Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think


Lewes Forum New message

Traffic Calming in Wallands

6
3
On 2 Mar 2015 at 8:51pm Speed Gunner wrote:
So - after the big sign announcing imminent traffic calming measures on Prince Edward's Road, these massive works have been completed.
Speed cameras?
Sleeping policemen?
Perhaps some new islands to slow the flow?
No - a few tiny "20mph" signs, on Prince Edward's & Gundreda.
Somewhat predictably, this has had absolutely no effect whatsoever, particularly in Gundreda Rd where idiotic moronic parents still zoom up the road at 40 to pick up their little darlings from school. How they would whinge if someone drove past their houses at such speeds!
So - the only solution is to continue to take their numbers and report them on the Sussex Police site for antisocial driving, which is what I do. That actually seems to do something.
What a missed opportunity!
13
12
On 2 Mar 2015 at 9:06pm Old Bloke wrote:
Nothing but grasses and cry-babies on this forum. When I lived in London you just minded your own business ans got on with it.
12
6
On 2 Mar 2015 at 9:11pm Rods Tiger wrote:
Nothing but people who talk about when they lived in London on this forum. Well it isn't London here, things are different and it's high time you got used to it.
9
8
On 2 Mar 2015 at 9:13pm Botherednot wrote:
Nice attitude Old Bloke, such community spirit! Ever thought of going back, people who aren't proud of Lewes should move out!
2
 
On 2 Mar 2015 at 10:09pm Gunner Reah wrote:
Do the Old Bill actually do anything ?
4
5
On 2 Mar 2015 at 11:30pm Old Grope wrote:
My mates Reggie and Ronnie knew how to deal with grasses.Break their bleedin` necks they would.
7
1
On 3 Mar 2015 at 7:35am Driver wrote:
All you need is a camera with number plate recognition, followed up with a fine for offenders. The word would soon get around.
In the meantime, the only effective enforcement is for one or two people to drive along the road at 20mph at the offending times.
7
5
On 3 Mar 2015 at 8:20am Another B and B lady wrote:
Community speed watch has been operating for nearly two years in Lewes. Now that the 20mph is in force in the Wallnds, the speed gun will be out and about. Those noted exceeding 20mph are logged onto the Police computer and after the second letter, you may be fined. This has been successful in many villages, Ringmer and now Lewes. People in high viz jackets with a speed gun slow the traffic immediately. Several motorists are already complaining to the Poloce when they have been clocked exceeding 20 mph. Community Speed watch is run by volunteers, trained by the Police.
4
3
On 3 Mar 2015 at 8:22am Red wrote:
I heard the 20mph speed limit is legally unenforceable.
Has anyone actually ever been prosecuted for exceeding it?
2
2
On 3 Mar 2015 at 8:44am Knowledge wrote:
20mph speed limit is in theory legally enforceable. However, it is not enforced as there would never be enough resources to enforce it as almost everyone drives above the 20mph limit. So to answer that, no it is not being enforced but it is enforceable.
5
 
On 3 Mar 2015 at 10:54am Mavis wrote:
However, it's comforting to know our authority in have got a handle on their, sorry OUR spending.
6
1
On 3 Mar 2015 at 10:56am SOT wrote:
I would be happy if people stuck to 30 MPH and didn't drive like twits. I have seen people who must have been over 50 mph flying around the Neville Estate which is packed with families and young children.
The crossing over to the school terrifies me and I don`t see any reason to go above 20 mph in areas where children are likely to be.
Well done community speed watch , I`m a libertarian but no-ones liberty includes the right to endanger children
1
1
On 3 Mar 2015 at 11:39am ar10642 wrote:
"Those noted exceeding 20mph are logged onto the Police computer and after the second letter, you may be fined. "
I can't see that being legally enforceable. Using the evidence from community speed watch they could probably send the police round to "have a word" but that's about it. Where did you get that information from?
I support proper enforcement BTW. I'm not sure this qualifies as that.
5
2
On 3 Mar 2015 at 1:09pm Taff wrote:
Its been a total waste of money for Wallands area. Hey our smug tosspot councillors need to do something to feel good about themselves dont they. Eventually I understand they want to endanger life by putting a crossing on Offham Road at the bottom of Prince Edwards Road.
These people would do a better job writing scripts for comedians.
4
1
On 3 Mar 2015 at 5:07pm Another. B and B lady wrote:
Ar10642. Not sure if you actually read my post. Community Speed watch set up and volunteers trained by the Police. All the registration Numbers and speeds logged onto the Police Computer which then automatically sends out warning letters. The third time results in Police deciding whether to prosecute or fine. If you want more info. Ask the Police.....
1
 
