Why are roadwork speed limits now 40?
Discussion
Was just wondering, thought they were 50? They seem to have been pretty much universally lowered recently. I think it started around the time they were finishing the Thelwall Viaduct off.
Im just wondering about their justification for this.
It really takes the mickey on the A38, with its million mile long contraflow..
Thanks.
Im just wondering about their justification for this.
It really takes the mickey on the A38, with its million mile long contraflow..
Thanks.
eccles said:
nothing to do with protecting the workforce then?
If you're not being sarcastic, I take it you think 40 is safer for the workforce than 50 then?
If that's the case, wouldn't 30 or even 20 be better again? Or why not reduce it down to a single lane and then we could all crawl along at 10.
deeps said:Indeed, an impact at 40mph will be just as deadly as one at 50mph. To genuinely protect the workforce would require sub 20mph limits.
nothing to do with protecting the workforce then?
If you're not being sarcastic, I take it you think 40 is safer for the workforce than 50 then?
If that's the case, wouldn't 30 or even 20 be better again? Or why not reduce it down to a single lane and then we could all crawl along at 10.
And what exactly is all that concrete there for, if not to "protect the workforce"?
I'm sure the workforce realise they are working in a dangerous environment, and don't wander about aimlessly in the carriageway.
There was nothing wrong with 50mph limits.
Now these are speed limits for which there must be cast iron stats, not open to "interpretation" by camera partnerships. How many car/worker fatalities were there when limits were 50mph per mile of roadworks, compared to now with the 40mph limits? These must be recorded under Health and Safety so the figures have to be available somewhere.
deeps said:
nothing to do with protecting the workforce then?
If you're not being sarcastic, I take it you think 40 is safer for the workforce than 50 then?
If that's the case, wouldn't 30 or even 20 be better again? Or why not reduce it down to a single lane and then we could all crawl along at 10.
Better still just close the rooooooaad right and have some more drugs cos cars are baaad. Public transport is ace even if it does smell of wee.
Ahhh.. safety is it? Then why haven't they *always* been 40mph.. 
Still, good point about the fact that if you do get hit at 40, you'll be just as dead as if you were hit at 50. Except it might be a bit more painful.
Thanks, just wanted to see if anybody else thought it was a bit odd.
Still, good point about the fact that if you do get hit at 40, you'll be just as dead as if you were hit at 50. Except it might be a bit more painful.
Thanks, just wanted to see if anybody else thought it was a bit odd.
nonegreen said:
nothing to do with protecting the workforce then?
If you're not being sarcastic, I take it you think 40 is safer for the workforce than 50 then?
If that's the case, wouldn't 30 or even 20 be better again? Or why not reduce it down to a single lane and then we could all crawl along at 10.
Better still just close the road
Actually that seems to be the way things are going.
Any exposure of workers because concret barriers are impractical either results in 10mph convoy working, or a complete road closure.
Wonderful as earlier this year on our patch when they closed the main road and three of the four possible diversions. The fourth diversion was so impractical gridlock resulted.
left hand <-talk-> right hand?
Flat in Fifth said:
Wonderful as earlier this year on our patch when they closed the main road and three of the four possible diversions. The fourth diversion was so impractical gridlock resulted.
left hand <-talk-> right hand?
Indeed. I have often stated that there needs to be central control over non-emergency roadworks to ensure minimal impact on traffic.
By "emergency" roadworks I mean truly unavoidable stuff like a car fire resulting in new tarmac being laid or a roadway collapsing into a mineshaft etc.
Earlier this year I drove 10 junctions along the M4 and encountered 10 separate sets of roadworks. Who the hell allowed that kind of nonsense to occur?
Also, why do urban roadworks all start 10 minutes before the rush hour? The contractors are all standing around drinking tea at that time anyway, so why not open up as much road as possible during the rush and leave the double parking of vans & lorries until after 9am?
pdV6 said:
Also, why do urban roadworks all start 10 minutes before the rush hour? The contractors are all standing around drinking tea at that time anyway, so why not open up as much road as possible during the rush and leave the double parking of vans & lorries until after 9am?
Because the contractors workmen like seeing all the drivers getting annoyed in their cars while they take it easy.... Basically they dont care / find it funny.... A basic sign of the way the UK is going.
Agree with Munter...
...as regards 50 vs 40...did anyone do a study on the number of worker injuries/fatalities per year when it was 50? And has anyone done a study since?
I'm willing to bet that the figures were pretty low to start with, and haven't statistically changed. But "obviously 40 is safer than 50 because it's slower" 
...as regards 50 vs 40...did anyone do a study on the number of worker injuries/fatalities per year when it was 50? And has anyone done a study since?
I'm willing to bet that the figures were pretty low to start with, and haven't statistically changed. But "obviously 40 is safer than 50 because it's slower"
purpleheadedcerb said:
I seem to remember the figure being quite high. More roadside contractors die each year than the emergency services put together. I suppose it all counts on the overall 'road deaths figure'. I thought they could only put it down to 40 if the lanes were particularly narrow.
So they make the lanes particularly narrow...gives them more space to work in!!!
Cooperman said:Well, that would make sense to me, as only a very small percentage of accidents are down to speed anyway, and when you consider that in roadworks, people are less likely to be speeding just because the conditions dictate it, regardless of monitoring. So any differential is bound to be tiny, if there is one at all. The other point will be that what accidents do actually occur at roadworks are likely to be even less down to speed than out on a normal bit of road, I reckon anyway.
There is a TRL report which shows that camera monitored roadworks are no safer for the workers than un-monitored roadworks. SafeSpeed had the full text of this, so go look there.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff