50 mph for A18 - Could not use Speed cams to enforce 60mph?

[Davidonly]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-225187...

The Sunday Times today focussed on this road and quoted the council as declaring that they could not enforce the NSL due to lack of signs: Either to declare scammers ahead or the speed limit??? Seems very odd, can it be so?

Personally: the change to 50mph is the usual knee-jerk reaction (no change there). Mixed bag of accidents none would have been prevented by sticking up new sign posts. Still they will have some signs so mysteriously the scamming can now commence.

The road needs widening pure and simple and the junctions need better layouts. Quite how HGV v cyclist fatality would be prevented by the proposed measures is not made clear (for example).

Anyway can the council afford the enforcement using 'zero profit' avg scams as suggested in some of the associated stories on-line? I bet the can't so they will commence scamming when the traffic is light (and there is no need for it) to keep the SAC revenue stream running.

Sad but true...

Edited by Davidonly on Sunday 19th May 10:33

[Vipers]

Couldn't see that bit, was that in the article.

You said-

The Sunday Times today focussed on this road and quoted the council as declaring that they could not enforce the NSL due to lack of signs: Either to declare scammers ahead or the speed limit??? Seems very odd, can it be so?





Ps. Just noticed you said Sunday Times, doesn't make sense at all.

Edited by Vipers on Sunday 19th May 10:50

[streaky]

Davidonly said:

The Sunday Times today focussed on this road and quoted the council as declaring that they could not enforce the NSL due to lack of signs: Either to declare scammers ahead or the speed limit?]

There's no requirement to provide notice of scameras, so that's ruled out as an excuse. If the road is not signed, it's NSL, so there's not much of an argument there.

The 'spokesperson' is either misinformed, or a liar, or a fool ... or some combination thereof.

Streaky

[Sam.F]

These knee-jerk changes annoy the heck out of me - had the misfortune to find that a stretch of the A7 near Carlisle has been reduced to 50mph, presumably because of a well publicised incident involving a minibus. Although oddly further down the road at Westlinton where there have been loads of crashes they have left it at NSL

I also see that a stretch of the A689 is to be reduced from NSL to 40 due to "concern" from local residents, which will doubtless prove to be a money pot for the local Scamera crew as its a straight country road

[Vipers]

Sam.F said:

These knee-jerk changes annoy the heck out of me

Article said -

The Grimsby stretch of the A18 featured in a BBC television programme, Britain's Killer Roads, in 2011.

The programme claimed it was 25 times more dangerous than the average British motorway, with 20 crashes in the previous three years.

It was also found to be the UK's highest-risk stretch of road for car drivers in a nationwide survey conducted by the Road Safety Foundation in 2010.

THAT'S A KNEE JERK CHANGE, bloody ell, sounds a pretty good reason to reduce the speed limit to me.

[Davidonly]

streaky said:

Davidonly said:

The Sunday Times today focussed on this road and quoted the council as declaring that they could not enforce the NSL due to lack of signs: Either to declare scammers ahead or the speed limit?]

There's no requirement to provide notice of scameras, so that's ruled out as an excuse. If the road is not signed, it's NSL, so there's not much of an argument there.

The 'spokesperson' is either misinformed, or a liar, or a fool ... or some combination thereof.

Streaky

the Sunday Times motoring section had an article. the BBC was a convenient link I found with same story. Sorry to confuse things.

The point is the Sunday Times version contained a reference to the lack of enforcement there before the new 50mph limit which is now planned. The NSL was not enforced due to lack of speed limit signs or signs for mobile scams. I always thought no signs (an no lamp-posts) = NSL. And also the scammers don't need signs. So despite the usual 'solution' being a limit change my main question was about the strange information related to the ability to enforce NSL....

I suspect its just poor quality journalism.

Most of the accidents are in the rain, vehicle leaving road or over-takes gone wrong. I think once again we can be assured that the root of the problem is poor driving and a limit change is not going to make any difference.

[Dr Jekyll]

Vipers said:

THAT'S A KNEE JERK CHANGE, bloody ell, sounds a pretty good reason to reduce the speed limit to me.

Doesn't this depend on what was causing the accidents? And possibly on the speeds involved?

[7mike]

Vipers said:

THAT'S A KNEE JERK CHANGE, bloody ell, sounds a pretty good reason to reduce the speed limit to me.

In fairness to the OP, they did this on the road from Buxton to Ashbourne; never had a problem with it when it was NSL but driving at 50 with an irate dumbfk of a truck driver 6mph short of flat out makes it quite scary when he's trying to get in the boot. I don't know the details of the crash they refer to in the article but weren't they hit by a truck? What difference does NSL/50mph make to the max legal speed limit for an LGV on a single carriaagway road? 40mph on either.

[harry010]

My father used this road on his work commute from Waltham to Laceby daily for 35 years and never had a problem. The fact is that some people simply go too fast and changing the speed limit will do nothing, as those that go too fast will continue to do so.

[Vipers]

harry010 said:

My father used this road on his work commute from Waltham to Laceby daily for 35 years and never had a problem. The fact is that some people simply go too fast and changing the speed limit will do nothing, as those that go too fast will continue to do so.

Be carefull, reads like your suggesting speed kills!

It certainly contributes to accidents, but also lack of concentration, lack of observation, and lack of driving skills all contribute to accidents, as we all know.

But your right some will still drive too fast, but by reducing the limit, may just reduce the excess they exceed it by.

[Dr Jekyll]

Vipers said:

But your right some will still drive too fast, but by reducing the limit, may just reduce the excess they exceed it by.

More likely to have the opposite effect.

[davepoth]

Dr Jekyll said:

Vipers said:

But your right some will still drive too fast, but by reducing the limit, may just reduce the excess they exceed it by.

More likely to have the opposite effect.

True. The people who die are those who can't read the road properly and think "it's safe to go much faster than the posted limit" when it isn't. Dropping the limit won't help them. In fact due to the lower speeds of other cars it may make them want to overtake more, and that is probably even worse.

[Vipers]

From what I gather so far, it is a no win no win situation.

Maybe more policing and get these idiots off our roads.

Then why do you get problems on some stretches of roads and not others?

[singlecoil]

Dr Jekyll said:

Vipers said:

But your right some will still drive too fast, but by reducing the limit, may just reduce the excess they exceed it by.

More likely to have the opposite effect.

How do you figure that out? I would say that it was far more likely to have the effect that Vipers said.

[Dr Jekyll]

singlecoil said:

How do you figure that out? I would say that it was far more likely to have the effect that Vipers said.

The lower the speed limit (all other things being equal) the lower the compliance. Those already breaking the speed limit will not start obeying it just because it's lowered, they are likely to carry on at the same speed. Some of those who obeyed the original limit will decide the new one is ridiculous and carry on at the same speed.

I was told about a stretch of 60MPH NSL in Oxfordshire where 90% of drivers obeyed the limit, once reduced to 30 90£ of drivers exceeded it.

[singlecoil]

Dr Jekyll said:

singlecoil said:

How do you figure that out? I would say that it was far more likely to have the effect that Vipers said.

The lower the speed limit (all other things being equal) the lower the compliance. Those already breaking the speed limit will not start obeying it just because it's lowered, they are likely to carry on at the same speed. Some of those who obeyed the original limit will decide the new one is ridiculous and carry on at the same speed.

I was told about a stretch of 60MPH NSL in Oxfordshire where 90% of drivers obeyed the limit, once reduced to 30 90£ of drivers exceeded it.

I daresay many drivers exceeded it, but Viper's point, which I support, is that they won't simply carry on at their previous speed, but will only exceed it by an amount they feel that they will probably get away with.

You can see the same thing on motorways every day, most drivers have realised that if they drive at 78-80mph they will nearly always get away with it. On NSL roads 65 will probably be pretty safe in terms of likely prosecution.

[Dr Jekyll]

singlecoil said:

I daresay many drivers exceeded it, but Viper's point, which I support, is that they won't simply carry on at their previous speed, but will only exceed it by an amount they feel that they will probably get away with.

What Viper actually said, and what I disagreed with, was that drivers would exceed the lower limit by a lower margin than they exceeded the original limit.

[singlecoil]

Dr Jekyll said:

singlecoil said:

I daresay many drivers exceeded it, but Viper's point, which I support, is that they won't simply carry on at their previous speed, but will only exceed it by an amount they feel that they will probably get away with.

What Viper actually said, and what I disagreed with, was that drivers would exceed the lower limit by a lower margin than they exceeded the original limit.

I misread his original point, however, as they would likely exceed it by a proportion of the posted limit, he's still right.

[supersport]

I read this article this morning and at no point does it mention speed as a cause. It cites poor driving, blind junctions and soft verges.

It makes the point that no speeding fines have been issue since 2009 or something like.

It also states that it is a very busy road full of trucks and buses with tractors thrown in. In my experience these kinds of roads tend to be travelling at around 40-45mph due to the slow vehicles which makes a 50mph a complete waste of time and money.

[Hooli]

7mike said:

Vipers said:

THAT'S A KNEE JERK CHANGE, bloody ell, sounds a pretty good reason to reduce the speed limit to me.

In fairness to the OP, they did this on the road from Buxton to Ashbourne; never had a problem with it when it was NSL but driving at 50 with an irate dumbfk of a truck driver 6mph short of flat out makes it quite scary when he's trying to get in the boot. I don't know the details of the crash they refer to in the article but weren't they hit by a truck? What difference does NSL/50mph make to the max legal speed limit for an LGV on a single carriaagway road? 40mph on either.

That's ALL of Derbyshire except the single track back roads that are still 60mph isn't it?

All of the 50 limits are pointless there (& virtually everywhere else).