Random Irritations

[PJ87]

You'd fail your test for doing 20 in a 30 with cars behind you....

Well not if there is cars in front of me which is mostly the case

 

[Slime]

In a built up area? Please explain.

As Imurg has said, and he knows, that would be a failure of a driving test.
Can't imagine there would be any other reason for that than road safety.

 

[KenL]

As Imurg has said, and he knows, that would be a failure of a driving test.
Can't imagine there would be any other reason for that than road safety.

But you said it was dangerous.

 

[Slime]

But you said it was dangerous.

That's why it would be a failure in a test, I can't think of any other reason.
If someone is ambling along at 20mph in a 30mph zone, the people behind would, in some cases, get very frustrated and may do something that perhaps they shouldn't.
Those at 20mph are often incredibly nervous drivers and some are, without question, not sure exactly where they are.

 

[KenL]

That's why it would be a failure in a test, I can't think of any other reason.
If someone is ambling along at 20mph in a 30mph zone, the people behind would, in some cases, get very frustrated and may do something that perhaps they shouldn't.

So, if someone takes a risk and causes an accident, by say overtaking, it is because someone is driving under the MAXIMUM speed limit?

 

[Slime]

So, if someone takes a risk and causes an accident, by say overtaking, it is because someone is driving under the MAXIMUM speed limit?

Look, you think it's fine to drive at 20mph and I think that sometimes it can be dangerous.
I've illustrated why I have that point of view.
Why can't you accept that we have differing opinions?

 

[PJ87]

That's why it would be a failure in a test, I can't think of any other reason.
If someone is ambling along at 20mph in a 30mph zone, the people behind would, in some cases, get very frustrated and may do something that perhaps they shouldn't.
Those at 20mph are often incredibly nervous drivers and some are, without question, not sure exactly where they are.

I believe it's "failing to keep up with traffic ahead" is what you would fail for

 

[KenL]

Look, you think it's fine to drive at 20mph and I think that sometimes it can be dangerous.
I've illustrated why I have that point of view.
Why can't you accept that we have differing opinions?

I accept we have different opinions.

East Lothian, a beautiful part of the country if you haven’t visited, moved to 20mph in all our towns and villages a few years ago.

It has made it far more pleasurable to walk around. Drivers are often just above 20, whereas they used to be above 30. A major difference if you were to be hit by a car. There’s the real danger.

 

[Slime]

I believe it's "failing to keep up with traffic ahead" is what you would fail for

What if there was nobody in front of him/her?
What if the traffic ahead was speeding?

 

[PJ87]

What if there was nobody in front of him/her?
What if the traffic ahead was speeding?

Obviously stay within the limit and if nothing is in front it's because they have failed to keep up due to going so slow

That said we as a country never adjust to rainy days. We should drop our speed when it rains

 

[Slime]

I accept we have different opinions.

East Lothian, a beautiful part of the country if you haven’t visited, moved to 20mph in all our towns and villages a few years ago.

It has made it far more pleasurable to walk around. Drivers are often just above 20, whereas they used to be above 30. A major difference if you were to be hit by a car. There’s the real danger.

I can't imagine it's improved air quality, in fact, I'd imagine it's made things worse in that regard.

 

[PJ87]

I accept we have different opinions.

East Lothian, a beautiful part of the country if you haven’t visited, moved to 20mph in all our towns and villages a few years ago.

It has made it far more pleasurable to walk around. Drivers are often just above 20, whereas they used to be above 30. A major difference if you were to be hit by a car. There’s the real danger.

I support 20 in towns mainly because it's the only way to get people to do 30!

 

[KenL]

I can't imagine it's improved air quality, in fact, I'd imagine it's made things worse in that regard.

There are no air quality issues that I am aware of. But, why would traffic moving at 20 mph cause more emissions than those at 30 mph? Standing traffic is more of a problem.
As you said, you are imagining it.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Should be 20 mph in all built up residential areas , any roads near schools or big playgrounds etc

 

[KenL]

 

[cliveb]

View attachment 55610

Quoting propaganda from the London and Welsh governments isn't really presenting an unbiased position.

Let's think about this another way.
If 20mph is safer than 30mph, then presumably 10mph would be even safer. Or perhaps 5mph.
What speed is too low? Where do you draw the line?

 

[Slime]

There are no air quality issues that I am aware of. But, why would traffic moving at 20 mph cause more emissions than those at 30 mph? Standing traffic is more of a problem.
As you said, you are imagining it.

Because they spend far more time in towns and the cars are in a lower gear and usually revving higher because they're in a lower gear.

 

[KenL]

Because they spend far more time in towns and the cars are in a lower gear and usually revving higher because they're in a lower gear.

This is rubbish, sorry. Any decent driver will have their car in the appropriate gear.

 

[KenL]

Quoting propaganda from the London and Welsh governments isn't really presenting an unbiased position.

Let's think about this another way.
If 20mph is safer than 30mph, then presumably 10mph would be even safer. Or perhaps 5mph.
What speed is too low? Where do you draw the line?

It is only propaganda when it doesn’t fit your narrative.

 

[Slime]

But surely you can admit that cars spend much longer in towns due to the lower speed limits?
Therefore more pollution.