Young Drivers are idiots.

[Howard]

Yeah but in this case it would if instead of a fine through the post, you were promised a spike to the face!!

[Dorza]

Indeed - and neither will the car in front stop in a radically faster time than you - if this wasn't the case then there would be far more accidents. All this obsessing about speed ignores the simple fact that regulating speed alone isn't helping. Bad driving is about so much more than that - statistically 85-95% of accidents are occuring because of factors other than velocity. And yet all we do is worry about speed because (as i've said) it's far easier to stick up a camera which generates revenue rather than put a plod on the road who uses it.
We all know which would make the difference, surely?

Indeed, though I have to say that most traffic cops are leagalised boy racers them selves but they would be 100% better than a ruddy speed camera. They did make one redundant on the motorway around Port Talbot because far too many people were suddenly braking when they saw it. A brake light is a brake light no matter how hard you brake, so the people behind brake, and the people behind them suddenly brake. People will brake for these things even if their doing the limit of the road, just to make sure they don't get a flash.

Briefly back on topic - if we had plod pulling over gary Mcchavvykins and scaring the bejesus out of him i'd say it's a bit more effective than simply sending him and invoice two weeks later when he's already dropped enough canabis to wash away the memory.

Indeed, I know of people who have ignored things coming through the door and haven't heard anything since. Its a big risk ignoring such a letter, but thats what they've done. Having just 3 points isn't that big a deal these days anyway. When I was phoning for insurance last time, I got into a conversation with a rather down to earth chap and he said for his company, getting points doesn't affect your premium as much as people would think. He said that over 70% of their customers have at least 3 points. It has very nearly got to the stage where people who don't have points are the odd balls and him saying that only made my belief that speed cameras are for generating revenue even stronger.

A bollocking off a constable is a much better method of bringing the reality of their "offense" home. But it doesn't generate as much cash, and costs more to stick a plod in a car and have him drive around with his chum catching people who deserve to be caught than it does to stick some idle camera on the side of the road and get everyone it can regardless of how well their driving.

[Salazaar]

you can't start your reaction time until they finish theirs. you can't slam on the brakes until you've seen them do it then gone through your reaction time.

at 70, you've gone 21m, before you can start slowing down. any guesses how far the gap between you and them is when they've slammed on the brakes, and you've spent 2/3 of a second at 70?

But they won't actually have slowed down 'that' much in that fraction of time. So your relative speed is still fairly slow, at 70 or at 80. You're assuming they've stopped instantly, where as in reality the 2 second gap should be enough for an alert driver to react and start braking (at roughly the same rate as the car in front), you might have closed up but there should be enough space for you both to slow down safely. It doesn't matter what your respective speeds are (within reason), since it depends on your relative speed and on the fact that the 2 second gap varies with speed.

[Salazaar]

They're a a dangerous obstruction and nothing more.

It also seems convenient that the government can bend the rules of the road. Normally it is highly illegal to drive on the wrong side of the road, yet these islands make you do that 'for safety'....modern roads are like an assault course.

Sorry, that's just rubbish. Sure, a badly places one can hinder traffic a bit, but they're well marked and they have a definate right of way assigned. If there's oncoming traffic with right of way, you don't go through, you wait, that's it.

If driver's choose to ingore that then they're the ones at fault, not the island.

I can think of a very good example near me where they've been placed on a long straight urban road, they slow the traffic right down without any problems.

[Dorza]

Sorry, that's just rubbish. Sure, a badly places one can hinder traffic a bit, but they're well marked and they have a definate right of way assigned. If there's oncoming traffic with right of way, you don't go through, you wait, that's it.

If driver's choose to ingore that then they're the ones at fault, not the island.

Why is it rubbish? They are an obstruction. They impede traffic on that side of the road. You can't get around that fact. They physically block the road on which they are placed and force you onto the other side. They could put a wall there with a window in it and it would have the same effect. Yet I bet you'd complain about that. If you parked your car in the middle of the road, paced a well lit lamp on top of it, put a give way sign on it and just left it there because you wanted traffic to slow down, the authorities would have plenty to say to you. They'd probably say it was a dangerous obstruction and they'd be right wouldn't they?

As for the statement of on coming traffic, read my previous post. Does the car have to be a dot on the horizon for you to decide to go through? If a gap is present that people think is enough they will go for it. The problem is that a lot of people, misjudge gaps and the speed of an oncoming vehicle. If people decide to take a risk at these things then thats their choice but its a choice that wouldn't exist if these things weren't around and I bet people make decisions to risk it at these things all over the country whether they realize its a risk or not.

And at night these things are lit by a lowly lamp with a shade on it that directs the light at the sign which is about 8-10ft in the air. The actual island isn't lit at all. Compared to the ones I know of, minor roadworks are better lit than these things.

[dangel]

I agree with Dorza - I think it's one of the worst bits of road 'safety' ever designed - human beings by nature are impatient and the amount of accidents caused by these islands is quite incredible. I know, cos I live near a few and talking to the residents accidents occur every week where they didn't before. The don't slow traffic, at busy times they simply [b]stop[\b] it - you end up with queues building up and the longer people queue the greater the impatience. Then gary Mcchavvykins is more likely to take a risk - and he'll hit you head on which means your speed + there's = impact speed. Work of genius it is not.

[Salazaar]

If you parked your car in the middle of the road and left it because you wanted traffic to slow down, the authorities would have plenty to say to you. They'd probably say it was a dangerous obstruction.

Hence my point about the road planners, I never said you can put them any old where but when positioned correctly they can be an effective method of slowing traffic in heavily populated areas.

As for the statement of on coming traffic, read my previous post. Does the car have to be a dot on the horizon for you to decide to go through? If a gap is present that people think is enough they will go for it. The problem is that a lot of people, misjudge gaps and the speed of an oncoming vehicle. If people decide to take a risk at these things then thats their choice but its a choice that wouldn't exist if these things weren't around and I bet people make decisions to risk it at these things all over the country whether they realize its a risk or not.

And if everyone drove a little bit slower that would be an irrelevance. That's the point in having them! To try to make people drive a little slower and with more care. If they choose to whiz around them at speed they deserve an accident or two.

[G4Z]

Well, I have to say I am not in favour of 'traffic calming' except in places where there is a known issue with speeding and joyriding. I nearly hit one of those islands a few years back because I was in an unfamiliar area and the place was covered in snow, I didn't even know it was there until after we passed it and my mate in the passenger side said it was there. having big slabs of concrete jutting out into the road seems to me a bit stupid. I would advocate the system they have over in Holland where they remove all roadsigns and kerbs, not only are they proven to work but they would also make our towns and cities look a bit nicer. I am sick of seeing nothing but signs, traffic calming and really badly thought out cycle lanes as well as inconsistent horizontal yellow lines pained across roads everywhere.

Anyway, rant over (for now...) home time

[dangel]

If they choose to whiz around them at speed they deserve an accident or two.

And the poor bastard coming the other way too?
That's the problem - it's promoting a two car incident and only one was at fault.

[Dorza]

Hence my point about the road planners, I never said you can put them any old where but when positioned correctly they can be an effective method of slowing traffic in heavily populated areas.

And if everyone drove a little bit slower that would be an irrelevance. That's the point in having them! To try to make people drive a little slower and with more care. If they choose to whiz around them at speed they deserve an accident or two.

God damit! I hit the thank button by mistake, when I actually wanted to quote you.

Anyway....How does what you said in your first sentence relate to what you quoted from me? Are they or aren't they a permanent road obstruction? In the example I gave, no matter where your car was placed, if it was in the middle of the road blocking traffic would it be an obstruction in the eyes of the authorities? Remember the only difference is that the physical form of the island and car are different...they serve and cause exacting situations.

With your second paragraph, these islands DO cause people to slow down and they DO cause traffic jams at peak hours that wouldn't otherwise exist, however that doesn't remove the situation of people taking risks. Taking a risk on these islands is a risk no matter what the speed of the two cars involved. In your explanation you ignored what I said and that was people don't need to be speeding or even doing the speed limit to take a risk when it comes to getting around these things. As for responding to the fact that you think people deserve to crash, I am at a loss frankly.

[Salazaar]

I've never said that the islands work in all circumstances, nothing does. But you can't blame the island if drivers choose to behave like idiots. The prat who dings your bumper may well be the same chap who kills a child on their way to school in the absense of such measures.

[Salazaar]

God damit! I hit the thank button by mistake, when I actually wanted to quote you.

Anyway....How does what you said in your first sentence relate to what you quoted from me? Are they or aren't they a permanent road obstruction? In the example I gave, no matter where your car was placed, if it was in the middle of the road blocking traffic would it be an obstruction in the eyes of the authorities? Remember the only difference is that the physical form of the island and car are different...they serve and cause exacting situations.

With your second paragraph, these islands DO cause people to slow down and they DO cause traffic jams at peak hours that wouldn't otherwise exist, however that doesn't remove the situation of people taking risks. Taking a risk on these islands is a risk no matter what the speed of the two cars involved. In your explanation you ignored what I said and that was people don't need to be speeding or even doing the speed limit to take a risk when it comes to getting around these things. As for responding to the fact that you think people deserve to crash, I am at a loss frankly.

You compared islands to parked cars as obstructioned, yes? I don't disagree that they obstruct. That's the point of them. The difference is that the islands are considered, planned obstructions with very specific rights of way unlike parked cars which just turn up wherever a driver fancies putting them. The point is that a well placed island should be perfectly navigatable to anyone with half a brain (no offense G4Z, those sound like pretty exceptional circumstances) driving at a sensible speed.

As to your second point if you're impatient and you're taking significant risks then you're just not driving properly. There's no excuse for that.

[Dorza]

You compared islands to parked cars as obstructioned, yes? I don't disagree that they obstruct. That's the point of them. The difference is that the islands are considered, planned obstructions with very specific rights of way unlike parked cars which just turn up wherever a driver fancies putting them. The point is that a well placed island should be perfectly navigatable to anyone with half a brain (no offense G4Z, those sound like pretty exceptional circumstances) driving at a sensible speed.

As to your second point if you're impatient and you're taking significant risks then you're just not driving properly. There's no excuse for that.

Look at it like this.

1) Remove the planned obstruction and replace with car, or for arguments sake, put a bike there so its low enough to see over.

2) Rip the sign indicating right of way off the island and stick it on the car

Whats the difference? They are both as dangerous as each other aren't they? Just because islands are planned by over paid neanderthals and everything is aboveboard doesn't mean they are safe and I notice your saying "significant risk". Well what if people are stopped (or traveling at <=30) and see a gap that they think is big enough (yes I said this before) and proceed to go around the island, but in reality the gap isn't big enough. Does that make them bad drivers or are the placed into a situation that doesn't need to be if the island didn't exist? As Dangle said, these islands actively induce a situation of danger when there is no need. I dislike bumps particularly the square ones, but there isn't the same danger involved and they still slow traffic down and they don't cause jams.

Edit: The point I am trying to make is that a road obstruction, is a road obstruction, is a road obstruction, no matter who put it there and where. Drivers shouldn't be put into the situation where they have to drive on the other side of the road.

[usxhe190]

the worst thing for me about the roads are how lanes seem to disappear and reappear (i.e. road marked as 2 lane and then disappear and then marked as 3 lane, etc)...and how some markings are so faded and the roads are very uneven (not like potholes but sewer lids that are not at the same level as the road itself)..etc....etc

cycle lanes are the same...they can disappear on you!

[Salazaar]

Whats the difference? They are both as dangerous as each other aren't they?

You're right they're the same in those circumstances, and should therefore prove no danger at all to a cautious driver at low speed. So long as you can see the thing why should it be any danger if you're driving appropriately? Personally I have to pass a large number of parked cars every day on my way too and from work and have yet to come anywhere near hitting one.

Just because islands are planned by over paid neanderthals and everything is aboveboard doesn't mean they are safe and I notice your saying "significant risk". Well what if people are stopped (or traveling at <=30) and see a gap that they think is big enough (yes I said this before) and proceed to go around the island, but in reality the gap isn't big enough. Does that make them bad drivers or are the placed into a situation that doesn't need to be if the island didn't exist?

Are you talking about squeezing through the gap created by the island itself or with any oncoming traffic? If its the island not providing enough space then there's a specific problem that needs to be addressed by your local council. If its with other traffic then its a simple rule, if in doubt, wait.

As Dangle said, these island actively induce a situation of danger when there is no need. I dislike bumps particularly the square ones, but there isn't the same danger involved and they still slow traffic down and they don't cause jams.

There's no element of danger if drivers take the responsibility approaching such situations and there's no excuse for not taking responsibility for your driving.

I'd also like to reiterate again that these things are not suitable for all circumstances. I completely agree that humps are much better in high flow areas, but in a low flow area where there is a tendency to speed its a perfectly effective solution

[Dorza]

You're right they're the same in those circumstances, and should therefore prove no danger at all to a cautious driver at low speed. So long as you can see the thing why should it be any danger if you're driving appropriately?

Because there will always be people who (sigh... I'm saying it again) will take inappropriate action whilst at these islands. People make wrong judgments all the time. These islands induce a potential situation for someone to make an incorrect judgment that wouldn't otherwise occur. It doesn't mater how appropriately you are driving. People WILL make incorrect decisions. We're not perfect, none of us are and it doesn't mean that people are bad drivers or reckless. They shouldn't be in that situation in the first place. Its a road to be driven on, not a bloody obstacle course.

Are you talking about squeezing through the gap created by the island itself or with any oncoming traffic? If its the island not providing enough space then there's a specific problem that needs to be addressed by your local council. If its with other traffic then its a simple rule, if in doubt, wait.

I'm talking about the gap the island makes you go through.

There's no element of danger if drivers take the responsibility approaching such situations and there's no excuse for not taking responsibility for your driving.

There is always an element of danger whilst driving (particularly on the wrong side of the road), these islands only add to it. Again see previous statements.

I'd also like to reiterate again that these things are not suitable for all circumstances. I completely agree that humps are much better in high flow areas, but in a low flow area where there is a tendency to speed its a perfectly effective solution

I'm glad you can see that, but then, if road bumps can slow traffic, not cause traffic jams and not cause people to take risks, then why put islands down in the first place? They're an effective solution for creating an unwanted element of danger for drivers, nothing more in my view.