Temporary speed limit due to 'additional traffic'?

[Tall_Paul]

So on my commute to work, for a couple of weeks now, there has been a 40mph temporary speed limit in place, on a section of road that is normally a 50mph limit for about 150m of the new temporary limit, turning into a NSL for the remaining 1500m or so, and obviously vice versa. Not a long distance, but the signs just 'appeared' one day and there are no road works, no road surface change, in fact nothing has changed on the road one bit. Apart from the signs.

After some googling, it seems the reason behind the lowered speed limit is, and I quote:

Kent Councy Council said:

Because of the additional diverted traffic using the A228 due to the works being carried out on the A21 Tonbridge to Pembury dualling scheme, Kent County Council has made an Order prohibiting traffic travelling at any speed greater than 40mph on A228 Pembury Northern By-Pass/Maidstone Road, Pembury, on or after 7 December 2015 for up to 1 year or until the works have been completed. The restriction will be from a point 800 metres east of the junction of Old Church Road to a point 800 metres west of the same junction in both traffic directions.

The "for up to 1 year or until the works have been carried out" bit - the A21 dualling scheme is planned for completion in Spring 2017. So it looks like this temporary speed limit is gonna be there for some time to come.

Can the council just pick any random reason (extra traffic?!) for putting up a some 40mph signs (and yes they are full red circle 40mph signs) and get away with it? The road in question is a 50mph limit through Colts Hill (which for anyone who knows the A228 will know it's very narrow and the scene of a fair number of accidents, including HGV's clashing mirrors, it's that narrow at times) which then would normally turn into a NSL as the road turns into the newer, much wider Pembury bypass, then up the hill with an overtaking lane (still NSL) finally turning into a 40mph limit just before the traffic lights on the crossroad with the old A21, where at rush hour times there is often traffic queued back down the hill well into the 2 lanes of NSL traffic coming up the hill, and round a blind bend.

This temporary 40mph zone starts after the narrow section of road (where traffic is very often queued/driving slowly at rush hour heading west to east) and before the traffic lights and 40mph zone at the top of hill (again where traffic is often queued up). So basically they've reduced the limit by 20mph on the widest, safest part of the road with the best visibility, for the reason of "additional diverted traffic". But... the only diversions that occur on the A21 forcing traffic via this route are overnight, non at all during the day!

Here's the new temporary 40mph zone https://www.google.co.uk/maps/dir/51.1582417,0.333... Now I know its not much, but the traffic in the mornings is often terrible coming through colts hill and the Pembury bypass is the only decent overtaking point for several miles, even on a bike (narrow, winding road with lots of HGV's coming the other way) and high traffic volumes at rush hour. The 40mph limit stretches a few hundred metres into the dual lane overtaking section going up the hill (east to west). I wouldn't mind if it was only there for a few weeks, but this seems to imply this temporary limit is going to be there for at least a year...

[mikef]

There's a fair amount of school traffic turning right out of Old Church Road that would normally use Pembury Walks, which is closed off for the A21 works

[Roo]

All you're doing at rush hour is hitting the next bit of traffic a few cars ahead. From the roundabout above the A21 into Tunbridge Wells is always jammed up so you're not losing much.

[Red Devil]

It's not just Pembury Walks. Half Moon Lane has been closed as well - http://www.public-notices.co.uk/national/view/4230...
The latter is main problem as anybody travelling from Tudeley or Capel to the A21 now has to turn right from Old Church Road onto the A228.

The Shell filling station on the A21 (in between the above two roads - https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.1644294,0.306327... - has been demolished. Due to the extremely cramped site and poor sightlines it was a notorious black spot for collisions.

[TooMany2cvs]

One whole mile at 40mph instead of 50mph. Assuming no traffic, that's going to take you a whole extra 18 seconds.

[Red Devil]

The A21 improvements, like all major roadworks, have had a considerable impact on the surrounding roads.
To encounter no traffic on the A21/A228 is likely to mean you're travelling late at night or in the early hours.
Plus it only takes one vehicle travelling at 40mph or below in the 50mph section of the latter for a camel train to form.

[Pete317]

TooMany2cvs said:

One whole mile at 40mph instead of 50mph. Assuming no traffic, that's going to take you a whole extra 18 seconds.

That's hardly the issue here, and nor is it the fact that the traffic crawls at rush hour.

It's the principle of turning a reasonable and legal activity into an illegal one at little more than the stroke of a pen.

Edited by Pete317 on Wednesday 16th December 08:59

[TooMany2cvs]

Pete317 said:

TooMany2cvs said:

One whole mile at 40mph instead of 50mph. Assuming no traffic, that's going to take you a whole extra 18 seconds.

That's hardly the issue here, and nor is it the fact that the traffic crawls at rush hour.

It's the principle of turning a reasonable and legal activity into an illegal one at little more than the stroke of a pen.

Read that back to yourself, and think carefully about how green ink it sounds.

[Pete317]

TooMany2cvs said:

Pete317 said:

TooMany2cvs said:

One whole mile at 40mph instead of 50mph. Assuming no traffic, that's going to take you a whole extra 18 seconds.

That's hardly the issue here, and nor is it the fact that the traffic crawls at rush hour.

It's the principle of turning a reasonable and legal activity into an illegal one at little more than the stroke of a pen.

Read that back to yourself, and think carefully about how green ink it sounds.

Get over yourself - making flimsy excuses such as complying with some or other weakly-justified change in the law is only going to cost a miserable few seconds of your time etc

[TooMany2cvs]

Pete317 said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Pete317 said:

TooMany2cvs said:

One whole mile at 40mph instead of 50mph. Assuming no traffic, that's going to take you a whole extra 18 seconds.

That's hardly the issue here, and nor is it the fact that the traffic crawls at rush hour.

It's the principle of turning a reasonable and legal activity into an illegal one at little more than the stroke of a pen.

Read that back to yourself, and think carefully about how green ink it sounds.

Get over yourself - making flimsy excuses such as complying with some or other weakly-justified change in the law is only going to cost a miserable few seconds of your time etc

Thank you for proving my point.

Look, get past your perception of what's been published over this particular situation, and ask yourself if it's reasonable for a local authority to temporarily amend a speed limit to manage traffic because of temporarily changed conditions.

[Pete317]

TooMany2cvs said:

Pete317 said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Pete317 said:

TooMany2cvs said:

One whole mile at 40mph instead of 50mph. Assuming no traffic, that's going to take you a whole extra 18 seconds.

That's hardly the issue here, and nor is it the fact that the traffic crawls at rush hour.

It's the principle of turning a reasonable and legal activity into an illegal one at little more than the stroke of a pen.

Read that back to yourself, and think carefully about how green ink it sounds.

Get over yourself - making flimsy excuses such as complying with some or other weakly-justified change in the law is only going to cost a miserable few seconds of your time etc

Thank you for proving my point.

Look, get past your perception of what's been published over this particular situation, and ask yourself if it's reasonable for a local authority to temporarily amend a speed limit to manage traffic because of temporarily changed conditions.

When you can look past your perception of anyone who mildly disagrees with you as being some kind of raving lunatic

[Devil2575]

Pete317 said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Pete317 said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Pete317 said:

TooMany2cvs said:

One whole mile at 40mph instead of 50mph. Assuming no traffic, that's going to take you a whole extra 18 seconds.

That's hardly the issue here, and nor is it the fact that the traffic crawls at rush hour.

It's the principle of turning a reasonable and legal activity into an illegal one at little more than the stroke of a pen.

Read that back to yourself, and think carefully about how green ink it sounds.

Get over yourself - making flimsy excuses such as complying with some or other weakly-justified change in the law is only going to cost a miserable few seconds of your time etc

Thank you for proving my point.

Look, get past your perception of what's been published over this particular situation, and ask yourself if it's reasonable for a local authority to temporarily amend a speed limit to manage traffic because of temporarily changed conditions.

When you can look past your perception of anyone who mildly disagrees with you as being some kind of raving lunatic

If the cap fits...

[Pete317]

Devil2575 said:

Pete317 said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Pete317 said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Pete317 said:

TooMany2cvs said:

One whole mile at 40mph instead of 50mph. Assuming no traffic, that's going to take you a whole extra 18 seconds.

That's hardly the issue here, and nor is it the fact that the traffic crawls at rush hour.

It's the principle of turning a reasonable and legal activity into an illegal one at little more than the stroke of a pen.

Read that back to yourself, and think carefully about how green ink it sounds.

Get over yourself - making flimsy excuses such as complying with some or other weakly-justified change in the law is only going to cost a miserable few seconds of your time etc

Thank you for proving my point.

Look, get past your perception of what's been published over this particular situation, and ask yourself if it's reasonable for a local authority to temporarily amend a speed limit to manage traffic because of temporarily changed conditions.

When you can look past your perception of anyone who mildly disagrees with you as being some kind of raving lunatic

If the cap fits...

I'll take that from whence it comes

[TooMany2cvs]

Pete317 said:

When you can look past your perception of anyone who mildly disagrees with you as being some kind of raving lunatic

Only where the evidence suggests it.

But back to the question I asked. Do you feel that a reasonable thing for a local authority to do, speaking generally?

[Pete317]

TooMany2cvs said:

Pete317 said:

When you can look past your perception of anyone who mildly disagrees with you as being some kind of raving lunatic

Only where the evidence suggests it.

But back to the question I asked. Do you feel that a reasonable thing for a local authority to do, speaking generally?

That question was not part of your original statement, to which I responded.

But, nonetheless, from what I've read from the OP, it seems that the LA has probably not thought it through as properly as they should have, and have decided on a speed limit as a first resort and possibly inappropriate solution to a problem which may not even exist.

Edited by Pete317 on Wednesday 16th December 12:10

[TooMany2cvs]

Pete317 said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Pete317 said:

When you can look past your perception of anyone who mildly disagrees with you as being some kind of raving lunatic

Only where the evidence suggests it.

But back to the question I asked. Do you feel that a reasonable thing for a local authority to do, speaking generally?

That question was not part of your original statement, to which I responded.

Yes, it was.

TooMany2cvs said:

Look, get past your perception of what's been published over this particular situation, and ask yourself if it's reasonable for a local authority to temporarily amend a speed limit to manage traffic because of temporarily changed conditions.

So, will you be answering?

[Roo]

Sounds like a perfectly reasonable solution to the problem of a temporary increase in the traffic.

Personnally if I was still working and driving around that part of Kent I'd be happy to put up with it given what the end result will be.

[Pete317]

TooMany2cvs said:

Pete317 said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Pete317 said:

When you can look past your perception of anyone who mildly disagrees with you as being some kind of raving lunatic

Only where the evidence suggests it.

But back to the question I asked. Do you feel that a reasonable thing for a local authority to do, speaking generally?

That question was not part of your original statement, to which I responded.

Yes, it was.

No it wasn't. This is your statement to which I responded:

TooMany2cvs said:

One whole mile at 40mph instead of 50mph. Assuming no traffic, that's going to take you a whole extra 18 seconds.

TooMany2cvs said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Look, get past your perception of what's been published over this particular situation, and ask yourself if it's reasonable for a local authority to temporarily amend a speed limit to manage traffic because of temporarily changed conditions.

So, will you be answering?

I did.

You're making this an issue of your opinion vs mine, in which case your opinion is always going to win as far as you're concerned.

ETA: besides, you've posed your question in such a way as to expect a simple yes/no answer - neither of which is appropriate

Edited by Pete317 on Wednesday 16th December 12:50

[Rude-boy]

Roo said:

Sounds like a perfectly reasonable solution to the problem of a temporary increase in the traffic.

Personally if I was still working and driving around that part of Kent I'd be happy to put up with it given what the end result will be.

To be honest i can see why they have dropped the limit but to me this is just further evidence that we need a proper review of speed limits (not just a load of empty promises) and enforcement in 2015.

It sounds (willing to be proved wrong) that this is yet another instance where there is a justifiable and relevant limit to cover the amount of traffic on that road for two 3 hour gluts twice per day. So in other words the limit is inappropriate for 3/4 of the day.

As said this is 2015 - we can managed variable limits to slow the country down but we don't seem to be able to manage them to speed things up.

With the tech and the implementation of such this being quite a mature operation it is time that we started to consider the validity of static, dumb, 24/7/365 limits.

[TooMany2cvs]

Pete317 said:

That question was not part of your original statement, to which I responded.

Umm, you did reply to that post - at 10.46 this morning.

TooMany2cvs said:

So, will you be answering?

I did.

Sorry, I must've missed it. Looking back up the thread, I still don't see an answer, though. Have you deleted it? I did see a reply about the specifics of this case, but the question was fairly clear that I was asking about the generic situation.

Pete317 said:

You're making this an issue of your opinion vs mine, in which case your opinion is always going to win as far as you're concerned.

Hard, since I don't even know what your opinion is on whether local authorities should be able review limits temporarily due to changed conditions.

Pete317 said:

ETA: besides, you've posed your question in such a way as to expect a simple yes/no answer - neither of which is appropriate

For clarity... I'm perfectly happy to accept a longer answer.
Also for clarity, and as an example answer... My own answer would be that I think it essential that LAs can do that, and I don't see why they need to justify it to Joe Random-Entitled. I don't know the specifics of this exact location, hence my question being wider than this one exact location - but, from what others have said, it doesn't seem inappropriate - especially given the very minor impact it has. In fact, from the OP's description, I'd have thought there was a strong case for a permanent reduction.