Calls for speed measures on busy Worcester road

Worcester News: John Anyon         04/07/14            2714641401

Cllr Matt Jenkins, Green Party, Division: Worcester - St Stephen, and Cllr Neil Laurenson, Geen Party, Ward: St. Stephen, at the junction of Astwood Road and Bilford Road. They are concerned about the saf John Anyon 04/07/14 2714641401 Cllr Matt Jenkins, Green Party, Division: Worcester - St Stephen, and Cllr Neil Laurenson, Geen Party, Ward: St. Stephen, at the junction of Astwood Road and Bilford Road. They are concerned about the saf

WORRIED residents are calling for something to be done to slow down cars speeding along a busy Worcester road.

Richard Thomas, who lives on the busy Bilford Road, has joined forces with councillors Neil Laurenson and Matt Jenkins, to ask for help at a busy part of the main road.

The father of two, who says he won't let his children anywhere near the busy route, decided to take action after an accident near his home on Tuesday, July 1.

He said: "There was an accident on the junction with the Astwood Road between a car and a scooter. The lady on the scooter needed ambulance treatment.

"My concern is the speed on the road. There are more people speeding than there are sticking to the speed limit. In the evenings and night times it's 40mph, maybe even nearer to 50mph.

"It's a wider road than many because of the bend but it's still a 30 limit."

And the main concern on Bilford Road is outside the Costcutter shop.

"If we are crossing the road it's impossible to see the traffic coming and somebody is going to get hurt," said the 39-year-old. "I'm not for fines but speed humps would slow people down or lower the limit to 20mph.

"My daughter is five, I wouldn't let here outside this house on her own, she's young but it's also way to dangerous."

The two green party councillors, county Cllr Matt Jenkins, and city Cllr Neil Laurenson, think the answer to the problem is a crossing outside the shop.

Cllr Laurenson said: "We have been campaigning for this for the best part of three years. We collected a petition in 2012 of over 300 people.

"This has been going on for decades, people trying to cross that bit of the road. This accident has happened and others, we need to try and stop this. The accidents are happening and the county council need to do something about it."

But the county council said there are no plans to put in new speeding measures on that part of Bilford Road or a crossing due to the lack of visibility at the location.

A spokesperson added: "Unfortunately there isn't a solution that can be found at this location due to the alignment of the road. There are also other factors which limit putting in a crossing here such as driveway accesses and nearby junctions."

Comments (40)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:29am Tue 15 Jul 14

scott.hannaford says...

Hurrah! Angry and with folded arms!
Hurrah! Angry and with folded arms! scott.hannaford
  • Score: 24

11:36am Tue 15 Jul 14

brooksider says...

Eventually there will be a serious incident at this location, the amount and speed of the traffic, the bend in Bilford road, parking and the acute angle of the junction are a dangerous combination.

The Worcestershire County Council Highways Department seem to take a lax attitude to pedestrian safety.

It took a young girl to be knocked down before pedestrian crossings were put in place on the London Road / Sebright Avenue junction.
Eventually there will be a serious incident at this location, the amount and speed of the traffic, the bend in Bilford road, parking and the acute angle of the junction are a dangerous combination. The Worcestershire County Council Highways Department seem to take a lax attitude to pedestrian safety. It took a young girl to be knocked down before pedestrian crossings were put in place on the London Road / Sebright Avenue junction. brooksider
  • Score: 7

12:18pm Tue 15 Jul 14

MrWXYZ says...

"I'm not for fines but speed humps would slow people down or lower the limit to 20mph. "

So punish those who drive the road properly rather than fine people breaking the speed limit. If the issue is people doing 40-50 when it isn't safe then punish those people, not the people driving at safe speeds
"I'm not for fines but speed humps would slow people down or lower the limit to 20mph. " So punish those who drive the road properly rather than fine people breaking the speed limit. If the issue is people doing 40-50 when it isn't safe then punish those people, not the people driving at safe speeds MrWXYZ
  • Score: 23

12:23pm Tue 15 Jul 14

D_Snider says...

"If we are crossing the road it's impossible to see the traffic coming and somebody is going to get hurt," said the 39-year-old. "I'm not for fines but speed humps would slow people down or lower the limit to 20mph"

Then why not walk a little further along the road away from the bend and cross. I agree it's a dangerous bend, but why put yourself in danger?
"If we are crossing the road it's impossible to see the traffic coming and somebody is going to get hurt," said the 39-year-old. "I'm not for fines but speed humps would slow people down or lower the limit to 20mph" Then why not walk a little further along the road away from the bend and cross. I agree it's a dangerous bend, but why put yourself in danger? D_Snider
  • Score: 30

1:22pm Tue 15 Jul 14

CJH says...

Don't worry - when they build the new football stadium/swimming pool etc at Perdiswell the traffic will be permanently jammed. Crossing the road won't be a problem then.
Don't worry - when they build the new football stadium/swimming pool etc at Perdiswell the traffic will be permanently jammed. Crossing the road won't be a problem then. CJH
  • Score: 10

1:30pm Tue 15 Jul 14

3thinker says...

Of course there are things the County Council could be doing.

Unfortunately they lack the vision and particularly the political will to do anything about making this bit of road safer.

Even a lick of paint to make the road visually narrower and perhaps taking out the centre line will help to slow traffic.

Not a lot to ask when lives are at stake.
Of course there are things the County Council could be doing. Unfortunately they lack the vision and particularly the political will to do anything about making this bit of road safer. Even a lick of paint to make the road visually narrower and perhaps taking out the centre line will help to slow traffic. Not a lot to ask when lives are at stake. 3thinker
  • Score: -2

1:40pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Tobster says...

That road could do with a bloody good resurfacing, especially where you leave the Droitwich road roundabout.

I'd rather the council make the road fit for purpose before considering local NIMBYs' twaddle.
That road could do with a bloody good resurfacing, especially where you leave the Droitwich road roundabout. I'd rather the council make the road fit for purpose before considering local NIMBYs' twaddle. Tobster
  • Score: 18

1:57pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Letterman says...

While I do raise an eyebrow at times towards the incessant speeding complaints we keep reading about, because the majority of issues are either perceived or NIMBYisms, I have no faith whatsoever with the highways department making any of our roads safer. You only need to look at what they done to the Whittington roundabout, the bottom of Newtown Road, the constant use of tar and chipping, the location of various zebra crossings etc to acutely realise that they are not only inept and have no idea what they're doing but the safety of the public is clearly not a priority. Being cynical, you could almost say that they're deliberately trying to put people's lives at risk for whatever reason.
While I do raise an eyebrow at times towards the incessant speeding complaints we keep reading about, because the majority of issues are either perceived or NIMBYisms, I have no faith whatsoever with the highways department making any of our roads safer. You only need to look at what they done to the Whittington roundabout, the bottom of Newtown Road, the constant use of tar and chipping, the location of various zebra crossings etc to acutely realise that they are not only inept and have no idea what they're doing but the safety of the public is clearly not a priority. Being cynical, you could almost say that they're deliberately trying to put people's lives at risk for whatever reason. Letterman
  • Score: 1

1:59pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Perfman says...

Stopping inconsiderate people parking badly outside the cost cutter shop would help increase the visibility of the junction.....
Stopping inconsiderate people parking badly outside the cost cutter shop would help increase the visibility of the junction..... Perfman
  • Score: 28

2:02pm Tue 15 Jul 14

3thinker says...

Perfman wrote:
Stopping inconsiderate people parking badly outside the cost cutter shop would help increase the visibility of the junction.....
It may also speed up traffic?
[quote][p][bold]Perfman[/bold] wrote: Stopping inconsiderate people parking badly outside the cost cutter shop would help increase the visibility of the junction.....[/p][/quote]It may also speed up traffic? 3thinker
  • Score: -1

2:03pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Hwicce says...

If pedestrians can't see the traffic when crossing because of the bend how do you expect cars to see a crossing. Some people just don't think through what they say.

The best thing for that corner is to ban the parking on the inside side of it that causes problems.

A speed trap wouldn't go amid either but I doubt it will catch as many speeders as people think.
If pedestrians can't see the traffic when crossing because of the bend how do you expect cars to see a crossing. Some people just don't think through what they say. The best thing for that corner is to ban the parking on the inside side of it that causes problems. A speed trap wouldn't go amid either but I doubt it will catch as many speeders as people think. Hwicce
  • Score: 10

2:38pm Tue 15 Jul 14

gmoore1207 says...

its a bit silly trying to cross there go up road away from junction to safley cross
its a bit silly trying to cross there go up road away from junction to safley cross gmoore1207
  • Score: 9

5:47pm Tue 15 Jul 14

liketoknow says...

scott.hannaford wrote:
Hurrah! Angry and with folded arms!
that's not angry. more glum I'd say.
[quote][p][bold]scott.hannaford[/bold] wrote: Hurrah! Angry and with folded arms![/p][/quote]that's not angry. more glum I'd say. liketoknow
  • Score: 8

6:18pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Roger5 says...

I would have thought it possible to locate a roundabout which would slow down Bilford Road speeders and also improve access to and from Tudor Grange and Blackpole. there's one at the junction with Green Lane and by the cemetery and they seem to work ok in a confined space!
I would have thought it possible to locate a roundabout which would slow down Bilford Road speeders and also improve access to and from Tudor Grange and Blackpole. there's one at the junction with Green Lane and by the cemetery and they seem to work ok in a confined space! Roger5
  • Score: 11

6:21pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Roger5 says...

Worcestershire County Highways: 'the answer is no, now what's the question?'.
Worcestershire County Highways: 'the answer is no, now what's the question?'. Roger5
  • Score: 11

8:05pm Tue 15 Jul 14

LindaJS says...

How about the bus lane in Forgate Street? The drivers drive like maniacs along there. Or Forgate Street as a whole? This road is dangerous, with drivers thinking that they are Formula one racers.
How about the bus lane in Forgate Street? The drivers drive like maniacs along there. Or Forgate Street as a whole? This road is dangerous, with drivers thinking that they are Formula one racers. LindaJS
  • Score: -4

9:56pm Tue 15 Jul 14

worcester90 says...

Perfman wrote:
Stopping inconsiderate people parking badly outside the cost cutter shop would help increase the visibility of the junction.....
Anyone would think you know what you are talking about, obviously not considering the shop has been a Premier for nearly 2 years.
[quote][p][bold]Perfman[/bold] wrote: Stopping inconsiderate people parking badly outside the cost cutter shop would help increase the visibility of the junction.....[/p][/quote]Anyone would think you know what you are talking about, obviously not considering the shop has been a Premier for nearly 2 years. worcester90
  • Score: 0

9:56pm Tue 15 Jul 14

CJH says...

LindaJS wrote:
How about the bus lane in Forgate Street? The drivers drive like maniacs along there. Or Forgate Street as a whole? This road is dangerous, with drivers thinking that they are Formula one racers.
What's the connection with this story? This isn't about bus lanes.
[quote][p][bold]LindaJS[/bold] wrote: How about the bus lane in Forgate Street? The drivers drive like maniacs along there. Or Forgate Street as a whole? This road is dangerous, with drivers thinking that they are Formula one racers.[/p][/quote]What's the connection with this story? This isn't about bus lanes. CJH
  • Score: 12

11:29pm Tue 15 Jul 14

3thinker says...

CJH wrote:
LindaJS wrote:
How about the bus lane in Forgate Street? The drivers drive like maniacs along there. Or Forgate Street as a whole? This road is dangerous, with drivers thinking that they are Formula one racers.
What's the connection with this story? This isn't about bus lanes.
Noi its about bad driver behaviour!
[quote][p][bold]CJH[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LindaJS[/bold] wrote: How about the bus lane in Forgate Street? The drivers drive like maniacs along there. Or Forgate Street as a whole? This road is dangerous, with drivers thinking that they are Formula one racers.[/p][/quote]What's the connection with this story? This isn't about bus lanes.[/p][/quote]Noi its about bad driver behaviour! 3thinker
  • Score: 1

11:49pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Perfman says...

worcester90 wrote:
Perfman wrote:
Stopping inconsiderate people parking badly outside the cost cutter shop would help increase the visibility of the junction.....
Anyone would think you know what you are talking about, obviously not considering the shop has been a Premier for nearly 2 years.
Just quoting the actual article "And the main concern on Bilford Road is outside the Costcutter shop."

And your point is?
[quote][p][bold]worcester90[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Perfman[/bold] wrote: Stopping inconsiderate people parking badly outside the cost cutter shop would help increase the visibility of the junction.....[/p][/quote]Anyone would think you know what you are talking about, obviously not considering the shop has been a Premier for nearly 2 years.[/p][/quote]Just quoting the actual article "And the main concern on Bilford Road is outside the Costcutter shop." And your point is? Perfman
  • Score: 11

10:55am Wed 16 Jul 14

New Kid on the Block says...

If this bit of road is dangerous then Don't cross there!
Use a bit of common sense and walk down the road to a place where you can see the cars and the drivers can see you.
If you need it spelt out try reading the highway code.
As I have said before, We need to take responsibility for our own actions and stop expecting Nanny to look after us all the time.
If this bit of road is dangerous then Don't cross there! Use a bit of common sense and walk down the road to a place where you can see the cars and the drivers can see you. If you need it spelt out try reading the highway code. As I have said before, We need to take responsibility for our own actions and stop expecting Nanny to look after us all the time. New Kid on the Block
  • Score: 13

11:10am Wed 16 Jul 14

3thinker says...

New Kid on the Block wrote:
If this bit of road is dangerous then Don't cross there!
Use a bit of common sense and walk down the road to a place where you can see the cars and the drivers can see you.
If you need it spelt out try reading the highway code.
As I have said before, We need to take responsibility for our own actions and stop expecting Nanny to look after us all the time.
I quite agree. The same applies to drivers.

13 recorded accidents 2005-12 and from what I understand a death before then of an elderly gent trying to cross the road to get to the shop.

As drivers we should all respect speed limits, but also slow down where there are know dangers.
[quote][p][bold]New Kid on the Block[/bold] wrote: If this bit of road is dangerous then Don't cross there! Use a bit of common sense and walk down the road to a place where you can see the cars and the drivers can see you. If you need it spelt out try reading the highway code. As I have said before, We need to take responsibility for our own actions and stop expecting Nanny to look after us all the time.[/p][/quote]I quite agree. The same applies to drivers. 13 recorded accidents 2005-12 and from what I understand a death before then of an elderly gent trying to cross the road to get to the shop. As drivers we should all respect speed limits, but also slow down where there are know dangers. 3thinker
  • Score: 8

1:27pm Wed 16 Jul 14

brooksider says...

New Kid on the Block wrote:
If this bit of road is dangerous then Don't cross there!
Use a bit of common sense and walk down the road to a place where you can see the cars and the drivers can see you.
If you need it spelt out try reading the highway code.
As I have said before, We need to take responsibility for our own actions and stop expecting Nanny to look after us all the time.
What about protection from other peoples actions?
We know from a news story last week that persistent speeding offenders are not banned despite reaching 12 penalty points and driving at 150% of the speed limit.

It would be interesting to know where you suggest children can safely cross near this junction.
[quote][p][bold]New Kid on the Block[/bold] wrote: If this bit of road is dangerous then Don't cross there! Use a bit of common sense and walk down the road to a place where you can see the cars and the drivers can see you. If you need it spelt out try reading the highway code. As I have said before, We need to take responsibility for our own actions and stop expecting Nanny to look after us all the time.[/p][/quote]What about protection from other peoples actions? We know from a news story last week that persistent speeding offenders are not banned despite reaching 12 penalty points and driving at 150% of the speed limit. It would be interesting to know where you suggest children can safely cross near this junction. brooksider
  • Score: 7

1:34pm Wed 16 Jul 14

i-cycle says...

Injuries to pedestrians is certainly a growing concern. The latest stats from DfT for 2012 show that, per mile travelled its now as dangerous on the highway for pedestrians as cyclists.
Injuries to pedestrians is certainly a growing concern. The latest stats from DfT for 2012 show that, per mile travelled its now as dangerous on the highway for pedestrians as cyclists. i-cycle
  • Score: -3

2:12pm Wed 16 Jul 14

worcester90 says...

Perfman wrote:
worcester90 wrote:
Perfman wrote:
Stopping inconsiderate people parking badly outside the cost cutter shop would help increase the visibility of the junction.....
Anyone would think you know what you are talking about, obviously not considering the shop has been a Premier for nearly 2 years.
Just quoting the actual article "And the main concern on Bilford Road is outside the Costcutter shop."

And your point is?
My point is the shop is a Premier on Astwood Road, the is no shop on Bilford Road.
[quote][p][bold]Perfman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]worcester90[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Perfman[/bold] wrote: Stopping inconsiderate people parking badly outside the cost cutter shop would help increase the visibility of the junction.....[/p][/quote]Anyone would think you know what you are talking about, obviously not considering the shop has been a Premier for nearly 2 years.[/p][/quote]Just quoting the actual article "And the main concern on Bilford Road is outside the Costcutter shop." And your point is?[/p][/quote]My point is the shop is a Premier on Astwood Road, the is no shop on Bilford Road. worcester90
  • Score: -7

5:54pm Wed 16 Jul 14

New Kid on the Block says...

brooksider wrote:
New Kid on the Block wrote:
If this bit of road is dangerous then Don't cross there!
Use a bit of common sense and walk down the road to a place where you can see the cars and the drivers can see you.
If you need it spelt out try reading the highway code.
As I have said before, We need to take responsibility for our own actions and stop expecting Nanny to look after us all the time.
What about protection from other peoples actions?
We know from a news story last week that persistent speeding offenders are not banned despite reaching 12 penalty points and driving at 150% of the speed limit.

It would be interesting to know where you suggest children can safely cross near this junction.
I used to ride a motorbike and still ride a push bike as well as driving a car so yes I do know about the idiots on the road and take good care to protect myself from them as well as I can.
I know the story you are referring to and don't understand why he wasn't banned. This goes back to taking responsibility for our actions - break the limit and face the consequences.
Without a closer inspection of the road I am not going to suggest a crossing place. It may be that there is currently no safe place close to this spot. But that doesn't change the fact that on a bend with a junction and lots of parked cars is never going to be a sensible place to cross. If you have to walk a couple of hundred yards to find a safe crossing place then that is where you should cross until a safe crossing is provided in a position well away from the bend.
The trouble is if you put in a crossing that entails people walking more than a couple of feet it will be largely ignored. Watch people crossing the City Walls Road on the Southern (New Street) side of the St Martins Gate Roundabout to see what I mean.
[quote][p][bold]brooksider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]New Kid on the Block[/bold] wrote: If this bit of road is dangerous then Don't cross there! Use a bit of common sense and walk down the road to a place where you can see the cars and the drivers can see you. If you need it spelt out try reading the highway code. As I have said before, We need to take responsibility for our own actions and stop expecting Nanny to look after us all the time.[/p][/quote]What about protection from other peoples actions? We know from a news story last week that persistent speeding offenders are not banned despite reaching 12 penalty points and driving at 150% of the speed limit. It would be interesting to know where you suggest children can safely cross near this junction.[/p][/quote]I used to ride a motorbike and still ride a push bike as well as driving a car so yes I do know about the idiots on the road and take good care to protect myself from them as well as I can. I know the story you are referring to and don't understand why he wasn't banned. This goes back to taking responsibility for our actions - break the limit and face the consequences. Without a closer inspection of the road I am not going to suggest a crossing place. It may be that there is currently no safe place close to this spot. But that doesn't change the fact that on a bend with a junction and lots of parked cars is never going to be a sensible place to cross. If you have to walk a couple of hundred yards to find a safe crossing place then that is where you should cross until a safe crossing is provided in a position well away from the bend. The trouble is if you put in a crossing that entails people walking more than a couple of feet it will be largely ignored. Watch people crossing the City Walls Road on the Southern (New Street) side of the St Martins Gate Roundabout to see what I mean. New Kid on the Block
  • Score: 9

8:41pm Wed 16 Jul 14

DarrenM says...

"My concern is the speed on the road. There are more people speeding than there are sticking to the speed limit. In the evenings and night times it's 40mph, maybe even nearer to 50mph."

More nonsense? How does he know? Does he own a speed gun? Have the council measured the average speed along the road? - Is there any actual empirical evidence for any of this nonsense?

Strangely enough standing on the side of the road and having a look as cars pass is unsurprisingly not an accurate measure of the speed, regardless of how experienced a driver you are.

Then on the flip side lets suppose there is a speeding problem - well then clearly the solution is obviously install a pedestrian crossing - as the council only install zebra crossings (i.e. St peters) due to cost, clearly cars approaching a none-traffic light controlled crossing at 10mph to 20mph above the speed limit isn't a recipe for disaster ???!!.
"My concern is the speed on the road. There are more people speeding than there are sticking to the speed limit. In the evenings and night times it's 40mph, maybe even nearer to 50mph." More nonsense? How does he know? Does he own a speed gun? Have the council measured the average speed along the road? - Is there any actual empirical evidence for any of this nonsense? Strangely enough standing on the side of the road and having a look as cars pass is unsurprisingly not an accurate measure of the speed, regardless of how experienced a driver you are. Then on the flip side lets suppose there is a speeding problem - well then clearly the solution is obviously install a pedestrian crossing - as the council only install zebra crossings (i.e. St peters) due to cost, clearly cars approaching a none-traffic light controlled crossing at 10mph to 20mph above the speed limit isn't a recipe for disaster ???!!. DarrenM
  • Score: 3

10:08pm Wed 16 Jul 14

3thinker says...

DarrenM wrote:
"My concern is the speed on the road. There are more people speeding than there are sticking to the speed limit. In the evenings and night times it's 40mph, maybe even nearer to 50mph."

More nonsense? How does he know? Does he own a speed gun? Have the council measured the average speed along the road? - Is there any actual empirical evidence for any of this nonsense?

Strangely enough standing on the side of the road and having a look as cars pass is unsurprisingly not an accurate measure of the speed, regardless of how experienced a driver you are.

Then on the flip side lets suppose there is a speeding problem - well then clearly the solution is obviously install a pedestrian crossing - as the council only install zebra crossings (i.e. St peters) due to cost, clearly cars approaching a none-traffic light controlled crossing at 10mph to 20mph above the speed limit isn't a recipe for disaster ???!!.
And how, pray tell do you know his statement is nonsense? Have you been out for several evenings and nights with a speed gun?

There's certainly evidence from other areas in Worcestershire that a significant proportion of drivers are breaking the speed limit.

And when caught out the usual complaint is that its a police or council scam to tax them. Either that or they are such expert drivers that the rules of the road don't apply to them.
[quote][p][bold]DarrenM[/bold] wrote: "My concern is the speed on the road. There are more people speeding than there are sticking to the speed limit. In the evenings and night times it's 40mph, maybe even nearer to 50mph." More nonsense? How does he know? Does he own a speed gun? Have the council measured the average speed along the road? - Is there any actual empirical evidence for any of this nonsense? Strangely enough standing on the side of the road and having a look as cars pass is unsurprisingly not an accurate measure of the speed, regardless of how experienced a driver you are. Then on the flip side lets suppose there is a speeding problem - well then clearly the solution is obviously install a pedestrian crossing - as the council only install zebra crossings (i.e. St peters) due to cost, clearly cars approaching a none-traffic light controlled crossing at 10mph to 20mph above the speed limit isn't a recipe for disaster ???!!.[/p][/quote]And how, pray tell do you know his statement is nonsense? Have you been out for several evenings and nights with a speed gun? There's certainly evidence from other areas in Worcestershire that a significant proportion of drivers are breaking the speed limit. And when caught out the usual complaint is that its a police or council scam to tax them. Either that or they are such expert drivers that the rules of the road don't apply to them. 3thinker
  • Score: -1

6:29pm Fri 18 Jul 14

DarrenM says...

3thinker wrote:
DarrenM wrote:
"My concern is the speed on the road. There are more people speeding than there are sticking to the speed limit. In the evenings and night times it's 40mph, maybe even nearer to 50mph."

More nonsense? How does he know? Does he own a speed gun? Have the council measured the average speed along the road? - Is there any actual empirical evidence for any of this nonsense?

Strangely enough standing on the side of the road and having a look as cars pass is unsurprisingly not an accurate measure of the speed, regardless of how experienced a driver you are.

Then on the flip side lets suppose there is a speeding problem - well then clearly the solution is obviously install a pedestrian crossing - as the council only install zebra crossings (i.e. St peters) due to cost, clearly cars approaching a none-traffic light controlled crossing at 10mph to 20mph above the speed limit isn't a recipe for disaster ???!!.
And how, pray tell do you know his statement is nonsense? Have you been out for several evenings and nights with a speed gun?

There's certainly evidence from other areas in Worcestershire that a significant proportion of drivers are breaking the speed limit.

And when caught out the usual complaint is that its a police or council scam to tax them. Either that or they are such expert drivers that the rules of the road don't apply to them.
No in answer to your question I haven't got a speed gun and neither has he, that's the point..

I'm not the one making the claim he is, so the responsibility is on him to provide the evidence.

That's how scientific and evidence based enquiry works.. or is that not 3thinking enough for you?
[quote][p][bold]3thinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DarrenM[/bold] wrote: "My concern is the speed on the road. There are more people speeding than there are sticking to the speed limit. In the evenings and night times it's 40mph, maybe even nearer to 50mph." More nonsense? How does he know? Does he own a speed gun? Have the council measured the average speed along the road? - Is there any actual empirical evidence for any of this nonsense? Strangely enough standing on the side of the road and having a look as cars pass is unsurprisingly not an accurate measure of the speed, regardless of how experienced a driver you are. Then on the flip side lets suppose there is a speeding problem - well then clearly the solution is obviously install a pedestrian crossing - as the council only install zebra crossings (i.e. St peters) due to cost, clearly cars approaching a none-traffic light controlled crossing at 10mph to 20mph above the speed limit isn't a recipe for disaster ???!!.[/p][/quote]And how, pray tell do you know his statement is nonsense? Have you been out for several evenings and nights with a speed gun? There's certainly evidence from other areas in Worcestershire that a significant proportion of drivers are breaking the speed limit. And when caught out the usual complaint is that its a police or council scam to tax them. Either that or they are such expert drivers that the rules of the road don't apply to them.[/p][/quote]No in answer to your question I haven't got a speed gun and neither has he, that's the point.. I'm not the one making the claim he is, so the responsibility is on him to provide the evidence. That's how scientific and evidence based enquiry works.. or is that not 3thinking enough for you? DarrenM
  • Score: 5

6:51pm Fri 18 Jul 14

i-cycle says...

DarrenM wrote:
3thinker wrote:
DarrenM wrote:
"My concern is the speed on the road. There are more people speeding than there are sticking to the speed limit. In the evenings and night times it's 40mph, maybe even nearer to 50mph."

More nonsense? How does he know? Does he own a speed gun? Have the council measured the average speed along the road? - Is there any actual empirical evidence for any of this nonsense?

Strangely enough standing on the side of the road and having a look as cars pass is unsurprisingly not an accurate measure of the speed, regardless of how experienced a driver you are.

Then on the flip side lets suppose there is a speeding problem - well then clearly the solution is obviously install a pedestrian crossing - as the council only install zebra crossings (i.e. St peters) due to cost, clearly cars approaching a none-traffic light controlled crossing at 10mph to 20mph above the speed limit isn't a recipe for disaster ???!!.
And how, pray tell do you know his statement is nonsense? Have you been out for several evenings and nights with a speed gun?

There's certainly evidence from other areas in Worcestershire that a significant proportion of drivers are breaking the speed limit.

And when caught out the usual complaint is that its a police or council scam to tax them. Either that or they are such expert drivers that the rules of the road don't apply to them.
No in answer to your question I haven't got a speed gun and neither has he, that's the point..

I'm not the one making the claim he is, so the responsibility is on him to provide the evidence.

That's how scientific and evidence based enquiry works.. or is that not 3thinking enough for you?
HI Darren, me again!

Adults and particularly those who have been driving a while are actually pretty good at judging traffic speeds.

Children can't. That's why the usual retort from drivers that accidents amongst young children are simply resolved through education can't work.

Here's a quote from detailed research.

"The results suggest that while adult pedestrians can make accurate judgments for vehicles travelling up to 50mph, children of primary school age become unreliable once the approach speed goes above 20mph, if the car is five seconds away."

So there's every chance that an adult can make a reasonable judgement as to whether a car is breaking the speed limit without the need for a speed gun.
[quote][p][bold]DarrenM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]3thinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DarrenM[/bold] wrote: "My concern is the speed on the road. There are more people speeding than there are sticking to the speed limit. In the evenings and night times it's 40mph, maybe even nearer to 50mph." More nonsense? How does he know? Does he own a speed gun? Have the council measured the average speed along the road? - Is there any actual empirical evidence for any of this nonsense? Strangely enough standing on the side of the road and having a look as cars pass is unsurprisingly not an accurate measure of the speed, regardless of how experienced a driver you are. Then on the flip side lets suppose there is a speeding problem - well then clearly the solution is obviously install a pedestrian crossing - as the council only install zebra crossings (i.e. St peters) due to cost, clearly cars approaching a none-traffic light controlled crossing at 10mph to 20mph above the speed limit isn't a recipe for disaster ???!!.[/p][/quote]And how, pray tell do you know his statement is nonsense? Have you been out for several evenings and nights with a speed gun? There's certainly evidence from other areas in Worcestershire that a significant proportion of drivers are breaking the speed limit. And when caught out the usual complaint is that its a police or council scam to tax them. Either that or they are such expert drivers that the rules of the road don't apply to them.[/p][/quote]No in answer to your question I haven't got a speed gun and neither has he, that's the point.. I'm not the one making the claim he is, so the responsibility is on him to provide the evidence. That's how scientific and evidence based enquiry works.. or is that not 3thinking enough for you?[/p][/quote]HI Darren, me again! Adults and particularly those who have been driving a while are actually pretty good at judging traffic speeds. Children can't. That's why the usual retort from drivers that accidents amongst young children are simply resolved through education can't work. Here's a quote from detailed research. "The results suggest that while adult pedestrians can make accurate judgments for vehicles travelling up to 50mph, children of primary school age become unreliable once the approach speed goes above 20mph, if the car is five seconds away." So there's every chance that an adult can make a reasonable judgement as to whether a car is breaking the speed limit without the need for a speed gun. i-cycle
  • Score: -2

7:11pm Sat 19 Jul 14

DarrenM says...

At no point in the Royal Holloway Study were adults or children asked to estimate the speed of approaching vehicle - In fact the finding stated "Children across all ages groups were only reliably able to detect that a car was *moving towards them*.. at speeds below 25mph"

Also they only tested 27 adults vs 111 children, and I quote "Participants who had high false-positive rates or who failed to complete the
task were excluded" - I.e. If you weren't any good at safely judging distances your data was excluded from the study.

Might be better to read the actual study rather than quote from the Daily Mail report.....
At no point in the Royal Holloway Study were adults or children asked to estimate the speed of approaching vehicle - In fact the finding stated "Children across all ages groups were only reliably able to detect that a car was *moving towards them*.. at speeds below 25mph" Also they only tested 27 adults vs 111 children, and I quote "Participants who had high false-positive rates or who failed to complete the task were excluded" - I.e. If you weren't any good at safely judging distances your data was excluded from the study. Might be better to read the actual study rather than quote from the Daily Mail report..... DarrenM
  • Score: 2

8:48am Sun 20 Jul 14

reflector says...

Isn't it odd that drivers seem to be in favour of lower speed limits and more enforcement where they live but higher ones and no enforcement where they don't?
Isn't it odd that drivers seem to be in favour of lower speed limits and more enforcement where they live but higher ones and no enforcement where they don't? reflector
  • Score: 5

11:00am Sun 20 Jul 14

i-cycle says...

DarrenM wrote:
At no point in the Royal Holloway Study were adults or children asked to estimate the speed of approaching vehicle - In fact the finding stated "Children across all ages groups were only reliably able to detect that a car was *moving towards them*.. at speeds below 25mph"

Also they only tested 27 adults vs 111 children, and I quote "Participants who had high false-positive rates or who failed to complete the
task were excluded" - I.e. If you weren't any good at safely judging distances your data was excluded from the study.

Might be better to read the actual study rather than quote from the Daily Mail report.....
No I don't know the detail , but as its been published in an international journal and from a respected University I think its safe to safe that the research methodology was robust.

What is clear is that adults are better able to judge speeds of approaching vehicles without a speed gun. They may not be 100% accurate, but I'm certainly its perfectly possible to spot those exceeding the speed limit by 10 -15 mph.

But lets follow your logic. If those who couldn't judge speeds were excluded then there's an even stronger case for stating that children can't judge speeds above 20mph. Coincidentally the speed at which they are much more likely to survive death or serious injury if they are hit.

Reducing speeds to 20mph on roads such as this makes perfect sense, is supported by the majority of the public in the annual social attitudes survey and would make it even easier to spot those who do ignore legal limits.
[quote][p][bold]DarrenM[/bold] wrote: At no point in the Royal Holloway Study were adults or children asked to estimate the speed of approaching vehicle - In fact the finding stated "Children across all ages groups were only reliably able to detect that a car was *moving towards them*.. at speeds below 25mph" Also they only tested 27 adults vs 111 children, and I quote "Participants who had high false-positive rates or who failed to complete the task were excluded" - I.e. If you weren't any good at safely judging distances your data was excluded from the study. Might be better to read the actual study rather than quote from the Daily Mail report.....[/p][/quote]No I don't know the detail , but as its been published in an international journal and from a respected University I think its safe to safe that the research methodology was robust. What is clear is that adults are better able to judge speeds of approaching vehicles without a speed gun. They may not be 100% accurate, but I'm certainly its perfectly possible to spot those exceeding the speed limit by 10 -15 mph. But lets follow your logic. If those who couldn't judge speeds were excluded then there's an even stronger case for stating that children can't judge speeds above 20mph. Coincidentally the speed at which they are much more likely to survive death or serious injury if they are hit. Reducing speeds to 20mph on roads such as this makes perfect sense, is supported by the majority of the public in the annual social attitudes survey and would make it even easier to spot those who do ignore legal limits. i-cycle
  • Score: 1

1:59pm Sun 20 Jul 14

ACBLive says...

I've done all those looking serious arms folded publicity stunts and nothing ever changes. The two greens need to buy a car, travel around like the rest of us and basically get a life!!!
I've done all those looking serious arms folded publicity stunts and nothing ever changes. The two greens need to buy a car, travel around like the rest of us and basically get a life!!! ACBLive
  • Score: 0

2:02pm Sun 20 Jul 14

CJH says...

ACBLive wrote:
I've done all those looking serious arms folded publicity stunts and nothing ever changes. The two greens need to buy a car, travel around like the rest of us and basically get a life!!!
Blimey Andrew, you're everywhere today aren't you?
[quote][p][bold]ACBLive[/bold] wrote: I've done all those looking serious arms folded publicity stunts and nothing ever changes. The two greens need to buy a car, travel around like the rest of us and basically get a life!!![/p][/quote]Blimey Andrew, you're everywhere today aren't you? CJH
  • Score: 4

3:57pm Sun 20 Jul 14

The Boy says...

ACBLive - Matt owns a car; my wife owns a car, which I also drive. Sorry that you think amplifying a resident's concerns means we need to 'get a life'. If we weren't in the paper, no doubt we'd be criticised. NL
ACBLive - Matt owns a car; my wife owns a car, which I also drive. Sorry that you think amplifying a resident's concerns means we need to 'get a life'. If we weren't in the paper, no doubt we'd be criticised. NL The Boy
  • Score: 0

4:38pm Sun 20 Jul 14

i-cycle says...

ACBLive wrote:
I've done all those looking serious arms folded publicity stunts and nothing ever changes. The two greens need to buy a car, travel around like the rest of us and basically get a life!!!
Hi ACB.

Has it occurred to you that a big part of the existing congestion problem Worcester faces is exactly because so many do travel around by car.

Perhaps a good thing if more actually did get a 'life' and walked, cycled or caught public transport for those shorter journeys.

It would reduce congestion, air pollution and accidents for everyone, make Worcester a better and safer place to live and help make those who did drive less healthier and wealthier so less of a burden on the NHS taxpayer, more productive at work and have a bit more disposable income to spend in supporting the local economy and for some reduce their reliance on benefits.
[quote][p][bold]ACBLive[/bold] wrote: I've done all those looking serious arms folded publicity stunts and nothing ever changes. The two greens need to buy a car, travel around like the rest of us and basically get a life!!![/p][/quote]Hi ACB. Has it occurred to you that a big part of the existing congestion problem Worcester faces is exactly because so many do travel around by car. Perhaps a good thing if more actually did get a 'life' and walked, cycled or caught public transport for those shorter journeys. It would reduce congestion, air pollution and accidents for everyone, make Worcester a better and safer place to live and help make those who did drive less healthier and wealthier so less of a burden on the NHS taxpayer, more productive at work and have a bit more disposable income to spend in supporting the local economy and for some reduce their reliance on benefits. i-cycle
  • Score: 2

6:23pm Sun 20 Jul 14

DarrenM says...

In the same way the MMR research methodology was robust eh? That's why we have peer review and the scientific method.

they can judge if its safe to cross a road at speeds above 20mph- they're safe up 25mph according to the data in the study. - and you're still missing the point - it wasn't a test to judge the speed of vehicles, it was a visual acuity test.

At no point were any of the participants asked to estimate the speed of a vehicle, they were just asked to indicate when the speed at which they detected the vehicle moving towards them hence the title of the study "Reduced Sensitivity to Visual Looming"

"If those who couldn't" - There's no "if"- It's in the study - they were.

You and your 20mph friends are totally misrepresenting both the intention of the study and the results to yet again push your own misguided agenda with no evidence behind it.

On top of that, you have no serious interest in reducing road casualties. if you did you'd be running a national campaign calling for reinstatement of the Red Flag Act or the banning of motor vehicles altogether, as I'm fairly certain that would reduce KSI's to about 0%, in actuality you're just NIMBY's who just want to push your niche hobby at the expense of the rest of the population whilst wrapping it up as "Road Safety"
In the same way the MMR research methodology was robust eh? That's why we have peer review and the scientific method. they can judge if its safe to cross a road at speeds above 20mph- they're safe up 25mph according to the data in the study. - and you're still missing the point - it wasn't a test to judge the speed of vehicles, it was a visual acuity test. At no point were any of the participants asked to estimate the speed of a vehicle, they were just asked to indicate when the speed at which they detected the vehicle moving towards them hence the title of the study "Reduced Sensitivity to Visual Looming" "If those who couldn't" - There's no "if"- It's in the study - they were. You and your 20mph friends are totally misrepresenting both the intention of the study and the results to yet again push your own misguided agenda with no evidence behind it. On top of that, you have no serious interest in reducing road casualties. if you did you'd be running a national campaign calling for reinstatement of the Red Flag Act or the banning of motor vehicles altogether, as I'm fairly certain that would reduce KSI's to about 0%, in actuality you're just NIMBY's who just want to push your niche hobby at the expense of the rest of the population whilst wrapping it up as "Road Safety" DarrenM
  • Score: 0

7:17pm Sun 20 Jul 14

i-cycle says...

DarrenM wrote:
In the same way the MMR research methodology was robust eh? That's why we have peer review and the scientific method.

they can judge if its safe to cross a road at speeds above 20mph- they're safe up 25mph according to the data in the study. - and you're still missing the point - it wasn't a test to judge the speed of vehicles, it was a visual acuity test.

At no point were any of the participants asked to estimate the speed of a vehicle, they were just asked to indicate when the speed at which they detected the vehicle moving towards them hence the title of the study "Reduced Sensitivity to Visual Looming"

"If those who couldn't" - There's no "if"- It's in the study - they were.

You and your 20mph friends are totally misrepresenting both the intention of the study and the results to yet again push your own misguided agenda with no evidence behind it.

On top of that, you have no serious interest in reducing road casualties. if you did you'd be running a national campaign calling for reinstatement of the Red Flag Act or the banning of motor vehicles altogether, as I'm fairly certain that would reduce KSI's to about 0%, in actuality you're just NIMBY's who just want to push your niche hobby at the expense of the rest of the population whilst wrapping it up as "Road Safety"
Pleased to hear you've accepted reducing speed will reduce KSI. That said nobody is campaigning to reduce speeds to 20mph on main roads outside urban areas, nor on main arterial roads into and around towns and cities. That's why the actual difference in commute times is an extra couple of minutes and probably less in Worcester given current congestion and possible improved flow and easier 'filtering' along certain stretches.
[quote][p][bold]DarrenM[/bold] wrote: In the same way the MMR research methodology was robust eh? That's why we have peer review and the scientific method. they can judge if its safe to cross a road at speeds above 20mph- they're safe up 25mph according to the data in the study. - and you're still missing the point - it wasn't a test to judge the speed of vehicles, it was a visual acuity test. At no point were any of the participants asked to estimate the speed of a vehicle, they were just asked to indicate when the speed at which they detected the vehicle moving towards them hence the title of the study "Reduced Sensitivity to Visual Looming" "If those who couldn't" - There's no "if"- It's in the study - they were. You and your 20mph friends are totally misrepresenting both the intention of the study and the results to yet again push your own misguided agenda with no evidence behind it. On top of that, you have no serious interest in reducing road casualties. if you did you'd be running a national campaign calling for reinstatement of the Red Flag Act or the banning of motor vehicles altogether, as I'm fairly certain that would reduce KSI's to about 0%, in actuality you're just NIMBY's who just want to push your niche hobby at the expense of the rest of the population whilst wrapping it up as "Road Safety"[/p][/quote]Pleased to hear you've accepted reducing speed will reduce KSI. That said nobody is campaigning to reduce speeds to 20mph on main roads outside urban areas, nor on main arterial roads into and around towns and cities. That's why the actual difference in commute times is an extra couple of minutes and probably less in Worcester given current congestion and possible improved flow and easier 'filtering' along certain stretches. i-cycle
  • Score: -1

8:02pm Sun 20 Jul 14

DarrenM says...

Good, you're not going to continue to argue on the meaning of a study which I have, and I've read then, and you clearly haven't...

"That said nobody is campaigning to reduce speeds to 20mph on main roads"

And why not? You're all clearly such experts in Road Safety ?-

That said I seem to remember when something was clearly stated in black and white in a act of Parliament i.e. emergency vehicles using bus lanes, you still couldn't accept it, and yet you think your views on Road Safety Research papers are going to be taken seriously by anyone in the profession.....
Good, you're not going to continue to argue on the meaning of a study which I have, and I've read then, and you clearly haven't... "That said nobody is campaigning to reduce speeds to 20mph on main roads" And why not? You're all clearly such experts in Road Safety ?- That said I seem to remember when something was clearly stated in black and white in a act of Parliament i.e. emergency vehicles using bus lanes, you still couldn't accept it, and yet you think your views on Road Safety Research papers are going to be taken seriously by anyone in the profession..... DarrenM
  • Score: 0
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree