Safe Speed Forums

I've mentioned this in passing before today, but I've mulled over the situation and I think it's worthy of some discussions.

On the East Lancs Road (A580) from the M57 to the M6, a distance of about 10/12 miles, the speed limit is 60 (well, 40 at present in the roadworks but they are nearly complete).

The reason for this 60 zone is not specifically safety, as the roads would - and have in the past - supported 70 mph (and probably a bit higher!). The reason is that by reducing the speed on this stretch it reduces congestion at the Liverpool and Manchester ends. AIUI this has been generally a success (based on hearsay - if anyone has facts I'd be happy to be corrected).

For the driver entering the A580 at say, Windle Island which is pretty much in the middle of the 60 zone, there appears to be no good reason for the reduced limit. The road ahead is often clear, even at rush hour, or if not clear then moving apace without too much bunching.

Now I know that the ideal solution would be to have variable limits so that the reduced limit only applied at certain times when it could have an effect.

If the safespeed approach was adopted here - adopting a safe rate of travel based only on the conditions, the likelihood would be faster speeds on the road and much faster build up of congestion at the Liverpool and Manchester road constrictions. The driver cannot know the state of the road 12 miles in advance, unless they extend the range of those Halfords Crystal Balls (the ones that some driver think you must have so they don't need to indicate!)

So what's better in this situation - a speed limit that is too low for lots of reason but one, or a situation where driver hammer along at a high rate then sit still for three quarters of an hour?

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

I've asked this question before but...is it actually legal to set limits for reasons other than safety????

ministers and local authorities are given their power by virtue of acts of parliament...if the acts state that limits are to be set on safety grounds when they are set for other reasons are the 'powers that be' acting ulta vires?

Wouldn't improving the junction that causes the bottleneck be a better solution than implementing a temporary speed limit system?

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken

Probably... But nowhere near as profitable!

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

Councils can set limits for whatever reasons they like. "Improving quality of life for local residents" or similar often appears in statements of reasons.


Are you sure this was the reason given by St Helens MBC for the reduction? I would have thought that a safety case *could* be made for a limit reduction on a road with numerous signalised junctions and T-junctions with minor roads.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

"In order to meet targets" is the impression I got from my local council. Central government are putting councils under increasing pressure to reduce accident rates, and reducing the speed limit is supposedly one way.

The sooner they realise that you cannot control people's cars the better. There will always be accident rates; the KSIs will decrease as car safety increases (increasing traffic is likely to level this out a bit, but it would still be progress). It's purposeless lowering speed limits to lower than they are needed; people don't intend to crash, whether driving comfortably at 40mph or agitated and frustrated at 30mph!

Only going from the initial post - isn't it time to extend( and get accurate) some form of advanced warning system for roads like this - remote SID /information systems - to let drivers know what road conditions ae like some miles in advance - only a thought??--yes mr darling - you know it makes sense

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

That would be great, except I get the impression that they're willing to spend vast amounts of money on IT systems for control and "enforcement" and toss-all on IT that actually provides Information to the road user!

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

I sometimes think the current government decides it's policies by asking 2 questions.
1. Will it make money?
2. Will it make us look tough on something?

If the answers are both yes then the project is approved.

_________________
Less Kodak, more Kojak.
In times of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

I drove along this section today for the first time since the limit was implemented. As the 60 limit finishes at the St Helens boundary about three miles east of the M57, and it's NSL west of there, this theory sounds even more implausible.

I'm sure as I said before that the reason given would have been "improving safety".

Much of the road is ruler-straight and totally undeveloped, but the section around the A571 junction is fairly built-up and for half a mile or so a 50 would not seem unreasonable.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Not much use to anyone outside of a car though.



For a given link or junction accident rates increase exponentionally with increased AADT inflows. So its more that "a bit".



I very much doubt that even boy racers steaming along at 90mph entirely recklessly intend to crash.



People would only end up driving too fast because "computer says yes", and end up missing hazards the system couldn't hope to detect.

I have no desire to get into another pi**ing competition, but how does that differ from people ending up driving too fast because "the round sign says yes", and ending up missing hazards the system couldn't hope to detect?

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Mad Doc has sister who live near A580 in leafy 'burb of Manchester. She say road used to be deristricted in entire length at one point.

Then when they engineered A6 merge at Manchester end - it became 40 mph Swinton/Salford und 30 mph at the Salford Unit stretch into Manchester. Then in mid 70s - per the locals und my sister-in-law who live down there since qualifying as secondary school teacher 2o odd years ago - speed limit was UPPED to 50 mph along A6 dual up to where A580 meet M61 merger und after the M61 - ist 60 mph down to a funny traffic light sequence at place called Boothstown und then 70 mph as far as St Helens when it then return to 60 mph into Liverpool.

Has SHARED PEDESTRIAN /CYCLE path for much of the length. Originally without break along entire lenght from original build - but at motorway development - these disappeared but ist short distance of real care to rejoin und riders tend to use all time here.

Ist how they should be

But tha Handy Liebchen.. you say "success in congestion" Sister-in law work in Bolton but she used to be at school in Manchester und travelled down Lancs to school in Salford area. She say ist solid grdilock entire way along Lancs - from Ellenbrook through to Chapel Street in Salford

Und ist no better if the A6 route through Swinton ist followed

SHe find her route to Bolton ist fine until she hit St Peter's Way at Moses Gate in Farnworth und then ist slog all the way to Bolton where she now work. Und she sees the queues still heading down A666 into Manchester.



As for Liverpool end - cannot say - Jessika teach Merseyside but she travel in from leafiest Cheshire which ist another route. She say it get congested und busy und she has to set out super early to get to school for it's start. Day start at 8. 25 am - so she like to be there before 8 a.m.

Und our other pal - live in Stockport but work as heart surgeon in Liverpool. He has pal who live in Liverpool und ist heart surgeon at Wythenshawe ... ist madness .. why they not swop houses!

But again - - approach from different direction - but he say ist still busy und gridlocked und he has to watch time und allow in journey time like Jess does.



Ist simple - Manchester based teacher say the problem ist in traffic light sequencing. Moorside at red whilst Critchley at Green - ist not Green Flow - und then traffic from Moorside has to stop again less than mile later for the next reds ... but in Eccles per another pal heading for Trafford Park - he say the route has Green Flow system which clears traffic very quickly through Eccles centre here.

I should imagine from last time I headed for Liverpool along the Lancs - that same traffic problems ist caused by traaffic light not set to green flow

Germany has Green flows - it work.

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

Aber doch - those crumple zones cave in - ist buffer zone which mean impact to pedestrian or cyclist is lesser. Ist how they get away with sayn 30 mph does not really hurt you .. unless you are in old car which does not yield.

But ist also why a lot of cars are written off if someone back into them on car park as the zone just caves in und is not viable to fix!

You need to read up a bit more of the car mags und specs - Liebchen



It depend - I read in paper today of bloke who got warning for being late for work. In 35 mile commute he was held up . He thought "terrible accident" - but no.. numpty rear ended und both numpties did not bother moving cars to safety of kerb but stayed in middle lane whilst they exchanged details

Und it was shunt in slow move traffic per his tale of woe in paper ...

But hold up was not so much the shunt - but daft behaviour on part of both drivers after the event.



They have them in Germany - they do work. You need to read more - Liebchen

Und most of us - apart from the 5% of so of true numpties (und these are mainly unqualified teenage chavs und unlicenced or foreigners whose testing system does not meet even UK basics let alone German, Swiss und Austrian standards of excellence - do drive with eyes open - following COAST standards some in general looseness und some - to purrrringfection .

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

Thats a valid point, and it is a good example of why speed limits (like anything) need to be used with caution.

Firstly, there needs to be more publicity that the limit is a limit - and the driver is still responsible for driving at an appropriate speed. This is something we could learn from Ireland, who made a point of this during their Go Metric campaign leading into metrication of speed limits.

Secondly, where limits should be used is where (a significant proportion of) drivers would otherwise drive faster than is appropriate. In these cases then it is better they drive too fast but at the speed limit rather than too fast beyond the speed limit - even if it would be better if they just drove at an appropriate speed regardless (but then if their failure to do so was the reason for the limit, there isn't much chance of that).

Teacher != Traffic Signals Engineer



The trouble is eventually the section of road subject to a "green wave" has to end at some point, and all of the traffic you've let through realitively unhindered will have to crash into one set of signals, which will struggle to cope (if they cope). Whereas if you gate the amount of traffic that can get through each set of signals, you spread the load and things flow better - this is the basis for UTMC.

You've also got to cater for turning movements - and the green wave can only go in one direction at any given time. People tend to notice more when it works against them.

"They" don't say that, they merely say that you are less likely to be killed by a 30mph impact than one at lower speed.

Crumple zones don't exactly mean you just bounce off and walk away if hit at 30 either.

True. But the message "hit me at 30 and there is an 80% chance I'll live" does give out the wrong message. The message should be "be alert, don't hit anybody"

I empathise with the sentiment - but the message wouldn't have any effect. After all, no-one intends to hit anybody anyway.

The purpose of the message (and the 30 limit in urban areas) is to get people to drive at a speed where if they do hit anyone (regardless of the whys and wherefores) then the likely consequences are reduced to an acceptable level - of course its better no-one is knocked down, but it will happen, and this has to be acknowledged.

ndp

so now what you're saying is that adverts like the current incarnation of the 'Think Bike' one are useless because 'no-one intends to hit anybody anyway'

If people aren't going to listen to a campaign that focusses on accident avoidance then how on earth is your proposed campaign to reinforce the message that the limit is the limit going to succeed?

I get the impression from your messages that you have some knowledge of the practical application of road safety measures, in a local authority engineering dept perhaps? If thats the case you will be more than aware that strict enforcement with respect to quality, environment and safety is being eclipsed by more behavioural approaches. Do you not see the parallels to road safety?