Confusing speed restrictions
Discussion
At lunch time i was driving out of newport pagnell and was slightly confused by mixed signage.
there was an NSL sign as i went out of the town, no problem there. The strange thing was that there was another sign attached to the same pole (just below the NSL sign) saying Max speed 40.
The second sign was quite big, about 3 foot wide by 18inches high, black writing on yellow background for info.
It looked initially like it might have been a temporary roadworks type sign, but once i got close and realised it was attached to the pole this seems unlikely. There were no roadworks going on nearby either.
About a mile down the road i looked in my mirror and the same Max speed sign was on the other side of the road.
Any ideas why there were two signs, or if the 40 limit was enforcable?
Thanks in advance
there was an NSL sign as i went out of the town, no problem there. The strange thing was that there was another sign attached to the same pole (just below the NSL sign) saying Max speed 40.
The second sign was quite big, about 3 foot wide by 18inches high, black writing on yellow background for info.
It looked initially like it might have been a temporary roadworks type sign, but once i got close and realised it was attached to the pole this seems unlikely. There were no roadworks going on nearby either.
About a mile down the road i looked in my mirror and the same Max speed sign was on the other side of the road.
Any ideas why there were two signs, or if the 40 limit was enforcable?
Thanks in advance
If you followed all the advisory limits in rural warwickshire you'd drive all day at 30, anyone who has driven between southam and coventry will know what I mean. The route is full of LED signs warning you of everything from a swan in a lake nearby to locals with wellies in the fields
bertbert said:
well that's confusing. The speed limit is clearly there to tell you the speed it is safe to travel at. So that's a contradiction. Which is it? 60 or 40? Why have the NSL if it's unsafe. I always drive at the speed instructed by the speed limit signs.
Bert
Bert
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
vonhosen said:
bertbert said:
well that's confusing. The speed limit is clearly there to tell you the speed it is safe to travel at. So that's a contradiction. Which is it? 60 or 40? Why have the NSL if it's unsafe. I always drive at the speed instructed by the speed limit signs.Bert
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
But still entirely preferable to being witless...
vonhosen said:
bertbert said:
well that's confusing. The speed limit is clearly there to tell you the speed it is safe to travel at. So that's a contradiction. Which is it? 60 or 40? Why have the NSL if it's unsafe. I always drive at the speed instructed by the speed limit signs.
Bert
Bert
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
That's the nicest thing you have ever said to me VH. I take back all those rude, insulting and baiting things I have said to/about you.
Besides, I was serious!
Bert
bertbert said:
7db said:
bertbert said:
well that's confusing. The speed limit is clearly there to tell you the speed it is safe to travel at.
No it's not. It's there to tell you the maximum legal speed.
If it's legal, why can't I drive at that speed?
Bert
You can if it's safe to drive at that speed. If it's not safe to then you commit other offences, which can come into play irrespective of the speed.
You are expected to drive at a speed safe for the circumstances up to, but not beyond, the limit.
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 17th May 22:44
vonhosen said:
bertbert said:
7db said:
bertbert said:
well that's confusing. The speed limit is clearly there to tell you the speed it is safe to travel at.
No it's not. It's there to tell you the maximum legal speed.
If it's legal, why can't I drive at that speed?
Bert
You can if it's safe to drive at that speed. If it's not safe to then you commit other offences, which can come into play irrespective of the speed.
You are expected to drive at a speed safe for the circumstances up to, but not beyond, the limit.
Could you define 'safe' for me please?
Bert
marty g said:
At lunch time i was driving out of newport pagnell and was slightly confused by mixed signage.
there was an NSL sign as i went out of the town, no problem there. The strange thing was that there was another sign attached to the same pole (just below the NSL sign) saying Max speed 40.
The second sign was quite big, about 3 foot wide by 18inches high, black writing on yellow background for info.
It looked initially like it might have been a temporary roadworks type sign, but once i got close and realised it was attached to the pole this seems unlikely. There were no roadworks going on nearby either.
About a mile down the road i looked in my mirror and the same Max speed sign was on the other side of the road.
Any ideas why there were two signs, or if the 40 limit was enforcable?
Thanks in advance
there was an NSL sign as i went out of the town, no problem there. The strange thing was that there was another sign attached to the same pole (just below the NSL sign) saying Max speed 40.
The second sign was quite big, about 3 foot wide by 18inches high, black writing on yellow background for info.
It looked initially like it might have been a temporary roadworks type sign, but once i got close and realised it was attached to the pole this seems unlikely. There were no roadworks going on nearby either.
About a mile down the road i looked in my mirror and the same Max speed sign was on the other side of the road.
Any ideas why there were two signs, or if the 40 limit was enforcable?
Thanks in advance
Is this going towards MK on the road that the rubbish tip is on? Been down there many times thinking 'Well, is it 60 or 40?' I think there were road works there for a while and I reckon they just forgot to take it down again.
bertbert said:
vonhosen said:
bertbert said:
7db said:
bertbert said:
well that's confusing. The speed limit is clearly there to tell you the speed it is safe to travel at.
No it's not. It's there to tell you the maximum legal speed.
If it's legal, why can't I drive at that speed?
Bert
You can if it's safe to drive at that speed. If it's not safe to then you commit other offences, which can come into play irrespective of the speed.
You are expected to drive at a speed safe for the circumstances up to, but not beyond, the limit.
Could you define 'safe' for me please?
Bert
That you can deal with all that could reasonably be expected to happen, without being in or causing a collision.
vonhosen said:
bertbert said:
vonhosen said:
bertbert said:
7db said:
bertbert said:
well that's confusing. The speed limit is clearly there to tell you the speed it is safe to travel at.
No it's not. It's there to tell you the maximum legal speed.
If it's legal, why can't I drive at that speed?
Bert
You can if it's safe to drive at that speed. If it's not safe to then you commit other offences, which can come into play irrespective of the speed.
You are expected to drive at a speed safe for the circumstances up to, but not beyond, the limit.
Could you define 'safe' for me please?
Bert
That you can deal with all that could reasonably be expected to happen, without being in or causing a collision.
Good definition. If I am expected to be able to that (by law) and have been certified as capable of that (driving test), what place does the speed limit have? It's a risk management strategy then to deal with drivers who are not exercising what they are capable of. Is there any evidence that the change of speed limit strategy has reduced risk?
By this I mean that when I started driving, there were relatively few differene speed limits. 30 in all built up areas and (by and large) 60 on SC and 70 on DC roads. The current strategy is to have huge number of specific limits that change in rapid succession. Is that speed limit strategy proven to reduce risk?
If each road has been assessed (as it would seem) and speed limits set specifically for that road (rather than generically for the type of road), then that adds weight to the assertion (that I sarcily put earlier) that you should be able to rely more on the speed limit for guidance of the safe max speed for that road.
Bert
bertbert said:
If I am expected to be able to that (by law) and have been certified as capable of that (driving test), what place does the speed limit have?
It protects you from the capriciousness of enforcement based on someone else's opinion of what "too fast" is and where that differs from your self-assessment of your capabilities.
bertbert said:
vonhosen said:
bertbert said:
vonhosen said:
bertbert said:
7db said:
bertbert said:
well that's confusing. The speed limit is clearly there to tell you the speed it is safe to travel at.
No it's not. It's there to tell you the maximum legal speed.
If it's legal, why can't I drive at that speed?
Bert
You can if it's safe to drive at that speed. If it's not safe to then you commit other offences, which can come into play irrespective of the speed.
You are expected to drive at a speed safe for the circumstances up to, but not beyond, the limit.
Could you define 'safe' for me please?
Bert
That you can deal with all that could reasonably be expected to happen, without being in or causing a collision.
Good definition. If I am expected to be able to that (by law) and have been certified as capable of that (driving test), what place does the speed limit have? It's a risk management strategy then to deal with drivers who are not exercising what they are capable of. Is there any evidence that the change of speed limit strategy has reduced risk?
By this I mean that when I started driving, there were relatively few differene speed limits. 30 in all built up areas and (by and large) 60 on SC and 70 on DC roads. The current strategy is to have huge number of specific limits that change in rapid succession. Is that speed limit strategy proven to reduce risk?
If each road has been assessed (as it would seem) and speed limits set specifically for that road (rather than generically for the type of road), then that adds weight to the assertion (that I sarcily put earlier) that you should be able to rely more on the speed limit for guidance of the safe max speed for that road.
Bert
The speed limit is risk management, it limits the parameters within which you may operate by imposing a maximum. It offers a range within which we are all expected to be able to choose a safe speed for the conditions up to that maximum. We should only be traveling at the maximum in favourable conditions & adjusting the speed downwards in less favourable conditions where safety demands it.
Where we place ourselves outside of the parameters or we don't adjust the speed to one below the limit where safety demands it, we render ourselves liable to prosecution.
vonhosen said:
bertbert said:
vonhosen said:
bertbert said:
vonhosen said:
bertbert said:
7db said:
bertbert said:
well that's confusing. The speed limit is clearly there to tell you the speed it is safe to travel at.
No it's not. It's there to tell you the maximum legal speed.
If it's legal, why can't I drive at that speed?
Bert
You can if it's safe to drive at that speed. If it's not safe to then you commit other offences, which can come into play irrespective of the speed.
You are expected to drive at a speed safe for the circumstances up to, but not beyond, the limit.
Could you define 'safe' for me please?
Bert
That you can deal with all that could reasonably be expected to happen, without being in or causing a collision.
Good definition. If I am expected to be able to that (by law) and have been certified as capable of that (driving test), what place does the speed limit have? It's a risk management strategy then to deal with drivers who are not exercising what they are capable of. Is there any evidence that the change of speed limit strategy has reduced risk?
By this I mean that when I started driving, there were relatively few differene speed limits. 30 in all built up areas and (by and large) 60 on SC and 70 on DC roads. The current strategy is to have huge number of specific limits that change in rapid succession. Is that speed limit strategy proven to reduce risk?
If each road has been assessed (as it would seem) and speed limits set specifically for that road (rather than generically for the type of road), then that adds weight to the assertion (that I sarcily put earlier) that you should be able to rely more on the speed limit for guidance of the safe max speed for that road.
Bert
The speed limit is risk management, it limits the parameters within which you may operate by imposing a maximum. It offers a range within which we are all expected to be able to choose a safe speed for the conditions up to that maximum. We should only be traveling at the maximum in favourable conditions & adjusting the speed downwards in less favourable conditions where safety demands it.
Where we place ourselves outside of the parameters or we don't adjust the speed to one below the limit where safety demands it, we render ourselves liable to prosecution.
That's what I said VH. What about the two points I raised...
Is there any proof that the current regime of specific limits for the roads reduces risk over the strategy of old?
Can I use the different limits as part of my inputs for safe driving?
Bert
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff