RE: Civilian Pace Cars
Monday 23rd January 2006
Civilian Pace Cars
Doncaster residents urged to slow up traffic
In a novel scheme to reduce accidents, Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council has come up with the somewhat novel idea of 'pace cars'.
It's asking residents to register with them and pledge that they will never exceed speed limits. Those participating in the scheme will be given stickers for their cars highlighting their participation as a "Community Pace Car Driver".
Although noble in its intent, it's a plan that many consider misguided. The DMBC website claims:
"By driving within the speed limit you will be performing a mobile traffic calming role, keeping the overall speed of traffic following you at the speed limit. Lower speeds mean that in the event of a collision involving a vehicle and a pedestrian or cyclist, the severity of any injury sustained will be lessened. Lower vehicle speeds also mean that drivers are more able to stop in emergency situations."
The need for such as scheme is obviously borne out of drivers not respecting the limits and holding such drivers up may simply fact result in more frustration and lack of awareness from drivers being held up.
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign said: "Road safety depends on drivers adjusting their speed to the hazard environment. This vital behaviour is being gradually, inexorably and dangerously replaced with a 'driving by numbers' approach."
He continued, "Speed limits are a useful minor part of road safety. They are not a panacea. Modern policy has promoted them way beyond their level of competence from useful servant to cruel and incompetent master. As a nation we are becoming obsessed with speed limits - and that's a very bad thing."
Links
Discussion
Sounds like a good idea "In Principle".
The reality though would be quite different. I live in east London and whenever I've taken it upon myself to drive within the speed limits on residential roads it's met by an extraordinary amount of resentment bordering on road rage. I can only imagine what will happen to oldies conducting this sort of policy on roads around "Donny" ...it's suicide!
The reality though would be quite different. I live in east London and whenever I've taken it upon myself to drive within the speed limits on residential roads it's met by an extraordinary amount of resentment bordering on road rage. I can only imagine what will happen to oldies conducting this sort of policy on roads around "Donny" ...it's suicide!
rizla said:
Sounds like a good idea "In Principle".
The reality though would be quite different. I live in east London and whenever I've taken it upon myself to drive within the speed limits on residential roads it's met by an extraordinary amount of resentment bordering on road rage. I can only imagine what will happen to oldies conducting this sort of policy on roads around "Donny" ...it's suicide!
couldnt agree more...the frustration will boil over.Is there some sort of law against overtaking or did I miss something ?
Is this some sort of Police endorsement of bad lane discipline on dual carriageways (or other multi lane roads.
If I were stuck behind some tw@ doing 70 in the outside lane of a dual carriageway with some "mobile chicane" sticker in his window, then I WOULD consider undertaking. This is hardly improving road safety
If I were stuck behind some tw@ doing 70 in the outside lane of a dual carriageway with some "mobile chicane" sticker in his window, then I WOULD consider undertaking. This is hardly improving road safety
I'm sure I've seen stickers in cars already proclaiming something like "Back off - I'm sticking to the limit!" which presumably means the driver is conscious of his/her ability to regulate traffic speeds around his/her local area.
It's a pity that the Nanny State needs to intervene and organise this on a formal basis, when individuals could already follow this plan if they wanted to. Maybe this way the local authority feels happier delegating the responsibility to the citizens instead of erecting unpopular cameras.
Unfortunately the people who are likely to sign up for this scheme are probably the same pompous Daily Mail-reading numpties who'll drive at the speed limit regardless of conditions, even if it were safe to drive faster, or safer to drive slower.
Can't wait for the story to hit the headlines of the first prosecution for speeding of a member of the scheme.
It's a pity that the Nanny State needs to intervene and organise this on a formal basis, when individuals could already follow this plan if they wanted to. Maybe this way the local authority feels happier delegating the responsibility to the citizens instead of erecting unpopular cameras.
Unfortunately the people who are likely to sign up for this scheme are probably the same pompous Daily Mail-reading numpties who'll drive at the speed limit regardless of conditions, even if it were safe to drive faster, or safer to drive slower.
Can't wait for the story to hit the headlines of the first prosecution for speeding of a member of the scheme.
rizla said:
Sounds like a good idea "In Principle".
The reality though would be quite different. I live in east London and whenever I've taken it upon myself to drive within the speed limits on residential roads it's met by an extraordinary amount of resentment bordering on road rage. I can only imagine what will happen to oldies conducting this sort of policy on roads around "Donny" ...it's suicide!
Does depend on the road but around London I tend to drive at the speed limit (unless I feel less is required from conditions). It does tend to result in tailgateing and aggressive driving (but driving a 4x4 tends to remove the intended intimidation factor). If I choose to drive at the limit then it's up to me but I will not impede those who choose to go faster and leave them ample room to pass if safe to do so.
It's the implication that drivers will be instructed to block others seeking to go faster than them (maybe poor wording by the council?) that could lead to these enforcers causing accidents or being beaten to a pulp.
What're they going to do when driving at 45/50 in NSL and I want to pass them? Swerve to block me? Flash furiously? Report me for not breaking the law?
The only things that will improve driving standards in towns and cities include better training, more trafpol, removal of unqualified drivers and better checks on insurance/road-worthiness. Not yet another vigilante group.
It's a hugely bad idea - policing of traffic should be left to the police.
There's also another thread about this from before the weekend...
Isn't this an admission that the majority of drivers don't agree with the speed limits? If the speed limits were set at a sensible level the majority would not be exceeding them and giving rise to the need for "pace cars".
Stupid idea. Still, cars sporting such crap may just as well have a sticker saying "torch me", so I doubt we'll see many of these littering the highways.
Stupid idea. Still, cars sporting such crap may just as well have a sticker saying "torch me", so I doubt we'll see many of these littering the highways.
While in principle it is one of those inspirational moments you have down the pub, 'what if...?' etc.
BUT, in reality it is self defeating as the no speeding policy, i.e. the assumption that speed causes accidents, requires that all people follow the regulation, not just some, all this will do is the some who do already follow it will sign up so there will be no change in their behaviour and no benefit as the others will just treat them as usual. So in essence it is just a publicity stunt and nothing more, with no substance what so ever.
BUT, in reality it is self defeating as the no speeding policy, i.e. the assumption that speed causes accidents, requires that all people follow the regulation, not just some, all this will do is the some who do already follow it will sign up so there will be no change in their behaviour and no benefit as the others will just treat them as usual. So in essence it is just a publicity stunt and nothing more, with no substance what so ever.
what kind of people get in their cars and decide to make everyone else to stick to their view of the world? So instead of focusing on driving safely, your focus will be to STOP other people.
Another case of "the mother of imbecils is always pregnant" I am afraid
"You will be registered as a Community Pace Car Driver and you will receive a sticker to display in your vehicle window"
sticker says: I am the only t
t of the village
A67
Another case of "the mother of imbecils is always pregnant" I am afraid
"You will be registered as a Community Pace Car Driver and you will receive a sticker to display in your vehicle window"
sticker says: I am the only t
t of the village A67
Near us, they've just reduced a section of the A4 from a 40 limit down to 30. It's wide, there are no houses on the road, and the 30 feels ridiculously low.
As I drove along there today, an oncoming driver was determined to stick to the new (and mostly ignored) 30mph limit, and several other cars overtook it in the face of oncoming traffic. I don't remember seeing any overtakes on the road when it was a 40 limit.
Lowered speed limits always = safer roads ? Give me a break.
Pah, overtake... This will just make more people overtake. Get a nippy car and no worries. They won't speed up either, as they vow not to
On a side note, I usually go 30mph where it's 30 in built up areas anyway. Even if 1 in 10 does this the limit usually stays low enough. If the road is quiet, then higher speeds are possible, but are there enough people willing to drive at all hours to slow people down? If so, then if it's quiet a nifty little overtake is easy.
Will do nothing except endanger themselves by driving in a manner that isn't appropriate, and considering others speeds and driving instead of their own for the current conditions.
Dumbasses!
Dave
On a side note, I usually go 30mph where it's 30 in built up areas anyway. Even if 1 in 10 does this the limit usually stays low enough. If the road is quiet, then higher speeds are possible, but are there enough people willing to drive at all hours to slow people down? If so, then if it's quiet a nifty little overtake is easy.
Will do nothing except endanger themselves by driving in a manner that isn't appropriate, and considering others speeds and driving instead of their own for the current conditions.
Dumbasses!
Dave
What a load of Boll***s,as mentioned earlier in this thread, there are already enough nits out on the road hell bent on imposing their pious attitude on the multitudes who can and do drive very safely and briskly to the conditions.
Just another hare brained idea put out by some job creation scheme fron a local council.
Just another hare brained idea put out by some job creation scheme fron a local council.
I would have thought this is more likely to make the roads more unsafe as it would provoke aggressive, poorly-judged and unnecessary overtaking manoevers on urban roads as queues of traffic were held up by someone going significantly below the speed limit.
I mean, you know what sort of people would sign up for this - as Gazboy so eloquently puts it, the 'Anti-Destination League', those plonkers who see the speed limit as something never to be approached.
Also, I've been working out some elementary physics in relation to speed-related accidents:
Every action produces an equal and opposite reaction.
So a car hitting a stationary pedestrian at 30 mph has the resultant effect, essentially, of hitting them at 60 mph minus the inertia.
So even at 20 mph you're looking at the sort of impact damage legislated for at 40 mph. At 10 mph it's like 20 mph and so on.
In fact, assuming the average person walks at 4 mph, if these 'drive at a safe speed in urban areas' people were deadly serious and had science on their side, in order to reduce the average urban collision to the equivalent effect of someone walking full-force into a lamp-post, cars would have to drive at 2 mph. And even then they'd hurt. And exactly how do you drive a car at 2mph? Indeed, what is the point of driving at 2 mph?
So why don't we drop all the speed-related garbage and accept that cars hurt, and if they hit a pedestrian, that pedestrian is likely to be seriously injured or killed, and that no amount of lecturing about what is or isn't a 'safe' urban speed limit will bring about a change in the laws of physics.
Cars hurt - don't get in their way, and drivers - look out for pedestrians.
I believe they used to say this sort of thing before it became a profit-making business
I mean, you know what sort of people would sign up for this - as Gazboy so eloquently puts it, the 'Anti-Destination League', those plonkers who see the speed limit as something never to be approached.
Also, I've been working out some elementary physics in relation to speed-related accidents:
Every action produces an equal and opposite reaction.
So a car hitting a stationary pedestrian at 30 mph has the resultant effect, essentially, of hitting them at 60 mph minus the inertia.
So even at 20 mph you're looking at the sort of impact damage legislated for at 40 mph. At 10 mph it's like 20 mph and so on.
In fact, assuming the average person walks at 4 mph, if these 'drive at a safe speed in urban areas' people were deadly serious and had science on their side, in order to reduce the average urban collision to the equivalent effect of someone walking full-force into a lamp-post, cars would have to drive at 2 mph. And even then they'd hurt. And exactly how do you drive a car at 2mph? Indeed, what is the point of driving at 2 mph?
So why don't we drop all the speed-related garbage and accept that cars hurt, and if they hit a pedestrian, that pedestrian is likely to be seriously injured or killed, and that no amount of lecturing about what is or isn't a 'safe' urban speed limit will bring about a change in the laws of physics.
Cars hurt - don't get in their way, and drivers - look out for pedestrians.
I believe they used to say this sort of thing before it became a profit-making business
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff