Setting local speed limits on rural single carriageway roads

I noticed that the DfT is consulting on new advice on rural speed limit
setting .
See www.dft.gov.uk -- consultations.

The draft includes the paragraph:
'If road is a recognised route for vulnerable road users including walkers ,
cyclists , horse riding or other environmental factors, consideration should
be given to using the lower limit (even if the accident rate is below the
thresholds suggested).'

This seems a bit worrying to me - that, as a cyclist, I am protected by the
law if it's a designated cycle route, but not otherwise (or at least I am
but at a higher speed limit).

Also, many rural roads will probably have low accident rates from the
deterrent effect of high vehicle speeds keeping walkers, cyclists and horse
riders away. Surely accident rates are not a good method of setting speeds
limits.

Paul

"Paul" wrote in message
...
I noticed that the DfT is consulting on new advice on rural speed limit
setting .
See www.dft.gov.uk -- consultations.

The draft includes the paragraph:
'If road is a recognised route for vulnerable road users including walkers
,
cyclists , horse riding or other environmental factors, consideration
should
be given to using the lower limit (even if the accident rate is below the
thresholds suggested).'

This seems a bit worrying to me - that, as a cyclist, I am protected by
the
law if it's a designated cycle route, but not otherwise (or at least I am
but at a higher speed limit).


It does seem a worrying step in the direction of segregation

Also, many rural roads will probably have low accident rates from the
deterrent effect of high vehicle speeds keeping walkers, cyclists and
horse
riders away. Surely accident rates are not a good method of setting speeds
limits.


It's not an absolute thing though - the important bit is "consideration
should be given". That seems reasonable to me - provided that consideration
is actually considered.

Paul wrote:

Also, many rural roads will probably have low accident rates from the
deterrent effect of high vehicle speeds keeping walkers, cyclists and horse
riders away. Surely accident rates are not a good method of setting speeds
limits.

Paul



I would prefer to see all roads that don't have a dividing broken white
centre line made 30mph by default - with exemptions where appropriate -
indicated with the usual National Speed Limit applies sign (diagonal
black line on white), or perhaps a new sign (red diagonal through a 30?).

This would cover all country lanes which should IMHO be 30mph max, and
would also take in some lesser B class roads, and most village roads.

Can't see it appealing to the Rallying Clarkson Brigade though...

--
Chris

in message , Succorso
') wrote:

Paul wrote:

Also, many rural roads will probably have low accident rates from the
deterrent effect of high vehicle speeds keeping walkers, cyclists and
horse riders away. Surely accident rates are not a good method of
setting speeds limits.

I would prefer to see all roads that don't have a dividing broken
white centre line made 30mph by default - with exemptions where
appropriate - indicated with the usual National Speed Limit applies
sign (diagonal black line on white), or perhaps a new sign (red
diagonal through a 30?).

This would cover all country lanes which should IMHO be 30mph max, and
would also take in some lesser B class roads, and most village roads.

Can't see it appealing to the Rallying Clarkson Brigade though...

Can't see it appealing to me either.

It really is not appropriate to set one law for the whole United Kingdom
(although of course that is what devolution is about). There are a good
few communities round here served only by miles of single track road
with passing places, and there are far more such further north. It
isn't economically justified to upgrade all those roads to dual track,
and it isn't sensible to limit speeds to 30mph when long distances have
to be travelled on roads which are, lets face it, mostly empty.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Paul wrote:
I noticed that the DfT is consulting on new advice on rural speed
limit setting .
See www.dft.gov.uk -- consultations.

The draft includes the paragraph:
'If road is a recognised route for vulnerable road users including
walkers , cyclists , horse riding or other environmental factors,
consideration should be given to using the lower limit (even if the
accident rate is below the thresholds suggested).'

This seems a bit worrying to me - that, as a cyclist, I am protected
by the law if it's a designated cycle route, but not otherwise (or at
least I am but at a higher speed limit).

Also, many rural roads will probably have low accident rates from the
deterrent effect of high vehicle speeds keeping walkers, cyclists and
horse riders away. Surely accident rates are not a good method of
setting speeds limits.

IMO, if you're driving so quickly that you can't stop in the distance you
can see to be clear, you're in the wrong. What we need is proper prosecution
of people who come around blind bends and run people over because they're
going too quickly, and driver eduction. IMO the speed limit would be
ignored, there would be too little traffic for the Safety Camera Partnership
to be bothered about running a camera van down there, and accident rates
would probably not alter.

FWIW, I'm by no means a fast cyclist, but on my MTB I can nearly keep up
with most drivers on narrow lanes because they are cautious, rather than
haring about. IMO most of the traffic on "white roads" will be local and
fairly steady, unless you're near a big town and the scalls like taking
stolen cars down them, and they won't be worried about any speed limit.

When I'm on B standard roads or above, I've no problem with people
overtaking me at 60 as long as they leave room. The vast majority tend to
creep round at 30 or so.

Paul wrote:

I noticed that the DfT is consulting on new advice on rural speed limit
setting .
See www.dft.gov.uk -- consultations.

The draft includes the paragraph:
'If road is a recognised route for vulnerable road users including walkers ,
cyclists , horse riding or other environmental factors, consideration should
be given to using the lower limit (even if the accident rate is below the
thresholds suggested).'

This seems a bit worrying to me - that, as a cyclist, I am protected by the
law if it's a designated cycle route, but not otherwise (or at least I am
but at a higher speed limit).

More to the point, the limits will be 100% ignored because motorists
know there is no chance of a Gatso. I've just been driven back from
Birmingham by a cretin who thought negotiating the M42/M5 interchange at
90mph while holding a pointless handheld phone conversation with his
wife was safe. Most drivers are at that kind of level.

"Zog The Undeniable" wrote in message
news:41ae35c0.0@entanet...
More to the point, the limits will be 100% ignored because motorists know
there is no chance of a Gatso. ...

Agree. I think we need a return to random, hidden enforcement on all roads.
Cameras alone,especially bright yellow ones, seem to me to send a dangerous
message to motorists on roads with no cameras. Speed enforcement seems to
have shifted to major roads only - is this perhaps another result of using
'accident' rates to determine enforcement policy? Paul.

Paul wrote:
"Zog The Undeniable" wrote in message
news:41ae35c0.0@entanet...
More to the point, the limits will be 100% ignored because motorists
know there is no chance of a Gatso. ...

Agree. I think we need a return to random, hidden enforcement on all
roads. Cameras alone,especially bright yellow ones, seem to me to
send a dangerous message to motorists on roads with no cameras. Speed
enforcement seems to have shifted to major roads only - is this
perhaps another result of using 'accident' rates to determine
enforcement policy? Paul.

I'd hazard a guess at cameras being used on major routes simply because
that's where they'll catch most people. You could say that catching lots of
speeders is good, but on the other hand, speeding on a lot of major routes
is far less likely to do someone some harm than speeding in built up areas.

The other weekend I saw a traffic bobby with a laser gun just above Wooley
Edge services - light traffic, good conditions and enough visibility for
someone to cruise at the wrong side of 100mph without neccesarily being
dangerous. He might catch a couple of hundred people an hour, but perhaps
his time would be better spent running a speed trap in a town, or actually
patrolling. The fact is that the Safety Camera Partnerships are reliant on
fine revenue to keep growing, and so there are possible conflicts between
reducing accident rates as much as possible, and catching as many speeders
as possible. The two are not entirely the same thing IMO.

The other weekend I saw a traffic bobby with a laser gun just above
Wooley Edge services - light traffic, good conditions and enough
visibility for someone to cruise at the wrong side of 100mph without
neccesarily being dangerous. He might catch a couple of hundred people
an hour, but perhaps his time would be better spent running a speed
trap in a town, or actually patrolling.

Would his money be going to a Safety Camera Partnership when he's using a
mobile police camera?

Whatever, catching and fining blind idiots is preferable to raising taxes
for the rest of us.

The fact is that the Safety
Camera Partnerships are reliant on fine revenue to keep growing, and
so there are possible conflicts between reducing accident rates as
much as possible, and catching as many speeders as possible. The two
are not entirely the same thing IMO.

Take a longer term view and the huge growth afforded by cameras placed in
places where lots of people speed will allow blanket coverage of the
country. That'll be fair then - you'll always know where the next camera
is so you won't be caught out: They'll be around _every_ corner :-)

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 00:10:39 -0000, "Doki" wrote in
message :

The other weekend I saw a traffic bobby with a laser gun just above Wooley
Edge services - light traffic, good conditions and enough visibility for
someone to cruise at the wrong side of 100mph without neccesarily being
dangerous.

Precisely the kind of thinking which leads people to cruise at the
wrong side of 100, which is dangerous :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University