Overtakers and speed limits in Lincolnshire

[gilbertd]

Last week there was a (very lengthy) thread that followed a former Lincs Trafpol stating that accidents would be reduced if speed limits were raised. I mentioned this over the weekend to a Lincolnshire based truck driver. This guy is a former nuclear power engineer who took early retirement and now drives trucks rather than sitting at home vegetating. He agreed entirely that the low speed limits cause far more accidents than they prevent. He has found that if he sticks to the 40 mph limit on a single carriageway NSL as he is supposed to, he has to spend more time looking in his mirrors than watching where he is going. He has found that at 40 mph, everyone will try and overtake irrespective of whether it is safe or not. From his higher vantage point and with a clear view of the road ahead, he is in a much better position to see any oncoming traffic than following vehicles. By keeping a watch on his mirrors he can see cars behind pulling out to look and is able to flick his RH indicator on to warn them it isn't safe. He admitted that many either don't see this or ignore it and he witnesses near suicidal overtakes on a daily basis.

However, he has found that if he ignores the speed limit and drives at 50 mph, most cars are quite happy to stay behind him. Does this not prove that the retired officer did indeed know what he was talking about and confirm his recommendations?

[BliarOut]

Yes.... And I'm just about to venture down those very roads in question and overtake some trucks.

Is anyone else old enough to remember when everyone overtook trucks doing just 56 in an NSL?

[vonhosen]

gilbertd said:

Last week there was a (very lengthy) thread that followed a former Lincs Trafpol stating that accidents would be reduced if speed limits were raised. I mentioned this over the weekend to a Lincolnshire based truck driver. This guy is a former nuclear power engineer who took early retirement and now drives trucks rather than sitting at home vegetating. He agreed entirely that the low speed limits cause far more accidents than they prevent. He has found that if he sticks to the 40 mph limit on a single carriageway NSL as he is supposed to, he has to spend more time looking in his mirrors than watching where he is going. He has found that at 40 mph, everyone will try and overtake irrespective of whether it is safe or not. From his higher vantage point and with a clear view of the road ahead, he is in a much better position to see any oncoming traffic than following vehicles. By keeping a watch on his mirrors he can see cars behind pulling out to look and is able to flick his RH indicator on to warn them it isn't safe. He admitted that many either don't see this or ignore it and he witnesses near suicidal overtakes on a daily basis.

However, he has found that if he ignores the speed limit and drives at 50 mph, most cars are quite happy to stay behind him. Does this not prove that the retired officer did indeed know what he was talking about and confirm his recommendations?

IIRC he wasn't saying limits should be raised, he was saying people should be driving at the limit where appropriate.

[gilbertd]

That's right he was, but for a car the limit is 50 mph and providing everyone travels at that speed the traffic flows and very few try lunatic overtakes.

[BliarOut]

vonhosen said:

gilbertd said:

Last week there was a (very lengthy) thread that followed a former Lincs Trafpol stating that accidents would be reduced if speed limits were raised. I mentioned this over the weekend to a Lincolnshire based truck driver. This guy is a former nuclear power engineer who took early retirement and now drives trucks rather than sitting at home vegetating. He agreed entirely that the low speed limits cause far more accidents than they prevent. He has found that if he sticks to the 40 mph limit on a single carriageway NSL as he is supposed to, he has to spend more time looking in his mirrors than watching where he is going. He has found that at 40 mph, everyone will try and overtake irrespective of whether it is safe or not. From his higher vantage point and with a clear view of the road ahead, he is in a much better position to see any oncoming traffic than following vehicles. By keeping a watch on his mirrors he can see cars behind pulling out to look and is able to flick his RH indicator on to warn them it isn't safe. He admitted that many either don't see this or ignore it and he witnesses near suicidal overtakes on a daily basis.

However, he has found that if he ignores the speed limit and drives at 50 mph, most cars are quite happy to stay behind him. Does this not prove that the retired officer did indeed know what he was talking about and confirm his recommendations?

IIRC he wasn't saying limits should be raised, he was saying people should be driving at the limit where appropriate.

Just to refresh your memory

Lincs article said:

09:20 - 09 June 2006
A former traffic policeman has called for motorists to drive faster to cut road deaths in Lincolnshire.

Retired Keith Peat, who was an officer for 20 years, believes slow drivers cause tail- backs and frustration and can prompt other drivers to make dangerous manoeuvres.

He has now written to Lincolnshire Police Chief Constable Tony Lake asking him to instruct officers to stop and punish people who drive way below the speed limit.

In the letter Mr Peat, who is a qualified advanced driver, says the common claim that speed causes most road accidents is "fraudulent".

The 65-year-old says the increasing number of speed restrictions actually causes more deaths.

"The only time speed actually causes an accident is when a driver loses control of his car and no other vehicle is involved," he said.

"This is rare. Primary causes may be poor road layout, poor signs, badly parked vehicles, a child running into the path of a vehicle and excessively slow drivers."

"In these cases speed is not the cause, it simply has an effect on the outcome."

"We have become obsessed with speed, when driving too slow actually causes more problems."

"There is hardly any dual carriageway here and slow drivers, sometimes 20mph below the limit, create tailbacks and frustration leading to stupid overtaking manouvres."

"It is overtaking accidents that are the worst. The answer is not to lower speed limits and bar overtaking. It is to encourage people to drive at the limit and to free up the roads by reducing double hatching."

So far this year 32 people have died on county roads.

[vonhosen]

That's not a call to raise them, it's saying we shouldn't lower them

[s2art]

vonhosen said:

gilbertd said:

Last week there was a (very lengthy) thread that followed a former Lincs Trafpol stating that accidents would be reduced if speed limits were raised. I mentioned this over the weekend to a Lincolnshire based truck driver. This guy is a former nuclear power engineer who took early retirement and now drives trucks rather than sitting at home vegetating. He agreed entirely that the low speed limits cause far more accidents than they prevent. He has found that if he sticks to the 40 mph limit on a single carriageway NSL as he is supposed to, he has to spend more time looking in his mirrors than watching where he is going. He has found that at 40 mph, everyone will try and overtake irrespective of whether it is safe or not. From his higher vantage point and with a clear view of the road ahead, he is in a much better position to see any oncoming traffic than following vehicles. By keeping a watch on his mirrors he can see cars behind pulling out to look and is able to flick his RH indicator on to warn them it isn't safe. He admitted that many either don't see this or ignore it and he witnesses near suicidal overtakes on a daily basis.

However, he has found that if he ignores the speed limit and drives at 50 mph, most cars are quite happy to stay behind him. Does this not prove that the retired officer did indeed know what he was talking about and confirm his recommendations?

IIRC he wasn't saying limits should be raised, he was saying people should be driving at the limit where appropriate.

But the implication is that speed limits need to be high enough to make overtaking safe. If trucks are limited to 40MPH and the limit is 50MPH its not easy to get past safely without breaking the limit.

[vonhosen]

s2art said:

vonhosen said:

gilbertd said:

Last week there was a (very lengthy) thread that followed a former Lincs Trafpol stating that accidents would be reduced if speed limits were raised. I mentioned this over the weekend to a Lincolnshire based truck driver. This guy is a former nuclear power engineer who took early retirement and now drives trucks rather than sitting at home vegetating. He agreed entirely that the low speed limits cause far more accidents than they prevent. He has found that if he sticks to the 40 mph limit on a single carriageway NSL as he is supposed to, he has to spend more time looking in his mirrors than watching where he is going. He has found that at 40 mph, everyone will try and overtake irrespective of whether it is safe or not. From his higher vantage point and with a clear view of the road ahead, he is in a much better position to see any oncoming traffic than following vehicles. By keeping a watch on his mirrors he can see cars behind pulling out to look and is able to flick his RH indicator on to warn them it isn't safe. He admitted that many either don't see this or ignore it and he witnesses near suicidal overtakes on a daily basis.

However, he has found that if he ignores the speed limit and drives at 50 mph, most cars are quite happy to stay behind him. Does this not prove that the retired officer did indeed know what he was talking about and confirm his recommendations?

IIRC he wasn't saying limits should be raised, he was saying people should be driving at the limit where appropriate.

But the implication is that speed limits need to be high enough to make overtaking safe. If trucks are limited to 40MPH and the limit is 50MPH its not easy to get past safely without breaking the limit.

I drive LGV1's & PCVs.
The safe speed on any given road & circumstances to drive them at, will differ to a car in the same circumstances.
The premise of encouraging one type of vehicle to drive faster than may be suitable to apease drivers of another type of vehicle is not a good idea.
If trucks are limited to 40 while cars can do 60 that creates a decent differential for overtakes, provided people are prepared to show restraint & wait for a safe opportunity, where as if they drive at 55 idiots will still try to get past them at inappropriate times, only with a larger closing speed.

The safe driver will always show restraint & only go where safe.

Edited by vonhosen on Monday 26th June 19:20

[s2art]

vonhosen said:

s2art said:

vonhosen said:

gilbertd said:

Last week there was a (very lengthy) thread that followed a former Lincs Trafpol stating that accidents would be reduced if speed limits were raised. I mentioned this over the weekend to a Lincolnshire based truck driver. This guy is a former nuclear power engineer who took early retirement and now drives trucks rather than sitting at home vegetating. He agreed entirely that the low speed limits cause far more accidents than they prevent. He has found that if he sticks to the 40 mph limit on a single carriageway NSL as he is supposed to, he has to spend more time looking in his mirrors than watching where he is going. He has found that at 40 mph, everyone will try and overtake irrespective of whether it is safe or not. From his higher vantage point and with a clear view of the road ahead, he is in a much better position to see any oncoming traffic than following vehicles. By keeping a watch on his mirrors he can see cars behind pulling out to look and is able to flick his RH indicator on to warn them it isn't safe. He admitted that many either don't see this or ignore it and he witnesses near suicidal overtakes on a daily basis.

However, he has found that if he ignores the speed limit and drives at 50 mph, most cars are quite happy to stay behind him. Does this not prove that the retired officer did indeed know what he was talking about and confirm his recommendations?

IIRC he wasn't saying limits should be raised, he was saying people should be driving at the limit where appropriate.

But the implication is that speed limits need to be high enough to make overtaking safe. If trucks are limited to 40MPH and the limit is 50MPH its not easy to get past safely without breaking the limit.

I drive LGV1's & PCVs.
The safe speed on any given road & circumstances to drive them at, will differ to a car in the same circumstances.
The premise of encouraging one type of vehicle to drive faster than may be suitable to apease drivers of another type of vehicle is not a good idea.

Not sure of your point. Mine was there needs to be a big enough differential between trucks and cars, otherwise safety is compromised when overtaking, or too many people will stay behind a truck tempting others to make dangerous overtaking actions.
This wasnt a problem a couple of decades ago as trucks were not as powerful, and needed longer to get up to speed after a slow bend or hill. This left a bigger differential between the truck speed and legal limit, making safe and legal overtaking easier.

[flemke]

BliarOut said:

Just to refresh your memory

Lincs article said:

The 65-year-old says the increasing number of speed restrictions actually causes more deaths.

vonhosen said:

That's not a call to raise them, it's saying we shouldn't lower them

Sorry, von, but you're typically quite precise (if not always right).
In that spirit:
If the man is saying that the increasing number of (lowering) restrictions causes more deaths, how is that not a call to raise them?

[gilbertd]

vonhosen said:

s2art said:

vonhosen said:

gilbertd said:

Last week there was a (very lengthy) thread that followed a former Lincs Trafpol stating that accidents would be reduced if speed limits were raised. I mentioned this over the weekend to a Lincolnshire based truck driver. This guy is a former nuclear power engineer who took early retirement and now drives trucks rather than sitting at home vegetating. He agreed entirely that the low speed limits cause far more accidents than they prevent. He has found that if he sticks to the 40 mph limit on a single carriageway NSL as he is supposed to, he has to spend more time looking in his mirrors than watching where he is going. He has found that at 40 mph, everyone will try and overtake irrespective of whether it is safe or not. From his higher vantage point and with a clear view of the road ahead, he is in a much better position to see any oncoming traffic than following vehicles. By keeping a watch on his mirrors he can see cars behind pulling out to look and is able to flick his RH indicator on to warn them it isn't safe. He admitted that many either don't see this or ignore it and he witnesses near suicidal overtakes on a daily basis.

However, he has found that if he ignores the speed limit and drives at 50 mph, most cars are quite happy to stay behind him. Does this not prove that the retired officer did indeed know what he was talking about and confirm his recommendations?

IIRC he wasn't saying limits should be raised, he was saying people should be driving at the limit where appropriate.

But the implication is that speed limits need to be high enough to make overtaking safe. If trucks are limited to 40MPH and the limit is 50MPH its not easy to get past safely without breaking the limit.

I drive LGV1's & PCVs.
The safe speed on any given road & circumstances to drive them at, will differ to a car in the same circumstances.
The premise of encouraging one type of vehicle to drive faster than may be suitable to apease drivers of another type of vehicle is not a good idea.

I think by that statement you have proven conclusively that you have never driven the A15, A16 or A17, which is the roads that are being spoken about. The safe speed for a truck is probably somewhere in the region of 60-65 mph (a speed some of the foreign registered ones travel at regularly). The roads are reasonably wide (in many places wide enough for 3 vehicles if everyone breathes in a bit, which probably explains why there aren't more accidents than there are), mostly fairly straight with sweeping bends. If empty, a very reasonable average speed can be maintained. Unfortunately, they are rarely empty and it is the presence of trucks at 40 mph that causes drivers to take risks. If everyone sits at a reasonable speed, the risk taking drops dramatically as the folowing traffic will quite happily follow. I'm not saying that the same circumstances apply in other areas, just that the officer was talking about a particular problem in a specific area. His thinking was merely echoed by someone that has daily experience of it.

Try driving from Boston to Skegness one day!

[alphadog]

vonhosen said:

....
If trucks are limited to 40 while cars can do 60 that creates a decent differential for overtakes, provided people are prepared to show restraint & wait for a safe opportunity, where as if they drive at 55 idiots will still try to get past them at inappropriate times, only with a larger closing speed.

The safe driver will always show restraint & only go where safe.
....

There aren't always many opportunities to overtakw on many a single carriageway trunk road, nor are there people who are confident/competent enough to take advantage of them, causing a queue to build up.

To be honest I tend to avoid long journeys along single carriageways, for instance the A46 to Lincoln (and beyond) or A49 South to Hereford in Shrops, and find a much less congested and more interesting route on non-primary roads and B roads.

If they would only put regular stretches of crawler lane on single carriageway trunk roads to facilitate overtaking. They (the highways agency) just don't seem to grasp this!

Edited by alphadog on Monday 26th June 19:54

[winnebago nut]

alphadog said:

If they would only put regular stretches of crawler lane on single carriageway trunk roads to facilitate overtaking. They (the highways agency) just don't seem to grasp this!

They will not grasp it, the idea is to create congestion. Then they can charge us for it . Atb Derek.

[Flat in Fifth]

gilbertd said:

I think by that statement you have proven conclusively that you have never driven the A15, A16 or A17,

Ah yes the lovely A17. Not!

I remember this in days when NSL was 70, and many of the villages that are now 30 were still NSL, and we used to slow down through the villages.

What is more you could exercise restraint and sit behind a slow moving heavy and wait for a good opportunity to overtake. Now of course what were the good overtaking stretches have been dealt with by application of islands, real and ghost, cameras. Not to mention the Leadenham bypass which was built with the foundations and power supply for the Gatso included in the initial build.

You can see the same on many roads in that area of England, eg A52 and in Notts the Melton Mowbray > Grantham road.

The Boston to Skeggy road not done for a long time, and not really in a hurry to do so again tbh.

[jith]

vonhosen said:

s2art said:

vonhosen said:

gilbertd said:

Last week there was a (very lengthy) thread that followed a former Lincs Trafpol stating that accidents would be reduced if speed limits were raised. I mentioned this over the weekend to a Lincolnshire based truck driver. This guy is a former nuclear power engineer who took early retirement and now drives trucks rather than sitting at home vegetating. He agreed entirely that the low speed limits cause far more accidents than they prevent. He has found that if he sticks to the 40 mph limit on a single carriageway NSL as he is supposed to, he has to spend more time looking in his mirrors than watching where he is going. He has found that at 40 mph, everyone will try and overtake irrespective of whether it is safe or not. From his higher vantage point and with a clear view of the road ahead, he is in a much better position to see any oncoming traffic than following vehicles. By keeping a watch on his mirrors he can see cars behind pulling out to look and is able to flick his RH indicator on to warn them it isn't safe. He admitted that many either don't see this or ignore it and he witnesses near suicidal overtakes on a daily basis.

However, he has found that if he ignores the speed limit and drives at 50 mph, most cars are quite happy to stay behind him. Does this not prove that the retired officer did indeed know what he was talking about and confirm his recommendations?

IIRC he wasn't saying limits should be raised, he was saying people should be driving at the limit where appropriate.

But the implication is that speed limits need to be high enough to make overtaking safe. If trucks are limited to 40MPH and the limit is 50MPH its not easy to get past safely without breaking the limit.

I drive LGV1's & PCVs.
The safe speed on any given road & circumstances to drive them at, will differ to a car in the same circumstances.
The premise of encouraging one type of vehicle to drive faster than may be suitable to apease drivers of another type of vehicle is not a good idea.
If trucks are limited to 40 while cars can do 60 that creates a decent differential for overtakes, provided people are prepared to show restraint & wait for a safe opportunity, where as if they drive at 55 idiots will still try to get past them at inappropriate times, only with a larger closing speed.

The safe driver will always show restraint & only go where safe.

Edited by vonhosen on Monday 26th June 19:20

Of all the totally out of touch and ridiculous nonsense imposed on us by the ill-educated and ill informed law makers in this country, the speed limits on commercial vehicles are by far the worst.
I spent some time in South Carolina last year driving a 480 horsepower V12 Kenworth logger, with 45 tons of freshly felled Canadian redwood on the trailer.
It CRUISED, that's right cruised, effortlessly at 85 MPH and would stop in almost exactly the same distance as a saloon car in an emergency situation.
Because of the vantage point offered by the height of the cab and the open aspect of the huge glass area, the driver is endowed with a much earlier response time to any oncoming emergency.
This was an eighteen wheeler, every wheel of course having vast amounts of air assisted braking power and transferring this power through the same number of 24 inch tires, sorry tyres!
The current speed limits on these kind of vehicles in this country are causing the most horrendous congestion, the protracted delay of goods deliveries and are undoubtedly responsible, directly or otherwise, for uncalculable numbers of accidents.
When the speed limits become so low as to be totally impractical then THESE LIMITS are the causes of frustration and subsequently accidents.
The blame for this lies squarely at the door of the government.

[cptsideways]

Bear in mind no-one has been taught to overtake! (bar the od 5%) so you would you prefer they were provoked to do so at 40 or happy not to at 60?

Edited by cptsideways on Tuesday 27th June 07:19

[8Pack]

vonhosen said:

s2art said:

vonhosen said:

gilbertd said:

Last week there was a (very lengthy) thread that followed a former Lincs Trafpol stating that accidents would be reduced if speed limits were raised. I mentioned this over the weekend to a Lincolnshire based truck driver. This guy is a former nuclear power engineer who took early retirement and now drives trucks rather than sitting at home vegetating. He agreed entirely that the low speed limits cause far more accidents than they prevent. He has found that if he sticks to the 40 mph limit on a single carriageway NSL as he is supposed to, he has to spend more time looking in his mirrors than watching where he is going. He has found that at 40 mph, everyone will try and overtake irrespective of whether it is safe or not. From his higher vantage point and with a clear view of the road ahead, he is in a much better position to see any oncoming traffic than following vehicles. By keeping a watch on his mirrors he can see cars behind pulling out to look and is able to flick his RH indicator on to warn them it isn't safe. He admitted that many either don't see this or ignore it and he witnesses near suicidal overtakes on a daily basis.

However, he has found that if he ignores the speed limit and drives at 50 mph, most cars are quite happy to stay behind him. Does this not prove that the retired officer did indeed know what he was talking about and confirm his recommendations?

IIRC he wasn't saying limits should be raised, he was saying people should be driving at the limit where appropriate.

But the implication is that speed limits need to be high enough to make overtaking safe. If trucks are limited to 40MPH and the limit is 50MPH its not easy to get past safely without breaking the limit.

I drive LGV1's & PCVs.
The safe speed on any given road & circumstances to drive them at, will differ to a car in the same circumstances.
The premise of encouraging one type of vehicle to drive faster than may be suitable to apease drivers of another type of vehicle is not a good idea.
If trucks are limited to 40 while cars can do 60 that creates a decent differential for overtakes, provided people are prepared to show restraint & wait for a safe opportunity, where as if they drive at 55 idiots will still try to get past them at inappropriate times, only with a larger closing speed.

The safe driver will always show restraint & only go where safe.

At which point:.....There will be a camera..

[splatspeed]

the proliferation of double white lines and cross hatching is banning overtaking by the back door

this is how they get around the problem

i am running a sweep stake on when they ban overtaking

it is considered anti social at the moment

they will do some adverts

and they will use this reasoning

1 hes overtaking so he is in a hurry

2 he hasn't got the money to slow down

3 he hasn't taxed his vehicle

4 he can't be insured then

5 he wont have moted his car then which means it a death trap

6 he is a hardened criminal habitually flouting the law

7 hes going to chop up your grandmother in her sleep for kicks this adreleline junky

all because i over took some numpty that sees driving as a chore not a skill

overtaking will be the next target