Changing a speed limit
Discussion
A stretch of the road near my house has been changed from a NSL (60) to a 40. I don't think there is any justification for this change and unless any justification can be shown I would like it to be changed back to a NSL.
Looking on my council's website I have found a consultation on the limit that ended last October. Despite living the 100 yards away from the road in question, I was not made aware of the consultation. The limit was proposed by a local councillor.
The council's website says of the consultation that: "The feeling was one of support for the proposals."
The consultation mentions that the road is near to a National Trust site and a pub and is "frequented by pedestrian traffic, equestrian traffic and farming vehicles". However, no specific justification is given in the consultation as to why the limit is needed.
Realistically, I think I have very little chance of getting it changed back, but I want to investigate further and, unless justification can be shown, make my objection known.
I would appreciate any advice, especially from anyone who's had similar experience. What angle should I attack this from? Are there guidelines that should be used when setting a limit?
Interestingly, elsewhere on the council's website this can be found:
Low speed limits are not effective when applied to stretches of open road in rural locations.
Applying a speed limit to an inappropriate area can result in flagrant disregard by drivers. This can have the knock-on effect of increasing accidents and speeding up some drivers. More significantly it devalues the effectiveness of limits in general, which would ultimately be counter-productive.
Looking on my council's website I have found a consultation on the limit that ended last October. Despite living the 100 yards away from the road in question, I was not made aware of the consultation. The limit was proposed by a local councillor.
The council's website says of the consultation that: "The feeling was one of support for the proposals."
The consultation mentions that the road is near to a National Trust site and a pub and is "frequented by pedestrian traffic, equestrian traffic and farming vehicles". However, no specific justification is given in the consultation as to why the limit is needed.
Realistically, I think I have very little chance of getting it changed back, but I want to investigate further and, unless justification can be shown, make my objection known.
I would appreciate any advice, especially from anyone who's had similar experience. What angle should I attack this from? Are there guidelines that should be used when setting a limit?
Interestingly, elsewhere on the council's website this can be found:
said:
Low speed limits are not effective when applied to stretches of open road in rural locations.
Applying a speed limit to an inappropriate area can result in flagrant disregard by drivers. This can have the knock-on effect of increasing accidents and speeding up some drivers. More significantly it devalues the effectiveness of limits in general, which would ultimately be counter-productive.
Does a councillor have a house in the vicinity? (In which case forget fighting it.)
On the other hand the only other justification is going to be a series of accidents, a Police suggestion,... or some planning application for a housing estate in the imminent future. That you are almost certainly not aware of because the council members who run the development company have not actually filed the application yet but the speed limit being in force will make the road ideally "residential".
On the other hand the only other justification is going to be a series of accidents, a Police suggestion,... or some planning application for a housing estate in the imminent future. That you are almost certainly not aware of because the council members who run the development company have not actually filed the application yet but the speed limit being in force will make the road ideally "residential".
Setting the normal cynicism apart, the justification for a speed limit is less strict than it used to be. At one time there were loads of criteria such as the character of the road (Is it built-up on both sides, ie did it look like it should be a 30?) are there pedestrians, is there a school etc, what is rthe accident record like, what speed does traffic do already... and you took a balanced view. Speed limits required government authorisation against those criteria, to ensure consistency.
Now, individual councils decide their own speed limits (apart from trunk roads and a few other special cases) and the criteria are not so strict, so there is more scope for "political" campaigning. Of course as soon as you allow one, you open the flood gates for everybody to want one.
Low speed limits are not effective when applied to stretches of open road in rural locations.
Applying a speed limit to an inappropriate area can result in flagrant disregard by drivers. This can have the knock-on effect of increasing accidents and speeding up some drivers. More significantly it devalues the effectiveness of limits in general, which would ultimately be counter-productive.
That is the very reason why these criteria used to be stricter!
The Council cannot, however, just slap a limit on to a road, they have to follow a procedure set out by the Secretary of State in accordance with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. That procedure has 3 steps:
1. Consultation. This does not require "public consultation" although the council can add that if they choose. What they MUST do is consult the police, and other bodies (not individuals) such as the Freight Transport Association, local bus operators, and a range of others. There is no requirement for public meetings or writing to residents.
2. Advertisement. They must advertise their intention to make the order by notices on the length of road to be affected, and in at least one local newspaper circulating in the area. The adverts must give an address to which objections can be sent, and where papers can be inspected. Those papers must include a plan and a Statement of Reasons for making the order. This is the only stage at which residents may formally object. Again, there is no requirement for public meetings or writing to residents - you have to respond to the notices.
3. Making the order. The council must take account of any objections before making the order, amending it or abandoning it. If they make the order then they must, within 14 days, advertise that they have done so, again by notice on the affected street and in a local newspaper. It's too late for objections by this time.
If you are sure that the council have not followed this procedure, the only recourse is by judicial review through the courts. You have 6 weeks from the date of (3) above to do so. That review can only consider whether or not the council followed the right procedure, not whether or not their final decision was right.
So the first step would be to ask for the dates of these 3 steps above, and for sight of the papers including the Statement of Reasons. You may have to use Freedom of Information Act to get it if they are not immediately helpful, in which case they can use up 4 of the 6 weeks in responding to you, so you need to start asap.
Now, individual councils decide their own speed limits (apart from trunk roads and a few other special cases) and the criteria are not so strict, so there is more scope for "political" campaigning. Of course as soon as you allow one, you open the flood gates for everybody to want one.
council website said:
Low speed limits are not effective when applied to stretches of open road in rural locations.
Applying a speed limit to an inappropriate area can result in flagrant disregard by drivers. This can have the knock-on effect of increasing accidents and speeding up some drivers. More significantly it devalues the effectiveness of limits in general, which would ultimately be counter-productive.
That is the very reason why these criteria used to be stricter!
The Council cannot, however, just slap a limit on to a road, they have to follow a procedure set out by the Secretary of State in accordance with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. That procedure has 3 steps:
1. Consultation. This does not require "public consultation" although the council can add that if they choose. What they MUST do is consult the police, and other bodies (not individuals) such as the Freight Transport Association, local bus operators, and a range of others. There is no requirement for public meetings or writing to residents.
2. Advertisement. They must advertise their intention to make the order by notices on the length of road to be affected, and in at least one local newspaper circulating in the area. The adverts must give an address to which objections can be sent, and where papers can be inspected. Those papers must include a plan and a Statement of Reasons for making the order. This is the only stage at which residents may formally object. Again, there is no requirement for public meetings or writing to residents - you have to respond to the notices.
3. Making the order. The council must take account of any objections before making the order, amending it or abandoning it. If they make the order then they must, within 14 days, advertise that they have done so, again by notice on the affected street and in a local newspaper. It's too late for objections by this time.
If you are sure that the council have not followed this procedure, the only recourse is by judicial review through the courts. You have 6 weeks from the date of (3) above to do so. That review can only consider whether or not the council followed the right procedure, not whether or not their final decision was right.
So the first step would be to ask for the dates of these 3 steps above, and for sight of the papers including the Statement of Reasons. You may have to use Freedom of Information Act to get it if they are not immediately helpful, in which case they can use up 4 of the 6 weeks in responding to you, so you need to start asap.
Good post that tvrgit.
You highlight a need to read the Public Notice Section of your local newspapers where these orders are highlighted.....
For inf: www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/archive/2005/cirssl/?version=1
and
www.tinyurl.com/ktbw
dvd
You highlight a need to read the Public Notice Section of your local newspapers where these orders are highlighted.....
For inf: www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/archive/2005/cirssl/?version=1
and
www.tinyurl.com/ktbw
dvd
it is possible to change it back, but it takes some doing.
a couple of years ago the put up some traffic lights at a bad junction about a mile and a half out of town,and and stuck a 40 limit either side of the lights. on the town side, the 40 limit applied to the whole mile and a half of road going back to town. this is an A road, and a main trunk route for the area (A 1065 near Brandon/Lakenheath air base.), and is dead straight with one house, and lots of forrestry.
no one could understand or justify why this bit of road had a 40 imposed on it, and after quite a bit of fighting from local town councillors, is going back up to a 60 limit next week.
a couple of years ago the put up some traffic lights at a bad junction about a mile and a half out of town,and and stuck a 40 limit either side of the lights. on the town side, the 40 limit applied to the whole mile and a half of road going back to town. this is an A road, and a main trunk route for the area (A 1065 near Brandon/Lakenheath air base.), and is dead straight with one house, and lots of forrestry.
no one could understand or justify why this bit of road had a 40 imposed on it, and after quite a bit of fighting from local town councillors, is going back up to a 60 limit next week.
I expect the first course of action is to go see you own local councillor and illicit their views. If they agree, they will be pleased to have public support and are best placed to seek some change. If they don’t agree they may at least be able to better explain the reasons behind the limit change.
combemarshal said:
They are trying to do this on a road near me too, But I don't know if I would ever fight for a speed limit to be raised up, I'd feel too guilty if someone got killed on it after the limit had been raised back up again!
Combe Marshal : How do you make the connection between someone getting killed and a speed limit is inappropriately low being raised to a realsitic level. You have implied that you understand that on a road near you they are trying to lower the limit to a inappropriately low level.
How would you feel if someone got killed carrying out an overtake of slower traffic, legally, at that low speed limit. The low speed differential increasing time exposed to danger and contributing to the causes of the fatac ?
Not quite true, it is now a 50, was a NSL, they want it to be 40, Time exposed to danger is a load of rubbish really, if the car passing is at 40, and the car coming towards you is at 40 then you have longer anyway (closing speed of 80) if they were both at 60 then the closing speed would be 120!
I'm not saying speed kills, it doesn't but it increases the risk of an accident if something else goes wrong!
I'm not saying speed kills, it doesn't but it increases the risk of an accident if something else goes wrong!
combemarshal said:
Not quite true, it is now a 50, was a NSL, they want it to be 40, Time exposed to danger is a load of rubbish really, if the car passing is at 40, and the car coming towards you is at 40 then you have longer anyway (closing speed of 80) if they were both at 60 then the closing speed would be 120!
I'm not saying speed kills, it doesn't but it increases the risk of an accident if something else goes wrong!
I'm not saying speed kills, it doesn't but it increases the risk of an accident if something else goes wrong!
You say " Time exposed to danger is a load of rubbish really". Others inclusing myself don't actually agree. Your unsubstantiated dismissal is without logic. However the impact speed resulting from closing speed is indicative of the obsession with speed only. Its irrelevant unless two completely incompettent drivers incabale of taking evasive action have a head-on. They will be dead at 80 or 120 closing speeds.
No, those who overtake slow moving traffic in one of these irresponsibly reduced limits need to overtake with a reasonable differential perhaps 20-25 miloe/h at the end of the overtake to reduce TED. An overtake is completed in 5 sec or 450 feet. Reduce the limit and by trying to stay legal, the differential is reduced and the overtake lengthened. Pound to a penny the scamvan will be located on just such a straight bit to catch people out. During the much extended overtake many hazards such as
Overtaken vehicle yaws into path of overtaker for several reasons
Traffic enters from right turns without looking to their left
Pedestrian hazards
etc etc
combemarshal said:
Not quite true, it is now a 50, was a NSL, they want it to be 40, Time exposed to danger is a load of rubbish really, if the car passing is at 40, and the car coming towards you is at 40 then you have longer anyway (closing speed of 80) if they were both at 60 then the closing speed would be 120!
I'm not saying speed kills, it doesn't but it increases the risk of an accident if something else goes wrong!
I'm not saying speed kills, it doesn't but it increases the risk of an accident if something else goes wrong!
But let's have the NSL where it's appropriate, eh? Derbyshire want to put a blanket 50 limit on this!
Richard C said:
combemarshal said:
Not quite true, it is now a 50, was a NSL, they want it to be 40, Time exposed to danger is a load of rubbish really, if the car passing is at 40, and the car coming towards you is at 40 then you have longer anyway (closing speed of 80) if they were both at 60 then the closing speed would be 120!
I'm not saying speed kills, it doesn't but it increases the risk of an accident if something else goes wrong!
I'm not saying speed kills, it doesn't but it increases the risk of an accident if something else goes wrong!
You say " Time exposed to danger is a load of rubbish really". Others inclusing myself don't actually agree. Your unsubstantiated dismissal is without logic. However the impact speed resulting from closing speed is indicative of the obsession with speed only. Its irrelevant unless two completely incompettent drivers incabale of taking evasive action have a head-on. They will be dead at 80 or 120 closing speeds.
No, those who overtake slow moving traffic in one of these irresponsibly reduced limits need to overtake with a reasonable differential perhaps 20-25 miloe/h at the end of the overtake to reduce TED. An overtake is completed in 5 sec or 450 feet. Reduce the limit and by trying to stay legal, the differential is reduced and the overtake lengthened. Pound to a penny the scamvan will be located on just such a straight bit to catch people out. During the much extended overtake many hazards such as
Overtaken vehicle yaws into path of overtaker for several reasons
Traffic enters from right turns without looking to their left
Pedestrian hazards
etc etc
No decent legal differential available = don't bother overtaking.
vonhosen said:
Richard C said:
combemarshal said:
Not quite true, it is now a 50, was a NSL, they want it to be 40, Time exposed to danger is a load of rubbish really, if the car passing is at 40, and the car coming towards you is at 40 then you have longer anyway (closing speed of 80) if they were both at 60 then the closing speed would be 120!
I'm not saying speed kills, it doesn't but it increases the risk of an accident if something else goes wrong!
I'm not saying speed kills, it doesn't but it increases the risk of an accident if something else goes wrong!
You say " Time exposed to danger is a load of rubbish really". Others inclusing myself don't actually agree. Your unsubstantiated dismissal is without logic. However the impact speed resulting from closing speed is indicative of the obsession with speed only. Its irrelevant unless two completely incompettent drivers incabale of taking evasive action have a head-on. They will be dead at 80 or 120 closing speeds.
No, those who overtake slow moving traffic in one of these irresponsibly reduced limits need to overtake with a reasonable differential perhaps 20-25 miloe/h at the end of the overtake to reduce TED. An overtake is completed in 5 sec or 450 feet. Reduce the limit and by trying to stay legal, the differential is reduced and the overtake lengthened. Pound to a penny the scamvan will be located on just such a straight bit to catch people out. During the much extended overtake many hazards such as
Overtaken vehicle yaws into path of overtaker for several reasons
Traffic enters from right turns without looking to their left
Pedestrian hazards
etc etc
No decent legal differential available = don't bother overtaking.
No decent legal differential available = Nail it
BliarOut said:
vonhosen said:
Richard C said:
combemarshal said:
Not quite true, it is now a 50, was a NSL, they want it to be 40, Time exposed to danger is a load of rubbish really, if the car passing is at 40, and the car coming towards you is at 40 then you have longer anyway (closing speed of 80) if they were both at 60 then the closing speed would be 120!
I'm not saying speed kills, it doesn't but it increases the risk of an accident if something else goes wrong!
I'm not saying speed kills, it doesn't but it increases the risk of an accident if something else goes wrong!
You say " Time exposed to danger is a load of rubbish really". Others inclusing myself don't actually agree. Your unsubstantiated dismissal is without logic. However the impact speed resulting from closing speed is indicative of the obsession with speed only. Its irrelevant unless two completely incompettent drivers incabale of taking evasive action have a head-on. They will be dead at 80 or 120 closing speeds.
No, those who overtake slow moving traffic in one of these irresponsibly reduced limits need to overtake with a reasonable differential perhaps 20-25 miloe/h at the end of the overtake to reduce TED. An overtake is completed in 5 sec or 450 feet. Reduce the limit and by trying to stay legal, the differential is reduced and the overtake lengthened. Pound to a penny the scamvan will be located on just such a straight bit to catch people out. During the much extended overtake many hazards such as
Overtaken vehicle yaws into path of overtaker for several reasons
Traffic enters from right turns without looking to their left
Pedestrian hazards
etc etc
No decent legal differential available = don't bother overtaking.
No decent legal differential available = Nail it
That's another option.
Yours however can attract fine & points whilst mine doesn't, as such I'll be sticking to mine.
vonhosen said:
BliarOut said:
vonhosen said:
Richard C said:
combemarshal said:
Not quite true, it is now a 50, was a NSL, they want it to be 40, Time exposed to danger is a load of rubbish really, if the car passing is at 40, and the car coming towards you is at 40 then you have longer anyway (closing speed of 80) if they were both at 60 then the closing speed would be 120!
I'm not saying speed kills, it doesn't but it increases the risk of an accident if something else goes wrong!
I'm not saying speed kills, it doesn't but it increases the risk of an accident if something else goes wrong!
You say " Time exposed to danger is a load of rubbish really". Others inclusing myself don't actually agree. Your unsubstantiated dismissal is without logic. However the impact speed resulting from closing speed is indicative of the obsession with speed only. Its irrelevant unless two completely incompettent drivers incabale of taking evasive action have a head-on. They will be dead at 80 or 120 closing speeds.
No, those who overtake slow moving traffic in one of these irresponsibly reduced limits need to overtake with a reasonable differential perhaps 20-25 miloe/h at the end of the overtake to reduce TED. An overtake is completed in 5 sec or 450 feet. Reduce the limit and by trying to stay legal, the differential is reduced and the overtake lengthened. Pound to a penny the scamvan will be located on just such a straight bit to catch people out. During the much extended overtake many hazards such as
Overtaken vehicle yaws into path of overtaker for several reasons
Traffic enters from right turns without looking to their left
Pedestrian hazards
etc etc
No decent legal differential available = don't bother overtaking.
No decent legal differential available = Nail it
That's another option.
Yours however can attract fine & points whilst mine doesn't, as such I'll be sticking to mine.
Only if there's
about.... More likely to step in rocking horse poo than actually meet a round these parts 
vonhosen said:
...
No decent legal differential available = don't bother overtaking.
No decent legal differential available = don't bother overtaking.
And then you end up in a 35-40mph close moving queue with little chance of overtaking. You should really try the A49 from Shrewsbury - Hereford some time. Unless like me you indulge in a little creative map reading and avoid roads like this altogether
Edited by alphadog on Sunday 11th February 17:04
BliarOut said:
vonhosen said:
BliarOut said:
vonhosen said:
Richard C said:
combemarshal said:
Not quite true, it is now a 50, was a NSL, they want it to be 40, Time exposed to danger is a load of rubbish really, if the car passing is at 40, and the car coming towards you is at 40 then you have longer anyway (closing speed of 80) if they were both at 60 then the closing speed would be 120!
I'm not saying speed kills, it doesn't but it increases the risk of an accident if something else goes wrong!
I'm not saying speed kills, it doesn't but it increases the risk of an accident if something else goes wrong!
You say " Time exposed to danger is a load of rubbish really". Others inclusing myself don't actually agree. Your unsubstantiated dismissal is without logic. However the impact speed resulting from closing speed is indicative of the obsession with speed only. Its irrelevant unless two completely incompettent drivers incabale of taking evasive action have a head-on. They will be dead at 80 or 120 closing speeds.
No, those who overtake slow moving traffic in one of these irresponsibly reduced limits need to overtake with a reasonable differential perhaps 20-25 miloe/h at the end of the overtake to reduce TED. An overtake is completed in 5 sec or 450 feet. Reduce the limit and by trying to stay legal, the differential is reduced and the overtake lengthened. Pound to a penny the scamvan will be located on just such a straight bit to catch people out. During the much extended overtake many hazards such as
Overtaken vehicle yaws into path of overtaker for several reasons
Traffic enters from right turns without looking to their left
Pedestrian hazards
etc etc
No decent legal differential available = don't bother overtaking.
No decent legal differential available = Nail it
That's another option.
Yours however can attract fine & points whilst mine doesn't, as such I'll be sticking to mine.
Only if there's
about.... More likely to step in rocking horse poo than actually meet a round these parts Of course you can roll the dice, but very few gamblers will never lose.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff