Quiet rural roads face 40mph limits
Discussion
Link to Article
Telegraph Article said:
New guidance unveiled yesterday by the Department for Transport will make it easier for local authorities to introduce the limit on the quietest roads.
The vast majority of rural roads are currently governed by a 60mph limit. But under this move motorists could face fines if they drive over 40mph.
The government announcement comes against a backdrop of the latest figures showing the first annual rise in road deaths and serious injuries in 17 years, with 1,901 people killed last year, a three per cent rise on 2010.
Rural roads present the highest risk to motorists and their passengers, accounting for 68 per cent of fatalities in 2010. Nearly half of these deaths took place on country roads with a 60 mph limit.
Successive Governments have wrestled with the problem of rural speed limits.
The vast majority of rural roads are currently governed by a 60mph limit. But under this move motorists could face fines if they drive over 40mph.
The government announcement comes against a backdrop of the latest figures showing the first annual rise in road deaths and serious injuries in 17 years, with 1,901 people killed last year, a three per cent rise on 2010.
Rural roads present the highest risk to motorists and their passengers, accounting for 68 per cent of fatalities in 2010. Nearly half of these deaths took place on country roads with a 60 mph limit.
Successive Governments have wrestled with the problem of rural speed limits.
We all know most accidents happen on rural roads, they are the most dangerous by far, mainly due to the fact you often can't see what's coming.
I don't quite see how putting them all at 40mph will help though because there's plenty of roads technically NSL which are literally impossible to do 60mph on anyway. If people are doing 60mph on the single track twisty bit at night on a blind bend then we have more pressing concerns than speed limits.
I don't quite see how putting them all at 40mph will help though because there's plenty of roads technically NSL which are literally impossible to do 60mph on anyway. If people are doing 60mph on the single track twisty bit at night on a blind bend then we have more pressing concerns than speed limits.
jamoor said:
What was the population increase/decrease in the same period?
That's not really relevant. It is folly to use that one statistic as a reason for any changes to legislation though. Road deaths went up last year (by about 40 I think) but 2010 was a record low after a decade of it coming down every single year and co-incided with traffic levels dropping 2% presumably due to the economic slowdown.Now in 2009 more than 2,000 people died on the roads and we weren't discussing 40mph rural limits then. 1,901 die last year and now it's an issue? If those 2% of motorists get back out there it stands to reason death rates will return to 2007-2009 levels, which were higher than last year.
I really hate this form of statistical analysis often employed by Councils, Governments, Campaign Groups etc
So everyone will just crash at 40mph instead of 60mph (which no one actually does these days because of the massive tw*t in the crappy old people carrier at the front of the enormous queue of 200cars all being held up by said tw*t.... ;-)
How many of the accidents are directly due to the speed of the cars involved, and how many due to the fact most people are now no longer paying any attention to the road?
If we REALLY want to cut the number of deaths on our roads (and actually i don't see why we do, afterall it IS an acceptable risk, as we all drive our cars every day without so much of a thought that we might crash and die) then we need to educate and train our drivers better, not just slow them down to un-enforcable, and ridiculous limits.
How many of the accidents are directly due to the speed of the cars involved, and how many due to the fact most people are now no longer paying any attention to the road?
If we REALLY want to cut the number of deaths on our roads (and actually i don't see why we do, afterall it IS an acceptable risk, as we all drive our cars every day without so much of a thought that we might crash and die) then we need to educate and train our drivers better, not just slow them down to un-enforcable, and ridiculous limits.
I live on a NSL road, some parts you can do 60+ with relative safety, but then you're suddenly at a stretch where 20 is pushing it. And I don't just mean not being able to see, you couldn't physically do much more, or you'd hit the hedge! A 40mph road becomes a target speed. Not a problem for those of use that live here, we won't change our driving habits, but for the unwary, they'd think they're safe at 40. Cuz da sign says so 
martin84 said:
If people are doing 60mph on the single track twisty bit at night on a blind bend then we have more pressing concerns than speed limits.
Night time is fine - you can see lights "around" the corner. I live in a rural area with a lot of these roads and it's using them in the daytime that causes most concern, usually with an Audi appearing around a bend at great speed.Blib said:
Link to Article
sounds good to me Telegraph Article said:
New guidance unveiled yesterday by the Department for Transport will make it easier for local authorities to introduce the limit on the quietest roads.
The vast majority of rural roads are currently governed by a 60mph limit. But under this move motorists could face fines if they drive over 40mph.
The government announcement comes against a backdrop of the latest figures showing the first annual rise in road deaths and serious injuries in 17 years, with 1,901 people killed last year, a three per cent rise on 2010.
Rural roads present the highest risk to motorists and their passengers, accounting for 68 per cent of fatalities in 2010. Nearly half of these deaths took place on country roads with a 60 mph limit.
Successive Governments have wrestled with the problem of rural speed limits.
The vast majority of rural roads are currently governed by a 60mph limit. But under this move motorists could face fines if they drive over 40mph.
The government announcement comes against a backdrop of the latest figures showing the first annual rise in road deaths and serious injuries in 17 years, with 1,901 people killed last year, a three per cent rise on 2010.
Rural roads present the highest risk to motorists and their passengers, accounting for 68 per cent of fatalities in 2010. Nearly half of these deaths took place on country roads with a 60 mph limit.
Successive Governments have wrestled with the problem of rural speed limits.
They've just done this to a road local to me, 60 mph down to 40mph and 30mph in places. It's as bad as it sounds, to go from a road that was once fun to drive down at 60 to sitting behind someone doing 30 feels like you're on a safari slowing down to look at the scenery, the lack of concentration this encourages is quite alarming.
If they wanted to make the road safer, basic maintenance of the road surface, cutting the hedges once in a while and improving site lines on junctions could all have done a much better job but I imagine putting 30/40mph signs every 250 yards is a lot cheaper.
With the lack of policing these days in the long run surely this will only encourage people to disregard speed limits. If a road that was once safely passable at 60 is now down to 30, maybe all 30mph could taken at much higher speeds, even passed schools. The amount of people who maintain their self imposed 40 mph limit regardless of weather/speed limits/location attests to that.
If they wanted to make the road safer, basic maintenance of the road surface, cutting the hedges once in a while and improving site lines on junctions could all have done a much better job but I imagine putting 30/40mph signs every 250 yards is a lot cheaper.
With the lack of policing these days in the long run surely this will only encourage people to disregard speed limits. If a road that was once safely passable at 60 is now down to 30, maybe all 30mph could taken at much higher speeds, even passed schools. The amount of people who maintain their self imposed 40 mph limit regardless of weather/speed limits/location attests to that.
Edited by GreaseNipple on Friday 13th July 22:56
I live on Halkyn Mountain where most roads are NSL. 40mph would be a good blast on most of them if it wasn't for the sheep!
Most PHers should have no issue with this as their superior hazard perception would have them doing much less than 40mph on these roads.
The legislation is aimed more at Mrs Rural Schoolrun who thinks 60mph is safe because it is legal (see oncoming traffic thread).
These roads aren't the EVO triangle, so chill.
Most PHers should have no issue with this as their superior hazard perception would have them doing much less than 40mph on these roads.
The legislation is aimed more at Mrs Rural Schoolrun who thinks 60mph is safe because it is legal (see oncoming traffic thread).
These roads aren't the EVO triangle, so chill.
To expand on my earlier point with clearer numbers;
In 2011 there were 1,901 road deaths as the article says and that was indeed a rise from the record low of 1,857 the previous year which co-incided with a 2% drop in vehicle traffic. In 2006 there were 3,172 road deaths, I didn't see campaigns for 40 limits on rural roads then. Just three years ago in 2009 there were 2,222 road deaths. The overall picture is still very much down.
Aside from 2011, road deaths have fallen every year since 1997 (which saw 3,600 road deaths) despite there being 7 million more cars registered in Britain since then. The only exception was 2003 which saw a jump of 300, but 2004 saw fewer road deaths than 2002 so I don't see what the big fuss is about. Towards the end of the 1990s the Government set out a target for reducing road deaths and we in fact exceeded those targets.
What I take from these figures is when the economy shrinks and less people drive - less people die on the roads. If in 2011 some of those 2% got back out onto the roads then surely it stands to reason deaths would rise? Isn't that sort of....normal?
Full figures for Road Deaths of the last decade:
2011: 1,901
2010: 1,857
2009: 2,222
2008: 2,538
2007: 2,946
2006: 3,172
2005: 3,201
2004: 3,221
2003: 3,508
2002: 3,431
2001: 3,450
In 2011 there were 1,901 road deaths as the article says and that was indeed a rise from the record low of 1,857 the previous year which co-incided with a 2% drop in vehicle traffic. In 2006 there were 3,172 road deaths, I didn't see campaigns for 40 limits on rural roads then. Just three years ago in 2009 there were 2,222 road deaths. The overall picture is still very much down.
Aside from 2011, road deaths have fallen every year since 1997 (which saw 3,600 road deaths) despite there being 7 million more cars registered in Britain since then. The only exception was 2003 which saw a jump of 300, but 2004 saw fewer road deaths than 2002 so I don't see what the big fuss is about. Towards the end of the 1990s the Government set out a target for reducing road deaths and we in fact exceeded those targets.
What I take from these figures is when the economy shrinks and less people drive - less people die on the roads. If in 2011 some of those 2% got back out onto the roads then surely it stands to reason deaths would rise? Isn't that sort of....normal?
Full figures for Road Deaths of the last decade:
2011: 1,901
2010: 1,857
2009: 2,222
2008: 2,538
2007: 2,946
2006: 3,172
2005: 3,201
2004: 3,221
2003: 3,508
2002: 3,431
2001: 3,450
t idea. All it will do is create more bored drivers and dodgy overtakes as people try to get past someone sticking to the ridiculously low limit.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff