The soon to be introduced new lower speed limits will make the roads more dangerous, in my opinion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Purple said:
They are but they are increasing the risk that they will be killed by oncoming traffic.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, but the thinking needs to shift so it's clear to all that such an incident would be the driver's fault. When someone gets killed on the roads now the majority of focus is on the victim's actions and what they should have done to prevent an accident caused by someone else's carelessness.
 
Leo said:
Absolutely, but the thinking needs to shift so it's clear to all that such an incident would be the driver's fault. When someone gets killed on the roads now the majority of focus is on the victim's actions and what they should have done to prevent an accident caused by someone else's carelessness.
Click to expand...
In the case of pedestrians that may be true but my experience as a cyclist the focus should be shifted onto cyclists behaviour. The number of cyclists I see weaving through traffic, not using lights at night, not wearing high-vis clothing, running red lights and passing trucks and busses on the inside close to junctions is shocking.

I also have a problem with speed cameras on the safest roads but not on dangerous roads.
 
Purple said:
In the case of pedestrians that may be true but my experience as a cyclist the focus should be shifted onto cyclists behaviour. The number of cyclists I see weaving through traffic, not using lights at night, not wearing high-vis clothing, running red lights and passing trucks and busses on the inside close to junctions is shocking.
Click to expand...
That's a different matter entirely, but yes, cycling recklessly should be tackled, but obviously with a lot less focus that driving recklessly which injures and kills far more innocent parties.

Purple said:
I also have a problem with speed cameras on the safest roads but not on dangerous roads.
Click to expand...
Anyone who can obey the law should have no issues with speed cameras anywhere. :)
 
Leo said:
They are perfectly entitled to walk two or more abreast. RSA guidance for large groups (20+) is to walk on the left hand side.
Click to expand...
Walking 2 abreast while wheeling their bicycles as in my post, meant they'd occupy more than half of that particular carriageway. I can still manage to count so they didn't qualify as a large group under RSA guidelines.
 
Leo said:
Absolutely, but the thinking needs to shift so it's clear to all that such an incident would be the driver's fault.
Click to expand...
All incidents involving vehicle and pedestrian collisions are now the driver's fault? That's a bit of a leap. That thinking will reduce the backlogs in the courts; send the driver to jail from the scene of the incident.
 
mathepac said:
Walking 2 abreast while wheeling their bicycles as in my post, meant they'd occupy more than half of that particular carriageway. I can still manage to count so they didn't qualify as a large group under RSA guidelines.
Click to expand...
They are perfectly entitled to take up all the carriageway. The only stipulation is they shouldn't do so if the road is narrow (i.e. they take up so much room as to make it impossible for a vehicle to pass in either direction.)
 
mathepac said:
All incidents involving vehicle and pedestrian collisions are now the driver's fault? That's a bit of a leap. That thinking will reduce the backlogs in the courts; send the driver to jail from the scene of the incident.
Click to expand...
You're just making up stuff now, that's clearly not what I said.
 
Leo said:
They are perfectly entitled to take up all the carriageway. The only stipulation is they shouldn't do so if the road is narrow (i.e. they take up so much room as to make it impossible for a vehicle to pass in either direction.)
Click to expand...
Thanks, that's exactly my point. Glad I got it across.
 
So would I but bear in mind that the scenario here was a young family where the three children had bicycles. Presumably at some point the children were on those bicycles (not simply walking with them) and therefore the left hand side was correct at that point. They may well have decided that it was safer to remain on the left hand side rather than crossing over or they may well have intended to get back on their bicycles again at some point. We don't know this, nor does the poster who stopped his/her car to reprimand them. I wonder did the poster safely park their car in a suitable location before getting out to reprimand the family.
 
Ceist Beag said:
So would I but bear in mind that the scenario here was a young family where the three children had bicycles. Presumably at some point the children were on those bicycles (not simply walking with them) and therefore the left hand side was correct at that point. They may well have decided that it was safer to remain on the left hand side rather than crossing over or they may well have intended to get back on their bicycles again at some point. We don't know this, nor does the poster who stopped his/her car to reprimand them. I wonder did the poster safely park their car in a suitable location before getting out to reprimand the family.
Click to expand...
A lot of pointless, idle speculation in that post. Maybe you or @Leo who liked it could explain what value it adds or is it just another of those "Jeeze, gotta make some noise here" non-contributions?
 
mathepac said:
A lot of pointless, idle speculation in that post. Maybe you or @Leo who liked it could explain what value it adds or is it just another of those "Jeeze, gotta make some noise here" non-contributions?
Click to expand...
What value it adds? No doubt you feel you were doing some good but you admit yourself that the father was "frothing at the mouth" so clearly there was a heated exchange and a difference of opinion. You posted your view as if it were definitive but it's already been pointed out to you that what that family did was not as incorrect or deserving of a reprimand as you seem to think. It sounds to me like a family outing was ruined by an angry driver.
So the value it might add is to get you to consider your actions before you go reprimanding any other young family. Or it could simply be a waste of time as you don't seem interested. I'll leave it at that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top