|
RDMcG
Original Poster
7,046 posts
76 months
|
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/9399135/Q...I travel fairly widely around the world and I can't really recall a more extensively limited country, with such massive camera enforcement. If rural roads are 40MPH, towns 20MPH and motorways max 70, what is the point of having a performance car, unless specifically for track days or racing?. It seems very different to when I lived there in the late sixties as a teenager......I may well be missing a lot here, as my more typical European driving is Germany, Italy and France, Now and then I ship a car over for a month but it strikes me that that a Smart would do just fine if the entire country is speed limited.
|
|
|
ohtari
387 posts
13 months
|
If it happens, I'm leaving. 
|
|
|
Nigel Worc's
5,279 posts
57 months
|
Try sweeden, they put central barriers on rural roads so you can't overtake anything !
|
|
|
ExFiF
18,399 posts
120 months
|
Nigel Worc's said: Try sweeden, they put central barriers on rural roads so you can't overtake anything ! Tell the proper story instead of a stupid and inaccurate soundbite. The dualling is done on main roads with a high incidence of fatals due to inappropriate overtaking. They take wide SC roads and put an offset central reserve, 2 lanes in one direction, one in the other. The offset changes every mile and a half or so, thus everyone knows they will get a safe shot at an overtake in another couple of kms, thus there is almost no piling into a narrowing gap to try and make the overtake before 2 lanes become 1. The one local to me, when I lived there, actually had the previous limit increased when it was dualled. A road previously known by locals as "the road of death" had no fatals while I was there. With respect that is a somewhat different story to your sorry excuse for a post. Seems the coalition have thought that 40 seems to be default on NSL SC these days. It could be worse, I was stuck behind an old biddy on what was previously and NSL DC now reduced to 50 and one lane each way with paint and hatchings, 31mph for several miles. When she got to the next village and a 30, where the SCP hangs about, and the hazards are numerous, she left me standing. Other side caught her up on the next wide stretch of NSL SC, back down to 30, fortunately this time easily despatched and legally.
|
|
|
Terminator X
2,133 posts
73 months
|
Do what I do, ignore them. Last caught speeding in 2007, go figure.
TX.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Nigel Worc's
5,279 posts
57 months
|
ExFiF said: Tell the proper story instead of a stupid and inaccurate soundbite.
The dualling is done on main roads with a high incidence of fatals due to inappropriate overtaking. They take wide SC roads and put an offset central reserve, 2 lanes in one direction, one in the other. The offset changes every mile and a half or so, thus everyone knows they will get a safe shot at an overtake in another couple of kms, thus there is almost no piling into a narrowing gap to try and make the overtake before 2 lanes become 1.
The one local to me, when I lived there, actually had the previous limit increased when it was dualled. A road previously known by locals as "the road of death" had no fatals while I was there.
With respect that is a somewhat different story to your sorry excuse for a post. And your story is different to my one and only experience of doing a service call and being held up for mile after mile by dawdling swedes !
|
|
|
ExFiF
18,399 posts
120 months
|
Nigel Worc's said: ExFiF said: Tell the proper story instead of a stupid and inaccurate soundbite.
The dualling is done on main roads with a high incidence of fatals due to inappropriate overtaking. They take wide SC roads and put an offset central reserve, 2 lanes in one direction, one in the other. The offset changes every mile and a half or so, thus everyone knows they will get a safe shot at an overtake in another couple of kms, thus there is almost no piling into a narrowing gap to try and make the overtake before 2 lanes become 1.
The one local to me, when I lived there, actually had the previous limit increased when it was dualled. A road previously known by locals as "the road of death" had no fatals while I was there.
With respect that is a somewhat different story to your sorry excuse for a post. And your story is different to my one and only experience of doing a service call and being held up for mile after mile by dawdling swedes !  well there you go. one trip vs 100k miles and living there for years.
|
|
|
Funkateer
873 posts
44 months
|
Article said: The Government proposals, however, will allow them to designate quiet stretches of roads as 40mph zones.
This would normally only require one sign at the start of the zone and another when it ends. This is also seen as having the additional advantage of cutting road clutter.
It is similar to the approach used in towns and cities which have brought in 20mph zones in residential areas. Without repeater signs, they are unenforcable. No mention of the New Forest approach. From a quick Google York Council Website said: What's the difference between a 20mph speed limit and a 20mph zone?
A 20mph speed limit is indicated by entry signs to the area subject to the 20mph limits in addition to smaller repeater signs. The repeater signs are a requirement for a speed limit based approach. A 20mph zone has signs at the entry points together with suitable traffic calming measures to provide a self-enforcing element, but does not include any repeater signs. http://www.york.gov.uk/transport/Road_safety/20mph/ Can't see the authorities spending millions on traffic calming measures, when they're trying to save money on a few signs 
|
|
|
streaky
18,239 posts
118 months
|
Funkateer said: Article said: The Government proposals, however, will allow them to designate quiet stretches of roads as 40mph zones.
This would normally only require one sign at the start of the zone and another when it ends. Without repeater signs, they are unenforcable. Unless and until the law is changed ... as part of implementing the proposals. Streaky
|
|
|
JumboBeef
1,730 posts
46 months
|
newspaper said: New guidance unveiled yesterday by the Department for Transport will make it easier for local authorities to introduce the limit on the quietest roads. I totally agree with this plan. I live rurally and have to drive lots of quiet rural roads. The biggest buttock clenching moments I have ever had have been on these sorts of roads, when some idiot flys pass you going waaaaaaaaaaaay too fast. Walking on these lanes is deadly: some people drive just too fast. I suspect those who will object to these limits don't live in the country: how would you like someone (legally) driving around your suburban or housing estate area, where your children are playing, at 60mph? Note they say (more than once) that only the quietest roads, with bends and junctions, would be reduced to 40. You will still be able to hoon it along other 'normal' rural roads. I see all the people who have commented on the story have also missed the point.
|
|
|
Use Psychology
9,797 posts
61 months
|
the important question, which that article neglects, is: what is the main cause of accidents on rural roads, and what is the average speed the cars involved are travelling at?
the article states that the limits would only be applied to sections where the speed is already below 40mph... so what's the point?
can't we just allow drivers to have and use their discretion when deciding what is an appropriate speed?
|
|
|
Matthen
355 posts
20 months
|
Discretion? The current government believes we do not have any, thus stupid speed limits and Traffic lights on roundabouts.
Also if the average speed of the road has to be below 40, what's the issue? Any change of limit is a waste of money. No, this legislation will just help councils get away with knocking a third off the limit with minimal consultation, often where is safer enough to do >60, bang in a camera and make a fortune. Cynic? Me? Never.
|
|
|
JumboBeef
1,730 posts
46 months
|
Matthen said: Also if the average speed of the road has to be below 40, what's the issue? You know what average means....? Some less than, some more than.... 40 limit would target those idiots who drive rural roads without a clue what is around the next bend and unable to stop.
|
|
|
Dr Jekyll
5,526 posts
130 months
|
JumboBeef said: I totally agree with this plan.
I live rurally and have to drive lots of quiet rural roads. The biggest buttock clenching moments I have ever had have been on these sorts of roads, when some idiot flys pass you going waaaaaaaaaaaay too fast. Walking on these lanes is deadly: some people drive just too fast.
I suspect those who will object to these limits don't live in the country: how would you like someone (legally) driving around your suburban or housing estate area, where your children are playing, at 60mph?
Note they say (more than once) that only the quietest roads, with bends and junctions, would be reduced to 40. You will still be able to hoon it along other 'normal' rural roads.
I see all the people who have commented on the story have also missed the point. Bullsit bulls  t bulls t bulls t We have ALL been endangered by lunatics going too fast on rural roads, it does not follow that anyone doing 41 MPH in any circumstances is driving dangerously. We see people driving too fast on motorways as well, no presumably you think the motorway limit should be 40 too. When passing pedestrians or horse riders on narrow lanes 40MPH is usually far too fast, 4MPH would often be more like it. When on the same road when it can be seen to be clear 40+ might be perfectly reasonable. According to you. If a driver does 39MPH though a group of walkers but continues to do 39MPH when it's safe to do 60. Fine. If the driver does 5MPH past the walkers but exceeds 40 when safe to do so. He must be punished for having the temerity to think for himself.
|
|
|
Jasandjules
45,419 posts
98 months
|
Well it's good news for the people who make speed cameras..
|
|
|
Dr Jekyll
5,526 posts
130 months
|
JumboBeef said: 40 limit would target those idiots who drive rural roads without a clue what is around the next bend and unable to stop. How will it target them?
|
|
|
vonhosen
27,145 posts
86 months
|
Dr Jekyll said: JumboBeef said: I totally agree with this plan.
I live rurally and have to drive lots of quiet rural roads. The biggest buttock clenching moments I have ever had have been on these sorts of roads, when some idiot flys pass you going waaaaaaaaaaaay too fast. Walking on these lanes is deadly: some people drive just too fast.
I suspect those who will object to these limits don't live in the country: how would you like someone (legally) driving around your suburban or housing estate area, where your children are playing, at 60mph?
Note they say (more than once) that only the quietest roads, with bends and junctions, would be reduced to 40. You will still be able to hoon it along other 'normal' rural roads.
I see all the people who have commented on the story have also missed the point. Bullsit bulls t bulls t bulls t We have ALL been endangered by lunatics going too fast on rural roads, it does not follow that anyone doing 41 MPH in any circumstances is driving dangerously. We see people driving too fast on motorways as well, no presumably you think the motorway limit should be 40 too. When passing pedestrians or horse riders on narrow lanes 40MPH is usually far too fast, 4MPH would often be more like it. When on the same road when it can be seen to be clear 40+ might be perfectly reasonable. According to you. If a driver does 39MPH though a group of walkers but continues to do 39MPH when it's safe to do 60. Fine. If the driver does 5MPH past the walkers but exceeds 40 when safe to do so. He must be punished for having the temerity to think for himself. If there is a good chance of coming across such hazards, if the speed limit is lower (& people are adhering to it) they will require less space/time in order to get down to an appropriate speed for the hazard. If 5mph were an appropriate speed to pass, then somebody doing 39mph is driving carelessly & can be dealt with for that separate offence.
|
|
|
Use Psychology
9,797 posts
61 months
|
but most people recognise on rural roads when to go slow and when to go fast. the NSL is irrelevant, on most twisty winding roads it's near impossible to go that fast. most people drive to the conditions on these roads. (in my experience)
|
|
|
Dr Jekyll
5,526 posts
130 months
|
vonhosen said: If there is a good chance of coming across such hazards, if the speed limit is lower (& people are adhering to it) they will require less space/time in order to get down to an appropriate speed for the hazard.
If 5mph were an appropriate speed to pass, then somebody doing 39mph is driving carelessly & can be dealt with for that separate offence. Your first paragraph could be rewritten as: "If people are driving at a sensible speed they will have sufficient space/time in order to get down to an appropriate speed for the next hazard." So it's nothing to do with speed limits. Your second paragraph is a frankly bizarre argument for a 40 limit, since they lunatic could be dealt with by a careless driving charge even without a 40 limit.
|
|
|
Toltec
1,811 posts
92 months
|
vonhosen said: If there is a good chance of coming across such hazards, if the speed limit is lower (& people are adhering to it) they will require less space/time in order to get down to an appropriate speed for the hazard.
If 5mph were an appropriate speed to pass, then somebody doing 39mph is driving carelessly & can be dealt with for that separate offence. Unfortunately, as we all know, safety cameras can only detect speed not careless, i.e unsafe, driving.
|
|
