Wales 20mph limit starts Sept 17th - a heads-up

[Pudsey Bear]

Traffic calming is there due to poor driving standards, a scheme which just changes the nature of the hazard caused by poor driving is a waste of time. As I've posted above, several schemes in our area have been removed due to the numbers of accidents caused by them, consider this, do you know how hard it is to get a council to admit doing something wrong!
One of the spots I sometimes wait for gf during her hospital visits is Bedford Embankment, I have witnessed numerous near misses, several crashes, and road rage incidents.

I think we all know what you mean, but taking them all out just means they can crash at higher speeds, I'd rather we had obstacles and education.

 

[colinm]

Hi Colin, Colin I do see where you are coming from.
But for me this issue goes way beyond chicanes, and is symptomatic of a society looking for an easy way out. Sorry but I don’t agree that the chicanes are dangerous, or indeed they are causing accidents. The accidents are the result of poor driving, and a lack of proper punishments for those who breech the law in this country. It’s the same for those who get caught sending text messages or using a handset to chat to someone whilst driving. A £200 fine and 6 penalty points is no where near enough to stop this. I would suggest a driving ban and a £1000 fine. There are to many idiots out there who need sorting out. But that’s just my opinion Colin, and I fully respect yours.

I don't disagree with getting tougher on those whose driving is dangerous, but nobodies doing that. Couple of weeks ago I was overtaken by a speeding driver along our high street, how it was done struck me as being very dangerous, so much so that I tried to report it to the police, a first for me, they wanted either a second witness, or video footage, without that they had no interest. I can understand that they would struggle to prosecute someone with just my evidence, but they wouldn't even take details.
I have been warned, although have no personal evidence, never to try and drive through a chicane when the other driver has right of way but appears to be letting you go first, apparently it's a common 'cash for crash' scam.

 

[Fisherman]

I don't disagree with getting tougher on those whose driving is dangerous, but nobodies doing that. Couple of weeks ago I was overtaken by a speeding driver along our high street, how it was done struck me as being very dangerous, so much so that I tried to report it to the police, a first for me, they wanted either a second witness, or video footage, without that they had no interest. I can understand that they would struggle to prosecute someone with just my evidence, but they wouldn't even take details.
I have been warned, although have no personal evidence, never to try and drive through a chicane when the other driver has right of way but appears to be letting you go first, apparently it's a common 'cash for crash' scam.

Like most now I have a dash cam on both my car and my van.
Dodgy thing to try with so many dash cams out there.
Where I live there are some chicanes, and I have never heard of any trouble with them. As for folk who take part in cash for crash scams, I would ban them for at least 5 years, confiscate their vehicles, and fine them. And they may well find it impossible ever to get insurance.

 

[mark61]

Small point, but it makes a difference. No one has a right of way at a chicane, one direction will have "priority".

Priority means "all things being equal" you can go first, but you don't go if that is going to cause an accident.

 

[colinm]

Like most now I have a dash cam on both my car and my van.
Dodgy thing to try with so many dash cams out there.
Where I live there are some chicanes, and I have never heard of any trouble with them. As for folk who take part in cash for crash scams, I would ban them for at least 5 years, confiscate their vehicles, and fine them. And they may well find it impossible ever to get insurance.

So you are approaching a chicane and the driver coming other way flashes his lights, many people take this as meaning the driver is giving way, the 'official' use of flashing lights is to warn other drivers you are there, if you where to proceed your dashcam would prove you where in the wrong.

 

[Fisherman]

Small point, but it makes a difference. No one has a right of way at a chicane, one direction will have "priority".

Priority means "all things being equal" you can go first, but you don't go if that is going to cause an accident.

Mark you would be on the wrong side of the road, also most chicanes I have seen have clear right of way signage, and road markings to indicate who has right of way.

 

[mark61]

So you are approaching a chicane and the driver coming other way flashes his lights, many people take this as meaning the driver is giving way, the 'official' use of flashing lights is to warn other drivers you are there, if you where to proceed your dashcam would prove you where in the wrong.

Same rules apply as indicators. If you get flashed and there is no sign the other driver intends to stop, you ignore the flash, if they stop, your dash cam will not prove you in the wrong.

 

[mark61]

Mark you would be on the wrong side of the road, also most chicanes I have seen have clear right of way signage, and road markings to indicate who has right of way.

It is not a right of way.

 

[Pudsey Bear]

Usually two arrows

 

[Rolyan57]

Some folks seem to think that it's "everywhere"...it's not, it's only in built up areas.

I live in west Wales and applaud the new law. If it saves just 1 life it is worth it. It has already had a noticeable affect in my eyes in villages where we live where the roads are narrow. Places feel a lot safer now as a pedestrian.

The CC in our Audi starts at 20mph so its easy to obey the law.

I always wonder about that saying “if it saves 1 life it’s worth it”. It’s trotted out at regular intervals, but is it really true? I’m not convinced, as banning vehicles completely would save lots of lives, but no one would support it.

The saying “if it saves one life it’s worth it” is not really a balanced opinion; it’s used by those who already agree with an initiative, but want it justifying.

The main problem with arbitrary blanket bans is it treats everywhere as the same and it stops targeted action where it would genuinely make a difference. Just so that politicians can tick the populist green/H&S box.

 

[Fisherman]

It is not a right of way.

Mark the way I see this is, if you overtook a parked vehicle and hit an oncoming vehicle you would be at fault.
Now the chicane in effect is the parked vehicle.
Correct me if I am wrong but thats how I reckon the police would view it.

 

[Fisherman]

I always wonder about that saying “if it saves 1 life it’s worth it”. It’s trotted out at regular intervals, but is it really true? I’m not convinced, as banning vehicles completely would save lots of lives, but no one would support it.

The saying “if it saves one life it’s worth it” is not really a balanced opinion; it’s used by those who already agree with an initiative, but want it justifying.

The main problem with arbitrary blanket bans is it treats everywhere as the same and it stops targeted action where it would genuinely make a difference. Just so that politicians can tick the populist green/H&S box.

Why not make it 15mph, is my argument, 15MPH is safer than 20, you would save even more lives.
30 years of attending RTAs taught me that speed is very rarely the cause of accidents.
But obviously the slower you hit someone, the greater chance they have of surviving.

 

[Pudsey Bear]

Another example

 

[Pudsey Bear]

My view regarding speed, is that speed is very rarely the cause of accidents, but excessive speed can be the cause of death, just as drink and drugs can.

 

[Rolyan57]

Why not make it 15mph, is my argument, 15MPH is safer than 20, you would save even more lives.
30 years of attending RTAs taught me that speed is very rarely the cause of accidents.
But obviously the slower you hit someone, the greater chance they have of surviving.

That’s exactly my point .

 

[mark61]

Mark the way I see this is, if you overtook a parked vehicle and hit an oncoming vehicle you would be at fault.
Now the chicane in effect is the parked vehicle.
Correct me if I am wrong but thats how I reckon the police would view it

Depends, more info required.

Bottom line is, the word "priority" is used, which means there is no absolute right of way.

 

[TeamRienza]

Never mind these chicanes, plenty in France to keep anyone entertained.

The road behaviour that really annoys me are those cars coming towards me who proceed to pass an obstacle parked on their side. They may well have sufficient time and room to complete their manoeuvre, but they lead a convoy of others who seem to think that they also have right of way forcing me (or others) to give way.

Davy

 

[Fisherman]

Depends, more info required.

Bottom line is, the word "priority" is used, which means there is no absolute right of way.

But they back that up with road markings Mark, give way markings.
But to be honest I reckon they’re not required.
There’s a physical obstruction (the chicane) your side of the road, in order to get past it you have to cross over to the wrong side of the road, I reckon you would get done.

But this may help clear this up Mark.

When drivers see the 'give way' sign, marked by an inverted triangle, it indicates that oncoming traffic has priority, and that they must allow them to pass before continuing.

 

[mark61]

But they back that up with road markings Mark, give way markings.
But to be honest I reckon they’re not required.
There’s a physical obstruction (the chicane) your side of the road, in order to get past it you have to cross over to the wrong side of the road, I reckon you would get done.

But this may help clear this up Mark.

When drivers see the 'give way' sign, marked by an inverted triangle, it indicates that oncoming traffic has priority, and that they must allow them to pass before continuing.

Use of the word "priority" again.
I said a priority is not a right of way, no more, no less.

 

[Fisherman]

Use of the word "priority" again.
I said a priority is not a right of way, no more, no less.

Ok Mark, I still reckon if you cross over to the wrong side of the road and hit an oncoming vehicle you are at fault, regardless of what word is in use. But the wording I used came from the government website. But no more from me.
I will avoid head on collisions whilst on the wrong side of the road, just in case your wrong