Speed humps may be removed in 20mph zones

Portsmouth already has the 20mph limits and it can be very difficult to avoid straying to a higher speed, especially with an automatic gearbox when descending steep hills. Having constantly to watch the speedo increases the difficulty and danger, so to keep below the limit, in areas covered by the new cameras, I estimate that one would need to check speed every 100 - 150 metres, thereby increasing the chance of not seeing a pedestrian coming onto the road.

I have also observed that some pedestrians, especially kids, have difficulty in judging the speed, and therefore the 'safety margin', of approaching vehicles. Thus some pedestrians are crossing with increased risk!

Obviously collisions are less damaging at lower speeds but that is not the answer, or will the next step be a 10mph limit - or will someone in authority finally twig on to the need to separate vehicles and pedestrians, rather than constantly putting the blame, cost and responsibility on drivers? Probably not eh? 

Methods of staying under the limit might be by fitting a speed limiter switch, similar to a cruise control, so that the driver/rider could 'dial in' the limit speed (dropping out visa the clutch or switch), or to have some sort of 'heads up' display in the helmet to indicate speed beyond the limit. No doubt any 'solution' will further restrict/cost vehicle users and be claimed as a success by the vote-grubbing politicians who fail to grasp the need to keep vehicles and pedestrians apart. It is, after all, hard contact between them that is actually the problem.

Posted: 17/12/2009 at 09:06

People in the know, alledgedly, still get this arse about face, THE ROAD IS FOR VEHICLES NOT PEDESTRIANS! 

They are coming into OUR space so should be held responsible to some extent for their own safety and not put the burden on the road user all the time, cyclists should be made to have insurance for using the road as well.

Posted: 17/12/2009 at 10:22

I agree with DaveyM that ALL uses of the roads are responsible and should be accountable for safety and not just motorists and motrcyclists.

Children should be educated and trained by parents/schools on the dangers of the road taught pedestrian discipline & skills.

I am a motorist and a motorcyclist as well as a pedestrian and cyclist and my responsibility for my safety (and that of others) does not end just because I am off the motorcycle or out of the car.

Posted: 17/12/2009 at 12:17

I dunno -- I live in Reading and it feels like it has become a car-only zone. Just trying to cross my own road on foot is nearly impossible, as drivers run reds, run crossings, block crossings during traffic jams, fail to signal, talk on their phones, even overtake on the wrong side of traffic islands and mount the pavement. As a pedestrian the best tactic is to close your eyes, pray and step out to cross. Unless you plan to put a footbridge every 50 feet, I don't think "separating traffic and pedestrians" is a viable solution, nor fair for pedestrians.

DaveyM -- I disagree that "the road is for vehicles not pedestrians". Pedestrians have to use the road, at least sometimes. Everyone is a pedestrian at some point. And you can hardly take equal responsibility for your safety when someone's steaming toward you at 40mph in the wet in a two-ton car, while you're on foot -- potentially with a pushchair, or a zimmerframe. If you choose to put yourself in a killing machine, the onus for safety should be mainly on you. 

Regarding insurance for cyclists -- I agree that compulsory training is a good idea (because 90% of cyclists are a liability), but insurance is not. Bicycles (again speaking from experience in Reading) are the default mode of transport for a lot of poor people who have no other means of getting across town to their jobs -- they can't necessarily afford an (insured) car. The cost of insurance on a bicycle would leave them with no other mode of transport. They'd either not pay, so you're back to square one, or not cycle and have more difficulty finding work. Maybe they'll turn to stealing your motorcycle.

All that said, 20mph feels achingly slow and I am totally against the expense and privacy infringement of a camera network. I'd be much more supportive of clever road design, better street lighting, better crossings, better child/cyclist education, and indeed better driver education to improve safety. Or more police on the streets to enforce basic standards of driving and vehicle maintenance. And as someone who sets his own speed regardless of the posted limits, I don't say that lightly!

Posted: 17/12/2009 at 16:44

Hi Ant,

I lived in reading for three years and I can not remember it ever being that bad, in fact I thought there were a lot of drivers who drove with care, and part of my IAM test was in Reading,

re your comments about bicycles, I do agree with insurance and road tax after all they use it as we do, and if they can not afford it then there is public transport which is very good in Reading.

In short I am fed up with the motorist getting hammered in every aspect, when thugs nick cars and wreck them with no insurance or driving licence and get community service and points on a licence they do not have???? so they get less or no punishment than a legal driver,

there will always be the fools on the road and fools walking etc, that will never change and the more people we have in this country the worse it will get, I would like to see some stats on this because I think the motorist would not be seen to be the main culprit, there are always other factors and some get hidden to suit policys etc

Posted: 21/09/2010 at 17:48