Scare tactics?

[Plastic chicken]

Currently on the A9 (rural dual-carriageway Stirling-Perth) there are long-term roadworks, involving the closure of the outside lane in both directions. Today there was the usual roadworker leaning on his shovel, & two other guys watching him, and for their protecton there is a speed limit of 30mph imposed. Numerous speed camera warning signs make sure people slow right down..so much so, that the Volvo in front of me maintained a steady 24mph. On my return journey the average speed was 26mph.
I looked, but couldn't see any cameras, apart from the static one that's always been there. I happen to think that 30 is just too slow, as it causes impatient drivers to go even faster to make up for 'lost time' once out of the restricted section.
A couple of points: who sets these limits, the contractors or the local council? Also, can a citizen ask the local police to confirm the presence of extra cameras under the freedom of information thingy? If my hunch is correct, and there are no extra cameras, then surely that amounts to drivers being misled, and dealt scare tactics..doesn't it?

[Adam_BGT]

this may be coming from recent personal experience, but its better safe thaan sorry ..... u never know when someone may be hiding behind a hedge with an LTI 20-20!!!!

[Vaux]

Plastic chicken said:

I happen to think that 30 is just too slow, as it causes impatient drivers to go even faster to make up for 'lost time' once out of the restricted section.

If the roadworks are 2 miles long, it'll add about 2.5 minutes to your journey time? Hardly worth worrying about.

[TrevorH]

But that's not how many drivers think, is it? The reaction is normally 'This is slow. Why can't we go quicker?'

[Vaux]

TrevorH said:

But that's not how many drivers think, is it?

True, but I'm just trying to put a number to it so it doesn't look so bad in the scope of things.

[cj_eds]

You're maybe not advocating keeping 70 through them, but I bet its not very pleasant trying to do a job with a few tonnes of metal nipping past at high speed every few seconds and only a few feet away.

If people are present and working, 30 is fine. If its completely devoid of any signs of life I don't see why such lower limits should be maintained.

It shouldn't take a threat of speed camera signs to make people slow down, it should be through an appreciation of the extra danger (if present).

Edited by cj_eds on Tuesday 21st August 16:46

[TripleS]

Vaux said:

TrevorH said:

But that's not how many drivers think, is it?

True, but I'm just trying to put a number to it so it doesn't look so bad in the scope of things.

Yes, and I think you're quite right. The actual time lost is almost invariably going to be of no consequence, but the problem is more psychological; being held up to a degree that we feel is unnecessary, hence the feelings of impatience and frustration. That's what really causes the trouble IMHO.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Edited by TripleS on Tuesday 21st August 17:33

[Phisp]

cj_eds said:

You're maybe not advocating keeping 70 through them, but I bet its not very pleasant trying to do a job with a few tonnes of metal nipping past at high speed every few seconds and only a few feet away.

Absolutely agree here. I used to have a running route that took me onto a narrow pathway alongside a NSL single carriageway. It was quite daunting to be passed by vehicles travelling around 70+mph.

[BATHVXR]

When i was on that road 3 weeks ago there were SPECS avergae spped cameras on the usual gantries on that stretch

[Plastic chicken]

BATHVXR said:

When i was on that road 3 weeks ago there were SPECS avergae spped cameras on the usual gantries on that stretch

I can assure you that there aren't, I was along there again yesterday. Just north of Perth they have recently completed long-standing works, complete with SPECS, where the limit was 40 (showing a degree of inconsistency), I seem to recall; I don't think this current work lasts long enough to justify the expense of erecting gantries and so on.
Drivers are still running scared, though, with average speeds way below 30, leading to bunching with all its dangers, and the usual headlong rush after the 'end' sign.
There is research to suggest that if speed limits didn't exist, the average driver would not turn into a speed-crazed lunatic. Most people would actually adopt a speed little higher than what the limit would be, whether the road be city, suburban, rural etc. Given that the average driver has a degree of experience, ability, and above all hazard awareness, he/she tends to self-limit, making other, less experienced/more reckless drivers follow suit behind them.
I also believe that some limits are too high, and that some authorities are guilty of gross inconsistency: there is an NSL stretch of rural road near my village: 60mph along there would be utterly reckless. Such a speed limit just encourages the stupid.
Of course we need limits, to police those who would drive dangerously, and to make money for local councils..but maybe we don't need them as much as we think we do..

[Vaux]

Plastic chicken said:

There is research to suggest that if speed limits didn't exist, the average driver would not turn into a speed-crazed lunatic. Most people would actually adopt a speed little higher than what the limit would be, whether the road be city, suburban, rural etc. Given that the average driver has a degree of experience, ability, and above all hazard awareness, he/she tends to self-limit, making other, less experienced/more reckless drivers follow suit behind them.
I also believe that some limits are too high, and that some authorities are guilty of gross inconsistency: there is an NSL stretch of rural road near my village: 60mph along there would be utterly reckless. Such a speed limit just encourages the stupid.
Of course we need limits, to police those who would drive dangerously, and to make money for local councils..but maybe we don't need them as much as we think we do..

In one paragraph, if there were no limits you imply people "self-limit" and that there's even research to back that up.

In the next paragraph you're asking for lower limits. ????

I would say there's much more "dangerous driving" based on say, tailgating and poor decision making, neither of which are directly speed limit related.

[Plastic chicken]

Some roads do warrant lower limits. My IAM test route took me past a hospital entrance along a NSL rural road. I could have been doing nearly 60 quite legally, but chose to slow to 45-50, because in my opinion that was an appropriate speed for that stretch of road, given the hazard potential. I explained that in my commentary, and was given praise for it.
My point is that certain drivers treat the limits as target speeds, not maximum speeds.
Self-limiting is out there: on the Autobahn, is every driver foot-to-the-floor? I doubt it.
Regarding the point about the causes of accidents, I totally agree with you; speed in itself is way down the list. The main cause comes, I believe, under the general term 'inattention'.

[Plastic chicken]

Oh cock! It's been correctly pointed out to me that I don't know the difference between North & East, when talking about roadworks sites. There are indeed works on the A9 to the North of Perth, where they are remodelling the notorious Ballinluig junction. The limit is 30, & there are SPECS cameras in use. Apologies to all concerned.