56mph in a 30mph zone...
Discussion
M666 EVO said:
Few years ago, ... along a stretch of road with a 40 limit, with nothing either side (as in no schools, shops, buildings, people, animals etc - just grass verge) and no traffic whatsoever. I accelerated and at the end was a cop with a speed gun.
One thing I've noticed about the location of mobile speed traps; they're most likely to be found in a location where the speed limit is unrealistically low for the particular stretch of road. Which means, it's most likely safer to go faster than the limit and therefore more certain to be an easy revenue raiser. It's also an activity least likely to catch the more dangerous driver.Guybrush said:
M666 EVO said:
Few years ago, ... along a stretch of road with a 40 limit, with nothing either side (as in no schools, shops, buildings, people, animals etc - just grass verge) and no traffic whatsoever. I accelerated and at the end was a cop with a speed gun.
One thing I've noticed about the location of mobile speed traps; they're most likely to be found in a location where the speed limit is unrealistically low for the particular stretch of road. Which means, it's most likely safer to go faster than the limit and therefore more certain to be an easy revenue raiser. It's also an activity least likely to catch the more dangerous driver.If, when the 40mph section was introduced, it had continued a fraction further through the village I could easily accept that someone had applied the new 40 limit for genuine safety reasons. Whilst I may not have all the information available to the person or organisation who made the change I cannot see any justification for the current arrangement. Beggars belief tbh.
Crackie said:
Guybrush said:
M666 EVO said:
Few years ago, ... along a stretch of road with a 40 limit, with nothing either side (as in no schools, shops, buildings, people, animals etc - just grass verge) and no traffic whatsoever. I accelerated and at the end was a cop with a speed gun.
One thing I've noticed about the location of mobile speed traps; they're most likely to be found in a location where the speed limit is unrealistically low for the particular stretch of road. Which means, it's most likely safer to go faster than the limit and therefore more certain to be an easy revenue raiser. It's also an activity least likely to catch the more dangerous driver.If, when the 40mph section was introduced, it had continued a fraction further through the village I could easily accept that someone had applied the new 40 limit for genuine safety reasons. Whilst I may not have all the information available to the person or organisation who made the change I cannot see any justification for the current arrangement. Beggars belief tbh.
So the argument is safety is promoted by general enforcement even when there's no direct safety issue at a particular location; the fact those relatively safe locations generate lots of convictions (and revenue) to help the fund the model is, I'm sure, just a coincidence.....
JNW1 said:
As more than one contributor has said in the past, the "logic" appears to be that safety is promoted by enforcing limits everywhere and not just in places where there's an obvious risk. If you buy that line then placing cameras where they are most likely to catch lots of offenders makes sense and taking that a stage further the locations with the highest conviction rates will almost certainly be those with artificially low limits (because more drivers will be tempted to speed in those places).
So the argument is safety is promoted by general enforcement even when there's no direct safety issue at a particular location; the fact those relatively safe locations generate lots of convictions (and revenue) to help the fund the model is, I'm sure, just a coincidence.....
While that may be the case, for some people, if they've just had a close shave in a stupid limit, they might be rather resentful of the law and suffer spontaneous lead foot syndrome So the argument is safety is promoted by general enforcement even when there's no direct safety issue at a particular location; the fact those relatively safe locations generate lots of convictions (and revenue) to help the fund the model is, I'm sure, just a coincidence.....
Crackie said:
I'm not cynical by nature but have to agree with the above. A perfect example is the A6108 as is leaves Ripon in North Yorkshire. 30mph along the residential section as it leaves the city, fair enough, then 40mph for the next half a mile for no apparent reason and then becomes 60mph NSL 200-300 yards before the village of North Lees which is situated on a sweeping blind curve, on a hill, will multiple residences exiting onto the main road. I never seen a camera anywhere near the very hazardous NSL village but the end of the straight on the, imho unnecessary, 40mph section is a favourite haunt.
If, when the 40mph section was introduced, it had continued a fraction further through the village I could easily accept that someone had applied the new 40 limit for genuine safety reasons. Whilst I may not have all the information available to the person or organisation who made the change I cannot see any justification for the current arrangement. Beggars belief tbh.
Just been along that stretch in street view. I know of comparable stretches in my area that are 60 - one that goes past a private school. Perhaps they're really concerned about the old codgers at the golf club? As opposed to some children in North Lees? If, when the 40mph section was introduced, it had continued a fraction further through the village I could easily accept that someone had applied the new 40 limit for genuine safety reasons. Whilst I may not have all the information available to the person or organisation who made the change I cannot see any justification for the current arrangement. Beggars belief tbh.
Solocle said:
JNW1 said:
As more than one contributor has said in the past, the "logic" appears to be that safety is promoted by enforcing limits everywhere and not just in places where there's an obvious risk. If you buy that line then placing cameras where they are most likely to catch lots of offenders makes sense and taking that a stage further the locations with the highest conviction rates will almost certainly be those with artificially low limits (because more drivers will be tempted to speed in those places).
So the argument is safety is promoted by general enforcement even when there's no direct safety issue at a particular location; the fact those relatively safe locations generate lots of convictions (and revenue) to help the fund the model is, I'm sure, just a coincidence.....
While that may be the case, for some people, if they've just had a close shave in a stupid limit, they might be rather resentful of the law and suffer spontaneous lead foot syndrome So the argument is safety is promoted by general enforcement even when there's no direct safety issue at a particular location; the fact those relatively safe locations generate lots of convictions (and revenue) to help the fund the model is, I'm sure, just a coincidence.....
Solocle said:
Crackie said:
I'm not cynical by nature but have to agree with the above. A perfect example is the A6108 as is leaves Ripon in North Yorkshire. 30mph along the residential section as it leaves the city, fair enough, then 40mph for the next half a mile for no apparent reason and then becomes 60mph NSL 200-300 yards before the village of North Lees which is situated on a sweeping blind curve, on a hill, will multiple residences exiting onto the main road. I never seen a camera anywhere near the very hazardous NSL village but the end of the straight on the, imho unnecessary, 40mph section is a favourite haunt.
If, when the 40mph section was introduced, it had continued a fraction further through the village I could easily accept that someone had applied the new 40 limit for genuine safety reasons. Whilst I may not have all the information available to the person or organisation who made the change I cannot see any justification for the current arrangement. Beggars belief tbh.
Just been along that stretch in street view. I know of comparable stretches in my area that are 60 - one that goes past a private school. Perhaps they're really concerned about the old codgers at the golf club? As opposed to some children in North Lees? If, when the 40mph section was introduced, it had continued a fraction further through the village I could easily accept that someone had applied the new 40 limit for genuine safety reasons. Whilst I may not have all the information available to the person or organisation who made the change I cannot see any justification for the current arrangement. Beggars belief tbh.
I was first a member of that golf club in my early teens and am certainly an old codger now. In my early teens the A6108 limit was NSL past the golf club reducing to 40 when you reached the private properties and then down 30 close to the clock tower junction near the police station. I can't recall any accident on that stretch of road during the past 40 years, let alone a KSI accident. "Those who know what's best for us must rise and save us from ourselves"
Crackie said:
I was first a member of that golf club in my early teens and am certainly an old codger now. In my early teens the A6108 limit was NSL past the golf club reducing to 40 when you reached the private properties and then down 30 close to the clock tower junction near the police station. I can't recall any accident on that stretch of road during the past 40 years, let alone a KSI accident. "Those who know what's best for us must rise and save us from ourselves"
Sa Calobra said:
Crackie said:
I was first a member of that golf club in my early teens and am certainly an old codger now. In my early teens the A6108 limit was NSL past the golf club reducing to 40 when you reached the private properties and then down 30 close to the clock tower junction near the police station. I can't recall any accident on that stretch of road during the past 40 years, let alone a KSI accident. "Those who know what's best for us must rise and save us from ourselves"
JNW1 said:
If you're local do you really think you need to be stood at the roadside 24/7 for 365 days a year to know whether the particular stretch in question is dangerous and/or an accident blackspot?
He's got the Law (read State) on his side. Which ultimately means your argument is knackered.Sa Calobra said:
Crackie said:
I was first a member of that golf club in my early teens and am certainly an old codger now. In my early teens the A6108 limit was NSL past the golf club reducing to 40 when you reached the private properties and then down 30 close to the clock tower junction near the police station. I can't recall any accident on that stretch of road during the past 40 years, let alone a KSI accident. "Those who know what's best for us must rise and save us from ourselves"
Edited by Crackie on Saturday 27th May 15:20
Sa Calobra said:
You know every aspect and nuance of a set radius of your address? Hat off if you do. I've lived in my area for 10years and work in said area. Every day something is new to me.
Crackie never claimed to know every nuance of every road within a set radius of his address (and nor did I) so that's all pure invention on your part! What he did claim was knowledge of that particular stretch of road which is not especially difficult as it's the main route out of Ripon to the Dales. Therefore, he has extensive experience of driving the relevant piece of road and, being local, would also be aware if it was a known accident blackspot (although it's technically a city Ripon is actually quite a small place and word would get around very quickly if a stretch of road was a problem).
For whatever reason you seem to have a problem with the concept but I can assure you it's perfectly possible to understand the risks associated with parts of your local road network without camping on the verge to observe for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year!
Sa Calobra said:
Do you feel if the limits were increased they'd be equally as safe?
Obviously the road would not be equally as safe at the higher limit. However if there were no accidents for several decades prior to the limit reduction there is no evidence to suggest there would be any increase in accidents if the original limits were re-instatedSa Calobra said:
So the limit(s) are working. Do you feel if the limits were increased they'd be equally as safe?
But the point is there was nothing wrong with the old limit so in terms of safety the new one was a solution to a problem that never existed. Of course all other things being equal slower is safer but where do you draw the line with that - bring back the man with the red flag perhaps?And going back to a point made in Crackie's earlier post, if safety was the real concern they wouldn't be sitting at that particular location with their camera vans - as any local knows, there are more dangerous bits of road in the Ripon area. However, reducing the limit where it isn't necessary - and then enforcing it with vigilance - is much more lucrative in terms of generating revenue (a stunt that's sadly been pulled in more than one place around here).
Edited by JNW1 on Saturday 27th May 15:37
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff