Super fluffy idea to make us go slower
Discussion
Not far from me is Suffolk, a county fabled for making perfectly good straight pieces of country road 30mph for no earthly reason.
As I was proceeding along one of these at what I considered an appropriate speed, I saw a new object on the left with lights on it, and a small car just behind it. Immediately I enagaged 'suspicious' mode.
Getting closer to the sign I saw that it displayed faces, either happy
or unhappy 
. Under the happy face was a number, 25, which at first I thought was some dumbass advisory limit. Not so. As I went past it changed to 45, a much more suitable advisory limit I thought. Clearly this system is smart and has recognised a competent driver...
I now scrutinised the car. It was a litte orange Smart car, emblazoned with 'Make Sid happy' or somesuch on the side, and a matching smiley face. Inside was a git in a reflective jacket, costing me money.
Clearly this is some patronising campaign designed by schoolchildren. I was suddenly and remarkably cross at this total waste of time, money and space, and had I not been on a schedule I'd have stopped given said git a piece of my mind.
As I was proceeding along one of these at what I considered an appropriate speed, I saw a new object on the left with lights on it, and a small car just behind it. Immediately I enagaged 'suspicious' mode.
Getting closer to the sign I saw that it displayed faces, either happy
or unhappy . Under the happy face was a number, 25, which at first I thought was some dumbass advisory limit. Not so. As I went past it changed to 45, a much more suitable advisory limit I thought. Clearly this system is smart and has recognised a competent driver... I now scrutinised the car. It was a litte orange Smart car, emblazoned with 'Make Sid happy' or somesuch on the side, and a matching smiley face. Inside was a git in a reflective jacket, costing me money.
Clearly this is some patronising campaign designed by schoolchildren. I was suddenly and remarkably cross at this total waste of time, money and space, and had I not been on a schedule I'd have stopped given said git a piece of my mind.
WildCat said:
This one came into being about 2004 I think.. have no problem with the SID/VAS to remind..but I think I would display SID as a rolleyes if reminding to drive at 30 mph on road which was once 40 mph
Surely though if the maximum speed used to be 40, but there have been either physiacl changes to that road or the way that it is used that demand introduction of a lower limit, saying that just because it was once safe to do 40 it must be today, is folly.
vonhosen said:
Surely though if the maximum speed used to be 40, but there have been either physiacl changes to that road or the way that it is used that demand introduction of a lower limit, saying that just because it was once safe to do 40 it must be today, is folly.
They physical changes thing to a road might be an obvious candidate, but could you give some real world examples of a change of use?
We've all seen lots of (albeit anecdotal) examples of unnecessary speed limit reductions on here, and one that a council was trying to enforce illegally after some roadworks had been completed.
What do you believe is behind the recent rash of limit reductions? I don't mind being directed to another thread if you've done this one to death already
vonhosen said:As with all cases, any changes accompany the limit, the changes don't take place first, and anyone thinking this isn;t just another lentilist excuse is naive beyond belief.
This one came into being about 2004 I think.. have no problem with the SID/VAS to remind..but I think I would display SID as a rolleyes
Surely though if the maximum speed used to be 40, but there have been either physiacl changes to that road or the way that it is used that demand introduction of a lower limit, saying that just because it was once safe to do 40 it must be today, is folly.
Dual carriageways are sometimes narrowed to single lane with white lined areas each side, a psychopath might be installed, but whatever pinkogreen b0ll0x happens, the road was almost always perfectly OK before with no specific accient problem. After the changes we have pretty coloured road (aaaw cute), unused cycle lanes, more congestion, and frustrated private transport users - in other words, aim achieved.
Meanwhile accidents everywhere else continue to happen because their causes remain unaddressed
What's it like on Planet Vonhosen?
vonhosen said:
It may not be physical changes to the road itself that results in a change of limit, but the surrounding environment & the subsequent use of the road.
ie
Road skirts around a town, new housing built other side of road & this would mean an increased number of pedestrians crossing the road than previously. What was a 40 now becomes a 30.
Saw one like that in Legoland. Maybe the same one.
vonhosen said:
As TB said of course the speed limit should be changed before the changes take place ideally.
I said that? Certainly not the 'ideally' bit. Ideally the road should be left alone. Fearing only a few exceptions in rare locations, the limit will almost certainly be far too slow already and would benefit from upping a bit.
simpo two said:
I now scrutinised the car. It was a litte orange Smart car, emblazoned with 'Make Sid happy' or somesuch on the side, and a matching smiley face. Inside was a git in a reflective jacket, costing me money.
I'd have been tempted to ensure Zero Plod presence, whip off the numberplates and drive past as fast as possible to "Make Sid Very Pissed Off"
More patronising bollox from your local "Speed Kills" tosspot society.
vonhosen said:
This one came into being about 2004 I think.. have no problem with the SID/VAS to remind..but I think I would display SID as a rolleyes
Surely though if the maximum speed used to be 40, but there have been either physiacl changes to that road or the way that it is used that demand introduction of a lower limit, saying that just because it was once safe to do 40 it must be today, is folly.
As someone who lives on the Norfolk / Suffolk border. Bollocks. Suffolk are insane about Speed Limits ; the place is littered with pointless 20s and extensions out into the middle of nowhere.
Some are plain moronic.
Example. Went here (Norton, near Stowmarket see link) on Thursday. As you past the last house (the village is a correct 30) it changes to 40 for a period of about 20-30 yards (literally) before becoming NSL.
You can see as you leave the village (the 30-40 change is outside the housing area) that the road is really windy and is built up on either side .... well, the road maybe has a 1 degree bend in it and the crops might blow off the fields or something I suppose. Stupid.
[url]www.multimap.com/map/photo.cgi?client=public&X=595750&Y=265250&width=700&height=400&gride=596000&gridn=265250&srec=0&coordsys=gb&db=freegaz&pc=&zm=0&scale=5000&multimap.x=417&multimap.y=188[/url]
There is a simple check on Suffolk sanity. Drive the A140 Ipswich to Diss. The speed limits have reduced the accident rate. The reason is the road is so incredibly irritating to drive on that everyone who can goes another way. I did it on Thursday as well, at about 7:30pm ; it was abysmal.
[quote]Surely though if the maximum speed used to be 40, but there have been either physiacl changes to that road or the way that it is used that demand introduction of a lower limit, saying that just because it was once safe to do 40 it must be today, is folly.
[/quote]
VH your earnest hard work as an apologist for the establishment policy is beginning to wear my patience and I suspect that of others here a bit thin. You seem an intelligent chap albeit a bit blinkered. Why not ask yourself why is it that I and so many others seem to have problems in accepting that a road which was NSL has had a much lower speed limit imposed for no apparent reason. If you would like to come to Flintshire ( that jewel in Brunstroms crown) I can easily show you maybe 35 miles of roads within 20 miles of me that were NSL or a higher limit a few years ago which have become 50, 40, 30 and even 20. I have looked minutely at these roads and the only physical changes I can see are a few severe potholes due to lack of maintenance. Oh and several thousand yards of red tarmac ( whatever the hell that means, green tarmac, cycle lanes encouraging vulnerable cyclists to cycle into danger, road humps, 20 and 30 and 40 signs laid on the road which have no legal meaning, solid white lines and chevrons which blank off lane 2 of a dual carriageway etc.
I cannot see how these roads are used differently either. Many people I know ignore the limits in places that they cannot be enforced by an overweight Peeping Tom skulking inside a padded van on double time. And some even drive faster than before in protest against this arrant fascist nonsense.
I would suggest that if you cannot see that saying that just because it was once safe to do 40 and the limits have been lowered therefore there must be good reason that 'they' have deemed it not so today, the folly is all yours.
Or you, vonhosen, are part of that conspiracy.
[/quote]
VH your earnest hard work as an apologist for the establishment policy is beginning to wear my patience and I suspect that of others here a bit thin. You seem an intelligent chap albeit a bit blinkered. Why not ask yourself why is it that I and so many others seem to have problems in accepting that a road which was NSL has had a much lower speed limit imposed for no apparent reason. If you would like to come to Flintshire ( that jewel in Brunstroms crown) I can easily show you maybe 35 miles of roads within 20 miles of me that were NSL or a higher limit a few years ago which have become 50, 40, 30 and even 20. I have looked minutely at these roads and the only physical changes I can see are a few severe potholes due to lack of maintenance. Oh and several thousand yards of red tarmac ( whatever the hell that means, green tarmac, cycle lanes encouraging vulnerable cyclists to cycle into danger, road humps, 20 and 30 and 40 signs laid on the road which have no legal meaning, solid white lines and chevrons which blank off lane 2 of a dual carriageway etc.
I cannot see how these roads are used differently either. Many people I know ignore the limits in places that they cannot be enforced by an overweight Peeping Tom skulking inside a padded van on double time. And some even drive faster than before in protest against this arrant fascist nonsense.
I would suggest that if you cannot see that saying that just because it was once safe to do 40 and the limits have been lowered therefore there must be good reason that 'they' have deemed it not so today, the folly is all yours.
Or you, vonhosen, are part of that conspiracy.
Richard C said:
Surely though if the maximum speed used to be 40, but there have been either physical changes to that road or the way that it is used that demand introduction of a lower limit, saying that just because it was once safe to do 40 it must be today, is folly.
VH your earnest hard work as an apologist for the establishment policy is beginning to wear my patience and I suspect that of others here a bit thin. You seem an intelligent chap albeit a bit blinkered. Why not ask yourself why is it that I and so many others seem to have problems in accepting that a road which was NSL has had a much lower speed limit imposed for no apparent reason. If you would like to come to Flintshire ( that jewel in Brunstroms crown) I can easily show you maybe 35 miles of roads within 20 miles of me that were NSL or a higher limit a few years ago which have become 50, 40, 30 and even 20. I have looked minutely at these roads and the only physical changes I can see are a few severe potholes due to lack of maintenance. Oh and several thousand yards of red tarmac ( whatever the hell that means, green tarmac, cycle lanes encouraging vulnerable cyclists to cycle into danger, road humps, 20 and 30 and 40 signs laid on the road which have no legal meaning, solid white lines and chevrons which blank off lane 2 of a dual carriageway etc.
I cannot see how these roads are used differently either. Many people I know ignore the limits in places that they cannot be enforced by an overweight Peeping Tom skulking inside a padded van on double time. And some even drive faster than before in protest against this arrant fascist nonsense.
I would suggest that if you cannot see that saying that just because it was once safe to do 40 and the limits have been lowered therefore there must be good reason that 'they' have deemed it not so today, the folly is all yours.
Or you, vonhosen, are part of that conspiracy.
I can't possibly comment on each & every limit that has been reduced, as I don't have knowledge of the roads in question or the background behind the decision for each individual one. I didn't seek to validate all such changes with my comment.
I was merely speaking from a general point that just because a road was a 40 limit yesterday, that isn't indicative that today that limit is still appropriate or that it will remain so in the future either. Much in the same way that the appropriate speed to travel within a limit changes with circumstance, so does what the maximum permissable speed (the limit) should be set at. That of course goes that changes in limits could go both ways (up or down) as physical changes are made to the roads or the way they are used.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 20th May 16:39
{quote=vonhosen]I was merely speaking from a general point that just because a road was a 40 limit yesterday, that isn't indicative that today that limit is still appropriate or that it will remain so in the future either. Much in the same way that the appropriate speed to travel within a limit changes with circumstance, so does what the maximum permissable speed (the limit) should be set at. That of course goes that changes in limits could go both ways (up or down) as physical changes are made to the roads or the way they are used. [/quote]
2 rather glaring non sequiturs there VH
1 "....just because a road was a 40 limit yesterday, that isn't indicative that today that limit is still appropriate or that it will remain so in the future either"
It does not follow that because a road was a 40 limit yesterday and is a lower limit yesterday that that limit is correct, appropriate or is technically justified either. Or that because a road was a 40 limit yesterday and is a lower limit yesterday there must have been changes to physical circumstances.
2 .....the appropriate speed to travel within a limit changes with circumstance, so does .... the maximum permissable speed
For once VH what you say is right. Those circumstances are different for every vehicle and driver and weather and traffic combination. Therefore any maximum permissable speed should change with circumstance. Instead it remains fixed, painted on a plate, incapable of being changed under ANY circumstances.
2 rather glaring non sequiturs there VH
1 "....just because a road was a 40 limit yesterday, that isn't indicative that today that limit is still appropriate or that it will remain so in the future either"
It does not follow that because a road was a 40 limit yesterday and is a lower limit yesterday that that limit is correct, appropriate or is technically justified either. Or that because a road was a 40 limit yesterday and is a lower limit yesterday there must have been changes to physical circumstances.
2 .....the appropriate speed to travel within a limit changes with circumstance, so does .... the maximum permissable speed
For once VH what you say is right. Those circumstances are different for every vehicle and driver and weather and traffic combination. Therefore any maximum permissable speed should change with circumstance. Instead it remains fixed, painted on a plate, incapable of being changed under ANY circumstances.
Richard C said:
I was merely speaking from a general point that just because a road was a 40 limit yesterday, that isn't indicative that today that limit is still appropriate or that it will remain so in the future either. Much in the same way that the appropriate speed to travel within a limit changes with circumstance, so does what the maximum permissable speed (the limit) should be set at. That of course goes that changes in limits could go both ways (up or down) as physical changes are made to the roads or the way they are used.
2 rather glaring non sequiturs there VH
1 "....just because a road was a 40 limit yesterday, that isn't indicative that today that limit is still appropriate or that it will remain so in the future either"
It does not follow that because a road was a 40 limit yesterday and is a lower limit yesterday that that limit is correct, appropriate or is technically justified either. Or that because a road was a 40 limit yesterday and is a lower limit yesterday there must have been changes to physical circumstances.
2 .....the appropriate speed to travel within a limit changes with circumstance, so does .... the maximum permissable speed
For once VH what you say is right. Those circumstances are different for every vehicle and driver and weather and traffic combination. Therefore any maximum permissable speed should change with circumstance. Instead it remains fixed, painted on a plate, incapable of being changed under ANY circumstances.
But we choose to have speed limits in our society, that means that we will have a lollipop with a number on it that you must not go beyond. You must choose a safe & appropriate speed upto but not beyond it, even if you may consider it safe to go beyond it at that particular time.
On the other point, if you are unhappy with the limits & the way they are set, you (we) have the collective power to bring about a change to that (where of course we are in agreement & exercise that power collectively to achieve our aim).
>> Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 20th May 17:04
There ya go again von, a goodly while since the last time you assumed the role of society's spokesbot but...
We have NOT decided as a society to have speed limits, some muppet(s) decided for us, and the next generation are still at it. When was the original referendum?
When people are asked about speed limits locally, a) it's almost always a reduction b)almost everyone objects (including police) c) they do it anyway.
vonhosen said:
But we choose to have speed limits in our society...
We have NOT decided as a society to have speed limits, some muppet(s) decided for us, and the next generation are still at it. When was the original referendum?
When people are asked about speed limits locally, a) it's almost always a reduction b)almost everyone objects (including police) c) they do it anyway.
vonhosen said:
But we choose to have speed limits in our society,
is that the royal 'we'? because no one asked me and when I complain about it I get ignored, the 'collective' you refer to is powerless to do anything, we can't stop our leaders freeing murderers so how in hells name are we going to effect a change in policy for something as unimportant but intrinsically wrong as a speed limit
turbobloke said:
There ya go again von, a goodly while since the last time you assumed the role of society's spokesbot but... vonhosen said:
But we choose to have speed limits in our society...
We have NOT decided as a society to have speed limits, some muppet(s) decided for us, and the next generation are still at it. When was the original referendum?
When people are asked about speed limits locally, a) it's almost always a reduction b)almost everyone objects (including police) c) they do it anyway.
Where is the evidence that we (the public) want our speed limits abolished ?
There isn't a referendum on every piece of legislation. (There are very few referendums on anything, only on the most universally important issues would there be.)
There has been legislation introduced in the past that has provoked a fervent reaction from the public & led to it being removed.
There is no such huge display or call for the removal of speed limits.
As such I think it safe to say (as has been said previously) that where a society doesn't call on mass for the removal of laws (particularly ones that have been with us for 100 years in one form or another) that there is a desire for that.
If the public want & force change for no speed limits I'll live with it (although I'd vote against it) but I really don't see that call outside of minority enthuasiast groups like here.
As such I'd say my position that society wants them is stronger than any position that society doesn't, by the fact they don't visibly demonstrate/call for, or force change.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 20th May 17:34
apache said:
Where is the evidence that we (the public) want our speed limits abolished ?
and when did 'we' ask for them?
We give a mandate to our elected representatives & they make laws in our name.
If we don't like what they do we can exert pressure & ultimately get rid of them.
As has happened in the past with unpopular moves by governments.
Germany haven't introduced speed limits across their autobahn network because their elected representatives know it would be political suicide there to do so (despite them having to form a government with the greens who are calling for just that).
In this country if any party believed something as simple speed limit change carried enough public weight to guarantee them power, they'd be onto it like a shot. Truth is it doesn't, so they don't, it's of little importance in most people's lives.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 20th May 17:42
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff