect claiming that you are better able to decide on an appropriate speed than those people whose job it is to do so...

and

singlecoil said:

....guided by what they understand the wishes of the people who elected them to be.

Why is it only the wishes of those who demand lower limits that are allowed to 'guide' the council? How on earth are the people who elected the councillors able to 'guide' them if they can't possibly know as well as the councillors? What would happen if the 'guidance' was 'for god's sake put the limit up'?

[singlecoil]

Dr Jekyll said:

Stuff

I haven't said people shouldn't criticise the limits, only that by doing so they are saying they are better able to judge what the limits should be than those whose job it is to set them.

And there was no contradiction.

If people want the limits raised they should make their wishes known to their elected officials, I assure you that if those officials think they will get more votes by doing so than they would by not, then they will raise the limits.

We are going over old ground here, and because of that I anticipate that your response will be that the councillors do not respect the wishes of their electorate. That's your view of how things work, and I can see why you would hold that view, misguided though it is. Councillors love votes more than they love lowered limits, without the former they don't get the chance to do the latter.

[Dr Jekyll]

singlecoil said:

I haven't said people shouldn't criticise the limits, only that by doing so they are saying they are better able to judge what the limits should be than those whose job it is to set them.

And there was no contradiction.

If people want the limits raised they should make their wishes known to their elected officials, I assure you that if those officials think they will get more votes by doing so than they would by not, then they will raise the limits.

We are going over old ground here, and because of that I anticipate that your response will be that the councillors do not respect the wishes of their electorate. That's your view of how things work, and I can see why you would hold that view, misguided though it is. Councillors love votes more than they love lowered limits, without the former they don't get the chance to do the latter.

I can't make up my mind whether you are a councillor, determined to portray your profession in the best possible light, or someone who has never met a councillor and is therefore utterly naïve.

Councillors, as a breed, regard motorists as fking obnoxious moronic stfaced scumbags whose life must be made a misery. There is no point in trying to reason with them.

[singlecoil]

Dr Jekyll said:

I can't make up my mind whether you are a councillor, determined to portray your profession in the best possible light, or someone who has never met a councillor and is therefore utterly naïve.

Councillors, as a breed, regard motorists as fking obnoxious moronic stfaced scumbags whose life must be made a misery. There is no point in trying to reason with them.

I don't think we are going to get any further with this.

[bad company]

Dr Jekyll said:

Councillors, as a breed, regard motorists as fking obnoxious moronic stfaced scumbags whose life must be made a misery. There is no point in trying to reason with them.

That's a bit like saying all Frenchmen eat garlic.

[BlueMR2]

Dr Jekyll said:

But it is still ultimately up to the whim of the councillors.

There was a case where engineers objected to a limit as unnecessary. The council responded by installing a crash barrier next to the road, then announced that fast moving traffic close to a barrier was dangerous and therefore they were now justified in reducing the limit.
Also a case in (I think) Oxfordshire where the council wanted to lower an NSL to 50, police and engineers objected. So the council planted some trees alongside the road and then announced that this made the road more dangerous. The police pointed out that it was a straight stretch of road and going at 60 instead of 50 would neither increase the risk of swerving off the road nor materially affect the result of hitting a tree. But the council imposed the limit anyway.

Note to Singlecoil, these are not 'anecdotes', they are genuine examples of how the system works in real life.

There was an NSL dual carriageway nearby, in their crazy spending spree messing up the flow of traffic round the local roads they decided to put a crossing in the middle of it, then cut the limit to 40mph, totally incompetent.

[anonymous-user]

BlueMR2 said:

Dr Jekyll said:

But it is still ultimately up to the whim of the councillors.

There was a case where engineers objected to a limit as unnecessary. The council responded by installing a crash barrier next to the road, then announced that fast moving traffic close to a barrier was dangerous and therefore they were now justified in reducing the limit.
Also a case in (I think) Oxfordshire where the council wanted to lower an NSL to 50, police and engineers objected. So the council planted some trees alongside the road and then announced that this made the road more dangerous. The police pointed out that it was a straight stretch of road and going at 60 instead of 50 would neither increase the risk of swerving off the road nor materially affect the result of hitting a tree. But the council imposed the limit anyway.

Note to Singlecoil, these are not 'anecdotes', they are genuine examples of how the system works in real life.

There was an NSL dual carriageway nearby, in their crazy spending spree messing up the flow of traffic round the local roads they decided to put a crossing in the middle of it, then cut the limit to 40mph, totally incompetent.

Again, not necessarily incompetent. If it's a known place for people to cross, then better to make it safer for all than to risk people running across 4 lanes (assumed) of NSL road.

If there are other options, like a subway or a footbridge, then you could put railings along there to stop people crossing, but if not, then a controlled crossing is the only way. If pedestrians cross there, you won't stop them unless you put in physical measures, which isn't advisable on a high speed DC.

If you give us a google maps link to the road in question, might be able to let you know more, help you understand why they've done what they've done?

[Blakewater]

There will be people in the immediate vicinity of the road who demand a pedestrian crossing and a lower speed limit because alternatives such as overpasses and underpasses haven't crossed their minds. Probably one or two who've got half a dozen more to sign a petition on a whim. The councillors will want to please them. People from the surrounding vicinity who aren't within their constituency will be of no importance to them even though those people need to use the road. Few people who live in the area will be calling for the reduced limit but most won't know anything about the plans or the campaigns until they suddenly see a reduced limit one day as they're driving along. They still probably won't know who's responsible.

A lot of people don't engage with democracy, don't vote and don't give their opinions where they may be heard. They just drift through life grumbling, complaining, ignoring things or being oblivious to things, but that's a different problem of its own.