On 3 Mar 2015 at 5:13pm ar10642 wrote:
"The third time results in Police deciding whether to prosecute or fine"
My point is I doubt that they would be able to do that based on the community speed watch evidence alone. Which means that really all that is happening is letters are being sent out, which will be binned, with the offenders just carrying on doing what they've been doing. Unless there's evidence of someone being *actually* prosecuted/fined in this way, in which case it might work.
1
3
On 3 Mar 2015 at 11:00pm Earl of Lewes wrote:
Any chance of having a minimum speed limit too? There seem to be a lot of dippy people driving through town at 15mph. They might be admiring the lovely view or looking for a parking space, but it's very annoying if you're stuck behind them.
2
2
On 3 Mar 2015 at 11:04pm Concerned resident wrote:
Whilst against speeding. I am more concerned by self righteous old goats taking it upon themselves to think they can enforce the law. All very well to say they are police trained but they have no legal standing.
2
1
On 4 Mar 2015 at 7:07am Driver wrote:
Three old farts standing there in high-vis clothing does actually make drivers quickly look at their speedometer, and be aware of a limit.
1
1
On 4 Mar 2015 at 11:02am Speedy Gonzales wrote:
One problem with 20mph limits is that when the roads are clear it is all to easy to exceed them by genuine mistake, especially in modern vehicles that accelerate quickly, easily and quietly.
The nett result is that in such circumstances drivers can be tempted to spend more time watching their speedometer than looking at the (seemingly empty) road ahead.
This means they may not spot the child running out from behind the hedge/gatepost as early as they would if they kept their eyes on the road and not on their speedo....
Okay, I accept that at 20mph the car should stop in a shorter distance too (if you believe the Highway code stopping distances), so spotting the risk later may still be okay, but we need to be careful we are not increasing the risk of accidents (even if they are statistically more survivable).
Is there any sound evidence that blanket 20mph limits actually reduces the number of accidents that result in serious injury/fatality, or are people being mislead by the fact that there are less fatal accidents at 20mph?
Prosecuting someone for exceeding a 20mph speed limit is fine if the road is busy or there is high probability there may be children about, but to prosecute them for exceeding 20mph by 5mph if that same stretch road is obviously clear seems a waste of everyones' time.
Equally some drivers will still drive that same piece of road at 20mph, 'because the signs say they can', even when the same stretch of road is foggy, wet, or icy... under those conditions driving at 20mph may be more dangerous than travelling at 25mph in the dry. The hi-vis speed-gun brigade cannot do anything about that, can they?
Would it not be better to prosecute drivers for "dangerous driving" more often, based on a professional assessment of road conditions at the time of the alledged offence, rather than simply penalising the unlucky driver for exceeding what may be arguably be a somewhat arbitrary speed limit under the prevailing circumstances?
It's the "Nanny" State vs "taking personal responsibility for one's actions" argument again.... all too often I hear people stating in the media that "such and such" stretch of road or a junction is "dangerous" because there are frequent accidents there etc.
No, I am sorry, but no road, crossing point, or junction is, in itself, dangerous. It is the way people approach it or use it that is dangerous. Yes drivers' views might be obstructed, or road surfaces uneven, pathways or carriageways narrow, or prone to flooding/puddles/ice etc, but if all road users (drivers, cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders, HGV drivers etc) take all those things into proper account, then they would be more carefull to reduce the risk to themselves and to other road users.
The continual re-engineering of road junctions to make them "safer", and ever more widespread use of speed limits may actually be counter-productive if it leads drivers to feel they are being protected from danger by such actions. Drivers and other road users may be tempted to pay less attention to the road, and to their own behaviour, than if they know there are frequent risks they must assess and manage during their journey from A to B.
Trouble is many of today's road users (often in all categories from pedestran right through to HGV driver) feel they, and they alone have right of way, as their journey is the only one that really matters, so everyone else must get out of their way.
As ever, ultimate responsibility for a vehicle and it's safe passage is down to the driver taking full responsibility for thier actions and decisions, and driving in a manner appropriate to the vehicle, the road conditions, other users, and the location.
Likewise, children and pedestrians should take care to avoid crossing from behind parked vehicles, or on blind bends, or complex junctions etc, and cyclists should understand that creeping up the inside of stationary traffic may put them at risk of someone suddenly opens a nearside door, or decides to turn left out of the stationary traffic, or that riding two abreast on a narrow, but busy A-road is inconsiderate.

Sticking 20mph signs on lamposts and "empowering" busy-bodies to wave speed guns at every passing motorists is treating the symptom, rather than the underlying cause (thoughtless/dangerous drivers). Better education of drivers, possibly with a need for periodic assessment/retraining would be more productive use of the funds spent on blannket 20mph limits.

Too many drivers forget that their Drivers Licence is a priviledge that must be earned, and kept, on merit, and that they do not have an inalienable right to a lifetime of motor vehicle use simply beacuse the passed their test some point in time.


1
1
On 4 Mar 2015 at 12:36pm Sally wrote:
Is it safe for the kids to play ball in the road now ?
 
1
On 4 Mar 2015 at 1:59pm Speedy Gonzales wrote:
Sally, was it ever?
It's all about the risk/probability of being hit by a passing car, and the probability of the child surviving if they are hit.
When there were fewer cars, parked or moving, it probably appeared safer, as drivers had a better view of the road ahead, children coudl see/hear cars coming from a longer distance, and there were fewer cars around to hit the children. However, older cars were designed to a lower standard of impact protection (for pedestrians), and brakes were poorer, so stopping distances possibly longer too, so if a child was ever hit by a car they may well have sufferred more serious injuries than they would in similar/identical circumstances today?
So, was it ever "safe" to play ball in the road - even in the days of horse and cart - probably not, it may have been safer, but there was always some degree of risk.
All I was asking is has the imposition of 20mph speed limits actually made the roads "safer" (i.e. reduced fatalities per day), or is it just an illusion based on flawed or misunderstood statistics. 20mph may improve the chances of survival if a child is hit, but it may also increase the risk of accidents happening as drivers either watch their speed, or drive along at 20mph blindly believing that the lower speed reduces their need to drive in a responsible manner or leads them to pay less attention to the road ahead.
If only life were made up of such simplistic "Yes/No" answers....
1
 
On 4 Mar 2015 at 2:26pm Pat Boone wrote:
Speedy - I agree with your first post - not your second . It was perfectly possible to play in the roads in the late 50s early 60s in the poorer areas of any Sussex town because the men had taken the cars or motorbikes to work and the mums stayed @ home . It was genuinely Happy Days, I loved it - and swimming in the pells . The only vehicles were delivery ones, not the 7 tonnes ones that deliver today- driven by monkeys on ridiculous time tables and probably zero hour contracts !
2
 
On 4 Mar 2015 at 5:44pm anotherdriver wrote:
Speedy Gonzales the evidence is quite clear that 20mph zones (i.e with traffic calming) are best (42% reduction in casualties in London boroughs with them)followed by 20mph limits (less effective but still very useful). Of course it isn't an education problem, people choose to drive fast through towns and don't do so out of ignorance but I agree there needs to be a change in social standards as there was with alcohol and driving. The 'busybodies' you so kindly describe are only there because no-one else (such as the police) is. I might describe them as community minded given the appalling damage a vehicle at 30mph can do to anyone - let alone a child.

Check it out here »
1
 
On 4 Mar 2015 at 5:48pm anotherdriver wrote:
I gave the wrong link. This is the one from the BMJ.

Check it out here »
2
 
On 4 Mar 2015 at 5:57pm anotherdriver wrote:
Try again. Long day.

Check it out here »
1
5
On 4 Mar 2015 at 7:41pm Old Bloke wrote:
@Old Bloke (the fake one above) imitation is the finest form of flattery but in your case a very strange form of jealousy.
Try and get a girlfriend it's never too late to lose your virginity.
PS you're a pri**
2
2
On 4 Mar 2015 at 10:45pm Old bore wrote:
I am not convinced that chucking yet another unnecessary playground insult at a reasonable clarification makes you seem any less foolish OB. Some people are their own worst enemies.
1
 
On 5 Mar 2015 at 6:59am Old tom wrote:
Well said old bore ( I'm not really tom - it's rhyming slang )
 
1
On 5 Mar 2015 at 12:35pm Old Bloke wrote:
I don't recall ordering another two idiots.
Though probably one and the same hiding behind multiple oh so clever names.
2
2
On 5 Mar 2015 at 1:40pm Old Bore wrote:
Wrong...again. I have no idea who Old Tom is. I simply think that your unnecessary discourtesy and use of inappropriate language is ill-educated and ill-advised. It is something that I would usually associate with someone who displays bad spelling and poor grammar. I am a little surprised that you, of all people, do not have the same view....
1
 
On 6 Mar 2015 at 6:55am Old tom wrote:
I am an old tom = Sir Thomas Moore = whore which rhymes with old bore . Geddit ?
2
 
On 7 Mar 2015 at 1:31pm Barbara Abbs wrote:
Why is the propsed new pedestrian crossing at the bottom of Prince Edwards Road a bad thing? I cross the road there regularly and always feel I am taking my life into my hands. Now I am not so agile, it is is even more worrying.


4 posts left

Your response


You must now log in (or register) to post
Click here to add a link »
Smile
Smile Wink Sad Confused Kiss Favourite Fishing Devil Cool

terms


 

Lewes Cross 67:132
Lewes Cross

I think it is unlikely that the IMF will be involved at all in our deficit Tom. The government have offered to give lots of money... more
QUOTE OF THE MOMENT
The great thing about the Lewes Forum is it's up to date and lively, you don't have to wait a month to get out of date news
Clarissa