|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 :-) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
High quality Single Speed Bicycle on a budget? | Lobo Tommy | General | 24 | April 3rd 04 09:01 AM |
Single Speed Cruiser vs. Mountain/All Terrain Bike for Commuting? | Luigi de Guzman | General | 2 | August 21st 03 05:02 PM |
Braking while turning | [email protected] | Techniques | 45 | August 1st 03 06:56 PM |