NSL down to 50 -- but why?
Discussion
Today I found that the A439 road from the A46 heading south into Stratford on Avon has been changed from NSL to 50 along the whole stretch.
A few months ago a whole forest of new chevrons were installed along the same road. Incredibly large and ugly, they spoil an otherwise attractive route into Stratford.
This road has seen its share of KSIs. Mostly they are Bulldog Bash motorcyclists who come off on some of the deceptive bends when both speeding and using excessive speed.
Now when I found today that the speed limit has been reduced, my first thought was, "I've driven this road at 60 for 20 years, I'm not going to do 50 now". And then I got thinking.
How many motorcyclists will slow down as a result of the limit reducing? My guess is that it will make no difference. However, the chevrons might help, however ugly they are.
But there's another question. How many accidents happened at between 50 and 60 mph? This statistic must be the justification for reducing the limit by this amount, surely? If the accidents occurred above 60 -- and I believe they did -- then reducing the limit will make no difference.
My feeling is therefore that:
1) The chevrons might work but the reduced limit will get the credit
2) The reduced limit is irrelevant to the speeds of the majority of recent accidents
3) The majority of drivers will suffer a longer and less interesting journey simply so that the local council can be seen to be doing something.
Am I missing something? Is there good evidence that reducing from NSL to 50 has a major effect on KSIs, or is it window-dressing?
A few months ago a whole forest of new chevrons were installed along the same road. Incredibly large and ugly, they spoil an otherwise attractive route into Stratford.
This road has seen its share of KSIs. Mostly they are Bulldog Bash motorcyclists who come off on some of the deceptive bends when both speeding and using excessive speed.
Now when I found today that the speed limit has been reduced, my first thought was, "I've driven this road at 60 for 20 years, I'm not going to do 50 now". And then I got thinking.
How many motorcyclists will slow down as a result of the limit reducing? My guess is that it will make no difference. However, the chevrons might help, however ugly they are.
But there's another question. How many accidents happened at between 50 and 60 mph? This statistic must be the justification for reducing the limit by this amount, surely? If the accidents occurred above 60 -- and I believe they did -- then reducing the limit will make no difference.
My feeling is therefore that:
1) The chevrons might work but the reduced limit will get the credit
2) The reduced limit is irrelevant to the speeds of the majority of recent accidents
3) The majority of drivers will suffer a longer and less interesting journey simply so that the local council can be seen to be doing something.
Am I missing something? Is there good evidence that reducing from NSL to 50 has a major effect on KSIs, or is it window-dressing?
I'm certain there is an unspoken/hidden agenda to reduce limits nationally perhaps to save fuel or emmisions.
I don't know what can be done about it or who to ask. In Nottingham the A610 dual carriageway has gone from NSL to 50 and down to 40 where it meets the M1. Why, it beggers belief? Oh, I know, they will put a scamera van there one day and catch everybody out, after all it's a straight bit of dual carriageway.
Maybe they reduce the speeds because numpties can't cope with faster cars overtaking them. We've all seen a numptie pull out into the overtaking lane on a motorway at 65 mph!
It gets me that you never get an explanation for the limit change or the opportunity to oppose it? Who do you ask about this? Wasn't this topic mentioned a while back?
Boosted.
I don't know what can be done about it or who to ask. In Nottingham the A610 dual carriageway has gone from NSL to 50 and down to 40 where it meets the M1. Why, it beggers belief? Oh, I know, they will put a scamera van there one day and catch everybody out, after all it's a straight bit of dual carriageway.
Maybe they reduce the speeds because numpties can't cope with faster cars overtaking them. We've all seen a numptie pull out into the overtaking lane on a motorway at 65 mph!
It gets me that you never get an explanation for the limit change or the opportunity to oppose it? Who do you ask about this? Wasn't this topic mentioned a while back?
Boosted.
But why?
Because they can.
Simple.
You can point out - as I did here in my county - that 50 limited roads where the speed was artificially low have higher accident rates (Council's own stats),, that people tailgate aggressively, that it brings "sensible" limits into disrepute, that people go for frustration overtakes.
But it doesn't matter a damn. It's what they BELIEVE that counts, and "speed kills so let's reduce the limit" is an article of faith.
>> Edited by MMC on Sunday 22 May 23:46
Because they can.
Simple.
You can point out - as I did here in my county - that 50 limited roads where the speed was artificially low have higher accident rates (Council's own stats),, that people tailgate aggressively, that it brings "sensible" limits into disrepute, that people go for frustration overtakes.
But it doesn't matter a damn. It's what they BELIEVE that counts, and "speed kills so let's reduce the limit" is an article of faith.
>> Edited by MMC on Sunday 22 May 23:46
MMC said:You and me both - there was a very bad accident on the A4155 (Reading - Henley) last week. There's a section of 30 through open countryside which sees a lot of crashes on a short straight.
But why?
Because they can.
Simple.
You can point out - as I did here in my county - that 50 limited roads where the speed was artificially low have higher accident rates (Council's own stats),, that people tailgate aggressively, that it brings "sensible" limits into disrepute, that people go for frustration overtakes.
But it doesn't matter a damn. It's what they BELIEVE that counts, and "speed kills so let's reduce the limit" is an article of faith.
>> Edited by MMC on Sunday 22 May 23:46
I've written and written but they insist accidents are down
I agree with MMC.
It's a knee jerk reaction by people who have no real knowledge of road safety. "Reduce accidents by lowering speed limits" is as far as they get. They don't factor in frustration, speedo watching, or any of the other negative effects stupidly low speed limits have.
Similar has happened on the bit of the Warwick Road just north of the A46 junction. There are some housing estates on one side of the road, but no houses on the road, just roundabouts that feed into the estates. I have a feeling that the 40(?) limit there will start creeping back up the road towards Knowle
One of my favourite roads as well...
It's a knee jerk reaction by people who have no real knowledge of road safety. "Reduce accidents by lowering speed limits" is as far as they get. They don't factor in frustration, speedo watching, or any of the other negative effects stupidly low speed limits have.
Similar has happened on the bit of the Warwick Road just north of the A46 junction. There are some housing estates on one side of the road, but no houses on the road, just roundabouts that feed into the estates. I have a feeling that the 40(?) limit there will start creeping back up the road towards Knowle
One of my favourite roads as well...
puggit said:
Won't the chevrons cause more motorbike accidents by causing slips?
Sorry, should have been clearer. The chevrons are signs at the side of the road on each bend. Each ">" is on a separate sign, made up of 3-4 black plastic rods with the ">" painted on at the top (generally with yellow border). They are oversized and, on what is essentially a country road, visually intrusive. However if they do save some lives I guess they're worth it. The problem, as I say, is that I bet the credit will be given to the lowered limit rather than the signs.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff