Lowering Rural Speed Limits from 60 to 40

[subaqua]

Possibly, but that seems to depend which news report you have read most recently. Most care requirements for the elderly are not only expensive but also, potentially, needed over a relatively long period. The costs will hit even harder with the implementation of the cap that has recently been discussed.

very true. as you say it depends on what news reports you read. but if people are educated into a healthier lifestyle then theoretically the health mpacts later in life shouldn't be so bad. it might well be obblocks though

 

[sidevalve]

When are the right and wrong times?
It's not just deaths and injuries, driving at inappropriate speeds on rural roads is quite simply anti-social. Non motorised users are deterred by fast motor traffic from using the road to the extent that the freedom of individuals to go about their normal lives is restricted as people feel unsafe walking or cycling on the roads, and many do not allow their children to walk or cycle unsupervised.

70 mph on a clear motorway in fair weather isn't really dangerous, 50 mph in a crowded shopping centre is and hey that's 20 mph slower ! The point still stands and if you have to ask perhaps a bicycle is the safest vehicle for your abilities [preferably one with the brakes locked on]. Cyclists do NOT come out clean and shiney in this as even on this forum we have had a thread "how fast have you cycled". To be hit by a bike at 40 mph would be a pretty devastating experience for any pedestrian [but of course cyclists NEVER make mistakes do they]. Indeed some of the comments if we swap the word "car" for "bike" would do credit to J Clarkson himself.
Cyclists have the rules of the road pretty easy - speed limits don't apply, they may or may not use cyclepaths, there is no regulation [or even attemted regulation] on either the state of their "vehicles" or their ability to ride either physical [can you actually see the road signs never mind read them] or do you have ANY idea what's contained in the highway code [or even what it is] ? I have no desire to increase legislation or rules for cyclists but to just keep saying "it's somebody else's fault, it's somebody else's problem make everybody else kneel at my feet" will achieve nothing.
As for the smoking thing well, it's not really relevant to speeding on bike, car, horse or sheep. If you MUST have a go at drugs there are many worse out there that will destroy lives [including childrens] MUCH faster than baccy and [despite being] illegal are still common.

 

[snorri]

Good rant sidevalve, way off topic but still a good rant

 

[Berties]

the national speed limit of 60mph is only to be 60 if road conditions prevail i.e. if the road is narrow or wet or damaged you should slow down to take this in to consideration,this is written in the highway code apparently,so why do we have to have a bill passed through to make people heed to common sense,I live on the clarendon way a famous byway but people still think on a trial motor bike you can do 60, bollocks can you ,what about the animals,people,kids,residents cars,I get the argument all the time,the road conditions do not allow 60mph

 

[mcshroom]

Local to me there is a fell road which has had it's speed limit lowered from 60 to 40. This road passes through horse and sheep grazing land and is also a commuter route. The number of lambs killed this spring is less than half the number killed in the previous year, or in the years preceding that.

If you drive that road occasionally then it's narrow, bumps up and down and is taken slowly. If you commute over it then it becomes a 60mph racetrack.

 

[mcshroom]

Average speed cameras are still set at above the legal limit though and if you are found to break the limit...guilty!

FTFY

You do not have a right to drive a car on a public road. To drive a car you apply for a licence, and this license is dependant on you upholding the laws of the road, The speed limit is as much part of those laws as anything else. If you cannot accept the terms of the licence (whether or not you personally feel the laws are fair) then you are quite at liberty to hand it back and not drive!

Personally I think cameras should be deployed without warning signs, hidden if possible and painted grey or camouflaged. This approach would reduce speeding across the board rather than having people camera surf round known cameras. Currently if you get caught by bright yellow cameras (or ones with red and white stripy boards on the back in Scotland), with large black and white warning signs before them I believe you either you should be prosecuted for driving with defective vision or for driving without due care and attention.

 

[mcshroom]

What 'evidence' are you being forced to accept? As I have previously stated you have a license to drive to the laws of the road, not to change them to what you think they should be.

I pointed out in my first post in this thread there are other factors that need to be taken into account when setting speed limits, in that case the fact that the road has animals roaming across it, that drivers do not take into account on individual journeys. The speed limit has been lowered and there has been a measured improvement in safety on that road.

There is merit in having variable speed limits. Indeed if you read the article, one of the suggestions is to have temporary 20mph limits around schools at start and finish times (which already happens in Scotland). In general variable limits involves temporarily lowering the limit to improve traffic flow such as on the M42 and M25 as a car at 70mph needs significantly more road space than the same car at 50mph.

By the way speed cameras are sighted where amongst others the following criteria are met: -

At least 4 KSI per km in last three calendar years (not per annum)
At least 8 PIA per km in last three calendar years
Causation factors indicate that speeding was a contributory factor in some or all of the accidents – sites that are clearly not speed-related have been de-selected

(full list of criteria can be found here)

 

[srw]

Which would be somewhat true if I had said £9m but I said £9 billion

Misprint on my part - 2% of the government budget is £9bn. Small beer, really.

My argument is that if the government were so concerned about the well being of the public they would make smoking illegal in the same way speeding is, the money raised must take the sting out of their guilty conscious.

Successive governments have done their damnedest to make smoking as difficult as possible without making it absolutely illegal.

 

[srw]

[QUOTE 1935041, member: 9609"]Few people take any notice of the current speed limits[/quote]
If you spent any time at all on most non-motorway roads in the South-East (which, lest you forget, is where the majority of drivers drive) you would realise that this was completely wrong.

Most drivers stick to the speed limit* most of the time - whether that speed limit is 30, 40, 50, or 60. On most motorways close to the M25, most drivers even stick to 70 (or whatever the variable speed limit is).

*By which I mean - drive within a couple of mph of the published speed limit - slow enough not to be caught by any cameras.

 

[byegad]

Imagine the scene.
A court, the defendant (A Clarkson wannabe.) is charged with causing the death of a cyclist in a country lane..

As of now if he was estimated by the police to be travelling at 50mph, no matter how inappropriate this speed may have been. The only matter under consideration is did the wannabe deliberately knock the cyclist into the hedge.

With a blanket 40mph, Clarksonesque moton is up for exceeding the speed limit and so causing the death of a cyclist. Big difference IMHO.

 

[mcshroom]

[QUOTE 1935536, member: 45"]Great, so you obey limits.[/quote]
In which case why have you got an issue with speed cameras?

 

[growingvegetables]

A lot of speed cameras are placed for revenue, not safety.

And in these straitened times, you're not seriously suggesting the government should overlook such revenue - a voluntary gift from those who can obviously afford it?

Come on - there's no coercion, the guys do it of their free will; they choose to give! So what's wrong with that - it's just a case of setting a tariff at just the right rate to maximise the income ... and so relieve hard working families.

What's not to like?

 

[subaqua]

variable speed limits and average speed cameras everywhere is the answer. but the cost is prohibitive with current technology.

the variable limit and average speed cameras have the bonus of removing the red ripple that causes tailbacks. the A13 fromCanning town to Dagenham flows a lot better than it used to with fixed cameras. in fact the actual speed limit went UP in places from 40 to 50 and the average speed at peak hours went up from <20mph to close to 30mph

 

[growingvegetables]

I will assume this is you taking the michael.

And you'd be wrong. Sorry, mate!

You avoided answering my question - what's not to like?

 

[Norm]

Oh, great, this one again. Is it Sunday already or is the frequency dropped below 7 days?.

Does no-one else have the search button? It's all been said before, I promise you, there is nothing new to add.