Safe Speed Forums

This all sounds too daft to be true.

However, with current road safety policy the way it is, I fear that the notion of - effectively - reducing the NSL on trunk roads to 40 is actually being considered. Probably by hand-wringing liberals who live in central london who have no conception of a motor vehicle travelling >15mph.

In the meantime, us carrot crunchers here in Salop (hold yer hands up pogo & Riggers) will continue to enjoy - when clear - the huge amount of rural trunk roads that criss-cross the county.

_________________
Simon

The only reason they're doing this is because of HGV40. They've deliberately made rural roads by enforcing this limit stupidly. This is why the accident rate went up. Unfortunately most government people are ignorant townies hence all their recent plans ie concrete the green belt. screw farmers and ban hunting without actually thinking through what they are doing and the consequences.

Also more people are using rural roads to get away from their stupid speed enforcement. There must be thousands of people running around in fear on 9 points rushing up and down B roads as they know the vans and the cameras aren't there.

They've dumbed down education and made high standards throughly rubbish and now they've done the same with driving. Bad education doesn't cost lives but bad road safety certainly has.

Abso-bloody-lutely preposterous. Just another example of nannyism and nationalisation of personal responsibility by this bunch of tax-mad control freaks.

_________________
Aquila



Licat volare si super tergum aquila volat...

One thing that "our betters" seem to have neglected is what the effect to business would be of an enforced 40 limit nationwide...

I know that for me it would probably add 20 - 25% to a lot of my journey times as for some reason most of my business milage is cross-country but not motorway... So I, and quite possibly a lot of other folks, could end up with a "working" day some 2 hours longer... Extra costs on payroll, tiredness, increased levels of inattention, having to leave earlier and get back later from a normal working day, etc.

I think I'll emigrate before the Civil War kicks off!

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

Civil war, huh? I wonder if that would be a good enough excuse to blow up some gatsos...

_________________
Andrew.

I suspect that there is a tie in with the proposed congestion charging. The scheme for the congestion charging uses ANPR cameras at various points of the road network. It is not practical to cover most minor roads so there is an obvious danger that lots of people will switch to them to avoid the charge. This would not only reduce revenue but also increase accidents due to increased traffic on the minor roads. The system would inevitably be unpopular due to the cost but if there are lots of extra deaths it will definitely be untenable.

Therefore they wish to discourage the use of the alternative “free” network of roads. Many of which could provide a viable alternative.

The more artificially low limits are imposed on 'across the board', the more they will be ignored. It will be totally impossible to police the narrower lanes and 'C-class' roads, so any limits will simply be ignored. Cameras will be impractical and any additional police patrols will have to be taken from main roads in the vain hope of trapping a very small number (compared with M'ways and d/c's).
Maybe it's just more dreaming - let's hope so.

Did anyone see that Cumbria councillor on News 24 talking about this. He was amazingly sensible about it and would definately get my vote.

He said that while this may be valid for a few villages, he would rather spend money on driver education schemes as he believes this will cause a greater improvement and that he has figures that prove it.

He later went on to comment that the problem with rural roads is down to the 20/80 rule.. that the under 20s do over 80 and the over 80s do under 20! Put them both on the same road and you have a problem.

I can't remember the guys name, but someone give him a medal before the local NIMBYs vote him out!

Sounds about right, but I suppose our older generation were never used to vehicles that could do such speed and perhaps drive the same as they always have, whereas with the younger generation everything these days has an emphasis on speed and possibly encourages that.

I agree that driver education is far better than any other measure and while on that subject, I think the Pass Plus should be made compulsory.

Sadly there is this perception that the speed limit is the appropriate, rather than the maximum permitted, speed. Hence we see people rigidly sticking to 30 "because it's the limit" when it's obviously too slow for the conditions. OTOH on narrow country lanes, people go at 60, again "because that's the limit".

We need to educate people about appropriate, rather than maximum permitted, speed. And arbitrary government legislation is hardly the way to go about this. Equally, mindless enforcement of inappropriate speed limits isn't the answer either.

_________________
Brian

Oh dear. It's reached the BBC news, and there's another article in the Times here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2302900.html

Leaving aside how much it will cost to assess every country lane in the country to see whether it should be reduced from NSL to 40, and the cost of signage, have they considered the effect it will have?

1. Those who drive too fast (and I mean speed relative to the conditions, not relative to the speed limit) will continue to do so. Enforcement will be zero or at best minimal.

2. Those "safe" drivers who never exceed the speed limit - many of whom probably have no idea what NSL means - will now see that it is "safe" to drive at 40, and will drive along at exactly that speed - including round blind bends where they have no idea if anything is coming the other way, there are horse riders and walkers on the road, and so on. I read somewhere that the fastest drivers are the most dangerous, closely followed by the slowest ones. The people who drive at a constant speed, exactly on or just below the speed limit, and hoot and gesticulate at you if you are "reckless" enough to overtake them.

3. The reductions will of course be applied entirely haphazardly, most likely in response to KSIs or "pressure from locals". Respect for speed limits will be further devalued.

_________________
Brian

Won't be long and we'll be back to having a man with a red flag to guide us safely on our way Then the speed cameras will ensure he doesn't walk too fast.

Of course, it would be totally unenforceable to have, say, a 40 mph limit on all roads except 'A' roads, dual carriageways and m'ways, so what would really be the point. There would be a need for literally tens of thousands of '40' signs at the beginning of all such roads and NSL ones at the end. Who will fund this. Then if it's thought necessary to restrict single track lanes to 30 or 20, even more signs, with repeaters every so often as required by law, would also be needed. And all that would be for nothing as regular users of those roads would simply ignore the new limits and continue to drive as they always have. I know if I had a long journey on good 'B' roads and 'C' roads I would continue to drive at whatever speed seemed most appropriate and so would the majority of people.
Completely pointless even to discuss it really.
If this did hapen and it was initially rigidly enforced, they would end up disqualifying so many drivers that driving whilst disqualified would be so common as to be eventually considered a very minor offence.

Except there'll be old geysers driving along at exactly 40 to "teach you a lesson" on all the country lanes, enforcement or not....

I thought they did that now

_________________
"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

At the moment it's only "about 40"; once it becomes the limit, it'll become totemic for a certain kind of driver to go at exactly 40, I fear.

As I commute mainly along minor roads in a signwritten van (i.e. easy to complain about), I'm looking forward to this like a trepanning operation...

From the Express yesterday (9 August)

As the Department of Transport call for a rethink, we ask...

Should the speed limit be lowered?

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

good to see that someone thinks comparing cars from the 1930s to today's is valid.


better not drive on any motorways then as they're obviously 200% more dangerous than local roads... or maybe it's a compound 5% so they're 700% more dangerous?

Well-balanced argument there between Messrs Wolmar and Gill, I think not.

Kerry Gill, while basically right, lets himself down by describing the driver sticking to the limit as a 'smug fanatic'. Well I'm sorry, I stick to the limit because the sons-of-bitches landed me with six points and I need my licence.

Christian Wolmar is described as a 'transport journalist'. In fact he is a strongly pro-rail journalist and that his bound to colour his views of road traffic. He talks of setting the appropriate speed for the conditions, which implies to me setting the speed at the maximum for the most dangerous section on a road or multiple speed limit changes - the latter being how the railways work.

A train driver will usually try to drive at the maximum permitted speed for the track or train (whichever is higher). Where track conditions mean speed has to drop, e.g. bends, the limit drops. This means the maximum speed IS the target speed. Very different from roads and no wonder the poor love gets confused.

I thought so too when I first read the piece. Simply put, Gill has no idea why the driver of the MPV was sticking to the limit, and to call him/her smug for doing so says, to me, more about his attitude than it does the target of his ire.