Help please: is our village speed limit 30mph?
Discussion
Hello all,
Has been quite a while since I was last on PH; nice to be back.
This is a nerdy question:
Background: I live in a small rural village in Devon. The centre of the village is narrow and has one road passing through it (with another one joining at the centre). The road has parked cars on one side for much of the centre and not much room for cars to pass one another. It is an unclassified road. There is no signed speed limit. The local police have stated that they will not conduct any speed checks until a fatality takes place. They have also stated that only after a fatality will they consider reducing the speed limit. It feels very unsafe when a car drives through the centre of the village at 40mph.
Technical: The central 400 metres of the village has street lighting, with about 10 lights covering that stretch. The second road joining the centre of the village also has street lighting, for a distance of around 150 metres with around 5 lights covering that stretch. The lights are maintained by Devon County Council. The road through the village serves multiple purposes beyond just being a road (e.g. for pedestrians, horse-riderds, cyclists, accessing houses), which I believe makes it a "street".
Question: Can I use the presence of around 15 lights illuminating 550 metres of street as a reason to claim that the speed limit along those 500m of roads is 30mph? If not, what is the best process for me to take to try to have the speed limit formally reduced to 30mph? There is very strong support in the village for this change.
Has been quite a while since I was last on PH; nice to be back.
This is a nerdy question:
Background: I live in a small rural village in Devon. The centre of the village is narrow and has one road passing through it (with another one joining at the centre). The road has parked cars on one side for much of the centre and not much room for cars to pass one another. It is an unclassified road. There is no signed speed limit. The local police have stated that they will not conduct any speed checks until a fatality takes place. They have also stated that only after a fatality will they consider reducing the speed limit. It feels very unsafe when a car drives through the centre of the village at 40mph.
Technical: The central 400 metres of the village has street lighting, with about 10 lights covering that stretch. The second road joining the centre of the village also has street lighting, for a distance of around 150 metres with around 5 lights covering that stretch. The lights are maintained by Devon County Council. The road through the village serves multiple purposes beyond just being a road (e.g. for pedestrians, horse-riderds, cyclists, accessing houses), which I believe makes it a "street".
Question: Can I use the presence of around 15 lights illuminating 550 metres of street as a reason to claim that the speed limit along those 500m of roads is 30mph? If not, what is the best process for me to take to try to have the speed limit formally reduced to 30mph? There is very strong support in the village for this change.
Dave3166 said:
Hi.
I would say, if there are street lights, then that denotes there’s a 30 mph absolute speed limit in place.
It doesn't need an order to make it so as it is a restricted street by default (Unless there is already an order making it de-restricted). But it needs a 30mph terminating sign to make it a 30. I would say, if there are street lights, then that denotes there’s a 30 mph absolute speed limit in place.
On a road with a 30 mph speed limit by virtue of street lighting (i.e. a restricted road;), where the adjacent length of road is unlit and is subject to the national speed limit, the 30 mph speed limit will begin at the first lighting column. The terminal signs are placed on, or in line with, that column as appropriate. To ensure that drivers are aware of the commencement of the 30 mph limit, it is essential that the terminal signs are correctly placed and clearly visible.
The council should still look at 85th percentile accidents etc to decide whether to instate it but they are no longer bound by it,
Graveworm said:
It doesn't need an order to make it so as it is a restricted street by default (Unless there is already an order making it de-restricted). But it needs a 30mph terminating sign to make it a 30.
On a road with a 30 mph speed limit by virtue of street lighting (i.e. a restricted road;), where the adjacent length of road is unlit and is subject to the national speed limit, the 30 mph speed limit will begin at the first lighting column. The terminal signs are placed on, or in line with, that column as appropriate. To ensure that drivers are aware of the commencement of the 30 mph limit, it is essential that the terminal signs are correctly placed and clearly visible.
The council should still look at 85th percentile accidents etc to decide whether to instate it but they are no longer bound by it,
It sound like an unenforceable 30 zone. I wonder what the legality of Joe Bloggs putting up compliant signage is...On a road with a 30 mph speed limit by virtue of street lighting (i.e. a restricted road;), where the adjacent length of road is unlit and is subject to the national speed limit, the 30 mph speed limit will begin at the first lighting column. The terminal signs are placed on, or in line with, that column as appropriate. To ensure that drivers are aware of the commencement of the 30 mph limit, it is essential that the terminal signs are correctly placed and clearly visible.
The council should still look at 85th percentile accidents etc to decide whether to instate it but they are no longer bound by it,
The salient point here is that this street has had an unrestricted limit for almost 60 years and the police have no record of a serious accident.
The fact that the road feels unsafe is actually a good thing as that is the reason there have been no accidents, everyone is very aware of their situation. The same logic holds for the reason 20mph zones are actually less safe than 30s.
I bet if you got a 30 limit there you would have an accident within the first couple of years as people would become complacent.
The fact that the road feels unsafe is actually a good thing as that is the reason there have been no accidents, everyone is very aware of their situation. The same logic holds for the reason 20mph zones are actually less safe than 30s.
I bet if you got a 30 limit there you would have an accident within the first couple of years as people would become complacent.
This is like people who buy a house next to a race track and then complain about the noise........ You can't help thinking "why the flying f**K did you buy a house there then?"
If you had a 30 limit, people would do 40mph anyway, speed limits are almost pointless these days as 80% pf people just do 40 everywhere.
How about waiting for one of the older residents to be at deaths door and then shove them out into the road as a sacrifice for the greater good?
If you had a 30 limit, people would do 40mph anyway, speed limits are almost pointless these days as 80% pf people just do 40 everywhere.
How about waiting for one of the older residents to be at deaths door and then shove them out into the road as a sacrifice for the greater good?
Ean218 said:
The salient point here is that this street has had an unrestricted limit for almost 60 years and the police have no record of a serious accident.
The fact that the road feels unsafe is actually a good thing as that is the reason there have been no accidents, everyone is very aware of their situation. The same logic holds for the reason 20mph zones are actually less safe than 30s.
I bet if you got a 30 limit there you would have an accident within the first couple of years as people would become complacent.
Interesting points.The fact that the road feels unsafe is actually a good thing as that is the reason there have been no accidents, everyone is very aware of their situation. The same logic holds for the reason 20mph zones are actually less safe than 30s.
I bet if you got a 30 limit there you would have an accident within the first couple of years as people would become complacent.
I accept that no deaths are known of but people have been hit and injured by traffic; the official stats don’t show this because the nearest hospital is 30 minutes away and locals (old school folk!) usually have someone drive them there rather than wait for an ambulance.
Several deaths on the nearby classified roads from 2017 & 2018 are not recorded on the Devon County Council/Police searchable database of RTIs. This makes me questionable of council/police officials quoting a lack of evidence of accidents/injuries as being the same as there being no accidents/injuries.
It just feels mad that it is legal to travel at 60 mph though such a narrow, twisty and congested/used area. If someone was driving at 60 and hit a kid who ran out from between some parked cars could the driver be charged with causing death through dangerous driving? Presumably not if they were below the speed limit. That would sadden me greatly.
I accept all the points about parked cars doing a good job at slowing people down, as do the narrow lanes and twisty corners.
charliechalk said:
It just feels mad that it is legal to travel at 60 mph though such a narrow, twisty and congested/used area. If someone was driving at 60 and hit a kid who ran out from between some parked cars could the driver be charged with causing death through dangerous driving? Presumably not if they were below the speed limit. That would sadden me greatly.
Where does it say that. Dangerous driving is to do with when a driver's actions fall significantly below the standard expected of a normal competent driver. If you are doing 59 down super narrow single track lanes then I see no reason why the speed limit alone would exclude you from prosecution. gazapc said:
Where does it say that. Dangerous driving is to do with when a driver's actions fall significantly below the standard expected of a normal competent driver. If you are doing 59 down super narrow single track lanes then I see no reason why the speed limit alone would exclude you from prosecution.
That’s reassuring to hear. I did say “presume”! 😂Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff