20mph zone policing

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
mileburner wrote:

... Recently a traffic speed assessment was set up on a road locally and
they found that 85% of drivers exceeded the posted 40 mph limit.

That doesn't sound like a residential side street which would ever be
subject to a 20mph limit.

It sounds more like a through-route where the 40 limit has been imposed
only within relatively recent times.

It is a through route, via a village. Personally I think that the 40 limit
is too high and it should be no more than 30mph anyway. I used this purely
as an example of how most drivers exceed the limit. The 40 limit has been
there for as-long-as-I-can-remember. 10 years or more.

mileburner wrote:


Drivers only have themselves to blame. Recently a traffic speed assessment
was set up on a road locally and they found that 85% of drivers exceeded the
posted 40 mph limit.



I'm not suprised, the 40 mph limit is normally a "councillor limit"
that's applied by the LA after pressure from a councilor ( lives nearby
perhaps?) if there was a real need for a speed limit it would be 30MPH

wrote:
"mileburner" writes:

So do I, all it takes is a quick glance every few minutes just to make sure
that the speed has not crept up to and over an unacceptable level. However,
one thing which slightly concerns me over these 20 mph limits. At present I
take pride in driving at a maximum of 20mph in areas which are busy with
pedestrians, cyclists and parked cars. And in less hazardous through routes
in 30 mph zones I take pride in driving between 25 to a maximum of 30mph. If
the limit was reduced to 20mph should I aim to drive at between 15 to 20
mph?

This is one of those "all other things being equal" questions which is
meaningless in practice because they never are.

You should drive at a speed which is safe for the conditions and legal
for the prevailing limit. If the limit is reduced from 30 to 20 and you
were previously driving at a safe speed of 20, then assuming there is no
other change in the road conditions it would be perverse to slow even
further. However, the imposition of a 20 limit (expecially if
accompanied by traffic calming or other road redesign) may itself change
the road conditions and cause you to reassess.

I was ****ted off last week by a moron who was braking for a set of
speed humps that didn't need to be there, if they hadn't been there she
would have been on her way, then braked for the roundabout all without
hitting me!

wrote:
On 10 Dec, 12:59, al Mossah wrote:
On 10 Dec, 11:58, "mileburner" wrote:



In the past year, the number of speeding tickets exceeded 1.5m for the first
time, twice the number issued in 1997 when Labour came to power. They raised
£88m from motorists in one year and have raked in £1 billion over the past
decade.
£1 billion over the past decade is an average of £100 million per
year. So £88 million in one year would in fact be one of the lower
years.

But don't these things murder people? Or is that Guy? I get so
confused, remembering. Maybe Nuxxy will be along to put us all right
with his pearls of wisdom.

"The number of motorists killed and seriously injured after the
cameras have
been introduced falls by nearly two thirds on average."

Well I never - I was led to believe they killed people as well.

--
Simon Mason

Maybe they do. Perhaps in reality they save 80%, and then sneakily kill
off a few to bring the net figure back to two thirds. Not wanting to
blow their own trumpet too much. It's a statistical conspiracy of speed
cameras!

Colin

--
Murphy's Law – If anything can go wrong, it will.
Parkinson's Law – Work expands so as to fill the time available for its
completion
Cole's Law – Thinly sliced cabbage.