Speed limit - anti-car politics not road safety
Discussion
ABD PR:
Lincolnshire County Council is planning to reduce the speed limit on the A52 between Boston and Skegness.
One of the reasons given by the council for doing this is:
"The A52 is currently used as a major route for coastal access and the volumes and speed of traffic along this stretch can therefore be high. It is proposed to discourage traffic from the A52 over this length as part of the A158/C541 coastal access improvement. This will lead to traffic continuing north of Boston on the A16, rather than using the A52."
The A52 is used as a major route for coastal access for one simple reason: it is a major route for coastal access. It is the main road between Boston and Skegness.
ABD Spokesman Nigel Humphries said: "It is barking mad to suggest that a speed limit on a major road should be reduced to 'discourage traffic' simply because lots of people use the road, such an opinion is symptomatic of the insane manner in which roads are viewed by councils these days."
The distance between Boston and Skegness is 23 miles via the A52, the alternative route which the council is trying to force people onto, the A16 and A158, is 30 miles.
Retired police officer Keith Peat, now ABD Local Co-ordinator for Lincolnshire said:
"Here is the evidence that speed limits are used on major roads not for safety but for political and strategic reasons and for favouritism of certain hamlets. This by definition will force more traffic onto the A16 between Boston and Partney, what of the villages there? The question now is, how many of our speed limits, and thus convictions, have been no more than political use of speed limits?"
ABD Chairman Brian Gregory said: "All over the country we are seeing speed limits reduced to inappropriate levels for political reasons. Councillors respond to a handful of ill-informed residents, whilst the opinions of the hundreds or thousands of drivers who use the road every day are treated with contempt. It is time speed limit setting was taken away from councils, and put into the hands of a national body representing ALL road users."
ENDS
Notes For Editors:
Map: http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=545000&...
Lincolnshire County Council is planning to reduce the speed limit on the A52 between Boston and Skegness.
One of the reasons given by the council for doing this is:
"The A52 is currently used as a major route for coastal access and the volumes and speed of traffic along this stretch can therefore be high. It is proposed to discourage traffic from the A52 over this length as part of the A158/C541 coastal access improvement. This will lead to traffic continuing north of Boston on the A16, rather than using the A52."
The A52 is used as a major route for coastal access for one simple reason: it is a major route for coastal access. It is the main road between Boston and Skegness.
ABD Spokesman Nigel Humphries said: "It is barking mad to suggest that a speed limit on a major road should be reduced to 'discourage traffic' simply because lots of people use the road, such an opinion is symptomatic of the insane manner in which roads are viewed by councils these days."
The distance between Boston and Skegness is 23 miles via the A52, the alternative route which the council is trying to force people onto, the A16 and A158, is 30 miles.
Retired police officer Keith Peat, now ABD Local Co-ordinator for Lincolnshire said:
"Here is the evidence that speed limits are used on major roads not for safety but for political and strategic reasons and for favouritism of certain hamlets. This by definition will force more traffic onto the A16 between Boston and Partney, what of the villages there? The question now is, how many of our speed limits, and thus convictions, have been no more than political use of speed limits?"
ABD Chairman Brian Gregory said: "All over the country we are seeing speed limits reduced to inappropriate levels for political reasons. Councillors respond to a handful of ill-informed residents, whilst the opinions of the hundreds or thousands of drivers who use the road every day are treated with contempt. It is time speed limit setting was taken away from councils, and put into the hands of a national body representing ALL road users."
ENDS
Notes For Editors:
Map: http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=545000&...
ocks, but some consistency wouldn't hurt...turbobloke said:
ABD Chairman Brian Gregory said: "All over the country we are seeing speed limits reduced to inappropriate levels for political reasons. Councillors respond to a handful of ill-informed residents, whilst the opinions of the hundreds or thousands of drivers who use the road every day are treated with contempt. It is time speed limit setting was taken away from councils, and put into the hands of a national body representing ALL road users."
Definitely! Thank goodness there are a few non-PHers out there thinking like this. All our local roads were recently reduced in speed - the 30 limits have been extended beyond their original boundaries, and all the NSL roads have been reduced to 40. And why? Because a handful of pensioners decided they didn't like people who travelled faster than them along these roads: "well, 40 is plenty, isn't it?".
The national body is a good idea. That way, no-one who sets the speed limits will stand to benefit from enforcement of the speeds.
Making the speed limit on there 40 would make little difference anyway, with so many large slow moving vehicles.
I often drive Nottingham to Skeg-vegas (80 miles) and it is so frustrating to see how slowly people drive on parts of the road. Yes, there are hazards on many stretches, but people seem totally incapable of making repeated judgements on safety, preferring to pootle along at ridiculously low speeds (30-40mph on NSL SC) - which results in people making "silly" overtakes.
One thing that makes that route a real pain though is having to drive through Grantham and Boston.
What do the council think will happen on the A16 / A158 if they divert traffic from the A52?
I often drive Nottingham to Skeg-vegas (80 miles) and it is so frustrating to see how slowly people drive on parts of the road. Yes, there are hazards on many stretches, but people seem totally incapable of making repeated judgements on safety, preferring to pootle along at ridiculously low speeds (30-40mph on NSL SC) - which results in people making "silly" overtakes.
One thing that makes that route a real pain though is having to drive through Grantham and Boston.
What do the council think will happen on the A16 / A158 if they divert traffic from the A52?
Bing o said:
vonhosen said:
Nothing new though is it to try & influence the roads vehicles take ?
That's what speed humps do.
I thought that they were there for the ickle children?That's what speed humps do.
vonhosen said:
Well sometimes they offer a different route by providing a new faster road such as a by-pass, other times they try & encourage you to take a slightly longer more suitable road (rather than taking the cut through) with speed humps etc.
Agreed, I was being a little sarcastic.Anyway, with the standards of driving in this country, we already have mobile speed humps/chicanes that travel in NSL's at 42.7 mph.
Given that the motorist is single-handedly destroying the planet (well, with the help of the aviation industry) then I don't understand why they are trying to force people to take a longer route?
Bing o said:
Given that the motorist is single-handedly destroying the planet (well, with the help of the aviation industry) then I don't understand why they are trying to force people to take a longer route?
Because they think that having to do the longer route will make you just give up and go on the bus instead?Oh. I meant that as a joke. But I wouldn't be at all surprised if that's exactly their kind of thinking.
Edited by SGirl on Thursday 23 August 10:02
turbobloke said:
I would avoid the A52 and the A158, personally. A607/A153/A155/A16/B1195 is the best way to Skeg from Grantham and a few 'C' roads to avoid the end of the '52.Few 40mph numpties are endowed with map reading skills.
alphadog said:
turbobloke said:
I would avoid the A52 and the A158, personally. A607/A153/A155/A16/B1195 is the best way to Skeg from Grantham and a few 'C' roads to avoid the end of the '52.Few 40mph numpties are endowed with map reading skills.
.Peter Ward said:
alphadog said:
turbobloke said:
I would avoid the A52 and the A158, personally. A607/A153/A155/A16/B1195 is the best way to Skeg from Grantham and a few 'C' roads to avoid the end of the '52.Few 40mph numpties are endowed with map reading skills.
.
Don't Peter - I die a little everytime I drive that road...if only my family hadn't decided to move there.
It's a bit like where I used to live in Leeds. Two parallel roads about 1/4 mile apart one is the main road the other slightly smaller road bit has a school on it. The council decides that speeds on the main road are too high and consequently adds traffic calming measures (those ones with three humps in the road next to each other). The result? Much more traffic on the other road – right past the school.How this improves road safety I have no idea.
Edited by djohnson on Thursday 23 August 15:26
SGirl said:
Bing o said:
Given that the motorist is single-handedly destroying the planet (well, with the help of the aviation industry) then I don't understand why they are trying to force people to take a longer route?
Because they think that having to do the longer route will make you just give up and go on the bus instead?Oh. I meant that as a joke. But I wouldn't be at all surprised if that's exactly their kind of thinking.
Edited by SGirl on Thursday 23 August 10:02
According to what I heard recently, Scarborough Borough Council has acquired about a dozen sets of traffic lights to add to those they're already misusing. So far as I know they haven't yet decided where to deploy them to cause maximum delay and frustration to drivers, but I expect they're working on it.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
vonhosen said:
Nothing new though is it to try & influence the roads vehicles take ?
That's what speed humps do.
I think you are comparing apples and oranges. Speed humps are placed in residential areas (for example) because they are not the main artery, and they are trying to discourage people cutting through. An A-road on the other hand IS the main artery, so why on earth would you try to discourage it's use??That's what speed humps do.
mko9 said:
vonhosen said:
Nothing new though is it to try & influence the roads vehicles take ?
That's what speed humps do.
I think you are comparing apples and oranges. Speed humps are placed in residential areas (for example) because they are not the main artery, and they are trying to discourage people cutting through. An A-road on the other hand IS the main artery, so why on earth would you try to discourage it's use??That's what speed humps do.
Edited by alphadog on Thursday 23 August 17:31
djohnson said:
It's a bit like where I used to live in Leeds. Two parallel roads about 1/4 mile apart one is the main road the other slightly smaller road bit has a school on it. The council decides that speeds on the main road are too high and consequently adds traffic calming measures (those ones with three humps in the road next to each other). The result? Much more traffic on the other road – right past the school.How this improves road safety I have no idea.
The amount of retarded road design in the last couple of years in Leeds is unbelievable.Edited by djohnson on Thursday 23 August 15:26
.Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff