From a 60 down to 20, WTAF?
Discussion
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/07/pilot-...
Let’s nip this nonsense in the bud, presumably will be another massive failure just like Wales. The brakists need shooting.
Let’s nip this nonsense in the bud, presumably will be another massive failure just like Wales. The brakists need shooting.
Can't access the link at the moment, but i'm going to take a guess that's the A25 and various areas in & around Dorking?
I've seen it mentioned before and It's all rather pointless tbh. Councillors are begging for vastly reduced limits in an effort to tackle the speeding problem from a subsection of muppets who flock to some of the areas with dodgy quad bikes, non numberplated cars racing, 4x4's doing illegal green laning, etc, thinking that will discourage them. Er, if they're already riding illegal bikes, in dodgy non plated cars and doing dodgy offroading, i don't think they're going to care much about a new lower speed limit.
I've driven some of those roads and agree that some drivers / bikers certainly do like to push on in excess of some of the 60 zones and a number of the 30's through some villages, but sadly the small number of those are what bugger it up for the rest of us
The problem is however, is that large portions of Surrey CC are run by councillors who want to be kept in and are coming up with these things as they appear to be vote winners for a portion of their constituents. Where i am in Surrey a couple of the local Conservatives are pushing for "Max 40" whereby they believe the highest speed should be set to 40 and everything else should be 30 / 20 dependent on how residential it is.
We've also got another councillor trying to argue that roads past schools should all be shut to non school traffic from 8-15 to 9am and 2-30 to 4pm (during pick up / drop off time) in order to keep kids safe and cut pollution. Of course they've ignoried the fact that when they did trial it at a school near me (because the road was currently closed to through traffic for drainage works), the road / pavements past the school and most adjoining residential roads became clogged with parents using it as their own mass parking zone to pick their kids up, most of which were sat with their engines idling - so not actually sorting any problems there then.
I've seen it mentioned before and It's all rather pointless tbh. Councillors are begging for vastly reduced limits in an effort to tackle the speeding problem from a subsection of muppets who flock to some of the areas with dodgy quad bikes, non numberplated cars racing, 4x4's doing illegal green laning, etc, thinking that will discourage them. Er, if they're already riding illegal bikes, in dodgy non plated cars and doing dodgy offroading, i don't think they're going to care much about a new lower speed limit.
I've driven some of those roads and agree that some drivers / bikers certainly do like to push on in excess of some of the 60 zones and a number of the 30's through some villages, but sadly the small number of those are what bugger it up for the rest of us
The problem is however, is that large portions of Surrey CC are run by councillors who want to be kept in and are coming up with these things as they appear to be vote winners for a portion of their constituents. Where i am in Surrey a couple of the local Conservatives are pushing for "Max 40" whereby they believe the highest speed should be set to 40 and everything else should be 30 / 20 dependent on how residential it is.
We've also got another councillor trying to argue that roads past schools should all be shut to non school traffic from 8-15 to 9am and 2-30 to 4pm (during pick up / drop off time) in order to keep kids safe and cut pollution. Of course they've ignoried the fact that when they did trial it at a school near me (because the road was currently closed to through traffic for drainage works), the road / pavements past the school and most adjoining residential roads became clogged with parents using it as their own mass parking zone to pick their kids up, most of which were sat with their engines idling - so not actually sorting any problems there then.
Edited by AlexRS2782 on Monday 8th August 02:03
NNH said:
Terminator X said:
20 limits roundly ignored by almost everyone in my experience. Just clogs up the road when some t
t is actually doing 20mph.
TX.
Just clogs up the road when some keyboard warrior tailgates law-abiding driverst is actually doing 20mph.TX.
rodericb said:
NNH said:
Terminator X said:
20 limits roundly ignored by almost everyone in my experience. Just clogs up the road when some tt is actually doing 20mph.
TX.
Just clogs up the road when some keyboard warrior tailgates law-abiding driverst is actually doing 20mph.TX.
Councillor Stuart McLachlan said:
There are scrambler bikes roaring up and down at 60mph and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it.
Then why campaign for a speed limit rather than noise restrictions, or section 59, etc?Every time these people seem to reach for the same tool and then people wonder why limits are ignored.
I'd be up for it in certain areas, (20 or 30) - loads of the lanes down here in Somerset are technically a 60, even though they often 10ft wide and rarely have more than 25yards visibility.
Doesn't stop mouth breathing idiots flying down at 50-60mph and then saying "yeah, but it's a 60 innit bruv".
Too many idiots with no common sense or restraint have lead us to this place.
Doesn't stop mouth breathing idiots flying down at 50-60mph and then saying "yeah, but it's a 60 innit bruv".
Too many idiots with no common sense or restraint have lead us to this place.
SteveStrange said:
It won't be the road planners, the drivers (as in promotors, not the actual car drivers) will be political.
I suspect it's a matter of the council believing its better to be seen doing something, even it doesn't work, than doing nothing. The "proper" solution, a combination of improving driver education and clamping down on dangerous driving, is within the remit of national government rather than local councils and would require spending considerable amounts of money and hence isn't going to happen.
Edited by kambites on Monday 8th August 07:33
AlexRS2782 said:
Can't access the link at the moment, but i'm going to take a guess that's the A25 and various areas in & around Dorking?
I've seen it mentioned before and It's all rather pointless tbh. Councillors are begging for vastly reduced limits in an effort to tackle the speeding problem from a subsection of muppets who flock to some of the areas with dodgy quad bikes, non numberplated cars racing, 4x4's doing illegal green laning, etc, thinking that will discourage them. Er, if they're already riding illegal bikes, in dodgy non plated cars and doing dodgy offroading, i don't think they're going to care much about a new lower speed limit.
I've driven some of those roads and agree that some drivers / bikers certainly do like to push on in excess of some of the 60 zones and a number of the 30's through some villages, but sadly the small number of those are what bugger it up for the rest of us.
Yes it seems to be the roads around Coldharbour that are in the scheme. There are some sections that are single track with poor visibility, where most drivers wouldn't do much more than 20 anyway. I've seen it mentioned before and It's all rather pointless tbh. Councillors are begging for vastly reduced limits in an effort to tackle the speeding problem from a subsection of muppets who flock to some of the areas with dodgy quad bikes, non numberplated cars racing, 4x4's doing illegal green laning, etc, thinking that will discourage them. Er, if they're already riding illegal bikes, in dodgy non plated cars and doing dodgy offroading, i don't think they're going to care much about a new lower speed limit.
I've driven some of those roads and agree that some drivers / bikers certainly do like to push on in excess of some of the 60 zones and a number of the 30's through some villages, but sadly the small number of those are what bugger it up for the rest of us.
Edited by AlexRS2782 on Monday 8th August 02:03
Why councillors think that this will solve "joyriders" (mentioned in the article, but do they still exist??), eludes me, but it seems reducing speed limits wins votes.
Generally the NSL is there on minor country roads is there because the road hasn't been properly surveyed, rather than because 60mph is a safe speed for them. Perhaps a public information campaign to this effect would reduce the amount of drivers doing 60 on single-track roads lined with tall hedges saying "yeah but it's a 60 so its safe innit".
Of course such a campaign would have to include examples of NSL A and B roads where 60 is a safe speed, and point out that there's no need to do 40 along such roads
BrettMRC said:
I'd be up for it in certain areas, (20 or 30) - loads of the lanes down here in Somerset are technically a 60, even though they often 10ft wide and rarely have more than 25yards visibility.
Doesn't stop mouth breathing idiots flying down at 50-60mph and then saying "yeah, but it's a 60 innit bruv".
Too many idiots with no common sense or restraint have lead us to this place.
That hits the nail squarely on the head & just why many of these country lanes are not set to the 20 limit is beyond me as many of them are simply dangerous.Doesn't stop mouth breathing idiots flying down at 50-60mph and then saying "yeah, but it's a 60 innit bruv".
Too many idiots with no common sense or restraint have lead us to this place.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff