Warwickshire speed limits cut
Discussion
Yikes, this is very reminicent of a similar thread from last week regarding dropping the NSL on SC from 60 to 50. The idea being that a blanket reduction would be cheaper than changing lots of signs. Someone suggested at the time that maybe this blanket reduction was scaremongering so that the ACTUAL plan to reduce the limit on "lots but not all" roads would seem more pallatable, but only by comparison.
Yet they won't paint a bloody center line on the road into my parent's village because "guidelines state that the road's too narrow for one". I've lost count of the number of muppets I've narrowly avoided down there...
ETA: i've made use of the feedback form to make my feelings known, going into particular detail on the roads I know well.
ETA: i've made use of the feedback form to make my feelings known, going into particular detail on the roads I know well.
Edited by joewilliams on Thursday 10th January 12:57
There's LOADS of reductions...A444 from the M6 up dropping from 70 to 50 is ludicrous, for one. Completely unnecessary, and if you read circular 106 they've referred again to 'mean speed below 50' as being a criteria for dropping the limit to 50...idiots!!! 
(Did not mention this 'mean speed' thing as only read if after submitting. Worth someone else mentioning and pointing out the flaw, and the change from the 85th percentile which has been good enough for decades...
I've sent a detailed reply along the following lines. Lets see if I get a response...
Dear Sirs,
I am currently a Coventry resident considering moving to Warwickshire this year. I have lived and worked in either Warwickshire or the West Midlands for over 10 years, and my wife has been a Warwickshire resident for most of her life.
I would like to complain about the decisions to reduce speed limits on a large number of roads in the county. I make this complaint for several reasons, and would urge reversal, or at least re-consideration, because of these reasons:-
1) £2 million per annum is a significant amount of money to spend. Given the state of the road surface on many of the roads mentioned (and the improvements that £2m p.a. could make to the road surfaces), I would question the appropriateness of spending this money solely on signage for reduced limits.
1a) Improved road surfaces would have the following benefits:-
- Reduced claims for damage from pot-holes, which then becomes a virtuous circle financially for the council's road-maintenance department;
- Reduced stopping-distances, in dry and especially in wet conditions;
- Better road drainage will reduce or eliminate standing water, which can lead to loss-of-control through aquaplaning;
- Reduced risk on the roads (an uneven surface can affect the path of a motor-vehicle);
- Generally improved journey-times and journey-comfort for road users, particularly cyclists who are most at-risk from poor surfacing.
2) Government statistics show 'excessive speed' to be a causal factor in 7% of KSI road-traffic accidents. As a result, I would question the wisdom of spending all of the £2m purely on speed-related measures, when far greater improvements in road-safety could be achieved through investment in:-
- Education, especially young drivers;
- Improved sight-lines;
- Reduced road-furniture and 'hard obstacles' (trees, lamp-posts/sign-posts, etc.);
- Lighting;
- Improved road surfaces as mentioned above.
3) Widespread reduction in speed-limits on roads which residents and regular users are familiar will lead to increased contempt for the new speed-limits, and as a result speed-limits nationally. This could have a counter-productive effect where someone ignores a speed-limit which IS appropriate and necessary.
3a) It will also lead to the criminalisation of many more road-users, especially in the early stages of adoption. This will lead to increased resentment of the Police, the SCP, and the Council, and will further erode the relationship between the public and the authorities. I need not catalogue the wide range of negative consequences here.
In summary, I would propose the investigation of alternative measures of improving road safety (outlined above, detailed below), and a more balanced approach to be taken by the council addressing all forms of risk on the road, not just excessive speed:-
- Improved sight-lines, particularly on rural roads.
- Reduce road furniture - remove some of the clutter and excessive signage that bombards the modern driver, and takes his/her attention away from the real environment and potential hazards.
- Remove hard objects from the immediate vincinity of the roads. Many rural KSI accidents are single-vehicle accidents, and elimination or reduction in the number of trees/telgraph poles in close proximity to the road will massively reduce the consequences of such accidents (hitting a tree almost inevitably results in a KSI incident, while ending in a ditch is far less likely to do so).
- Improve road surfaces, as detailed more fully in point 1a.
I look forward to your response, and would welcome the opportunity to continue this dialogue in more detail with an appropriate Council member / employee.
Yours faithfully,
Mr Havoc.
(Did not mention this 'mean speed' thing as only read if after submitting. Worth someone else mentioning and pointing out the flaw, and the change from the 85th percentile which has been good enough for decades...
I've sent a detailed reply along the following lines. Lets see if I get a response...
Dear Sirs,
I am currently a Coventry resident considering moving to Warwickshire this year. I have lived and worked in either Warwickshire or the West Midlands for over 10 years, and my wife has been a Warwickshire resident for most of her life.
I would like to complain about the decisions to reduce speed limits on a large number of roads in the county. I make this complaint for several reasons, and would urge reversal, or at least re-consideration, because of these reasons:-
1) £2 million per annum is a significant amount of money to spend. Given the state of the road surface on many of the roads mentioned (and the improvements that £2m p.a. could make to the road surfaces), I would question the appropriateness of spending this money solely on signage for reduced limits.
1a) Improved road surfaces would have the following benefits:-
- Reduced claims for damage from pot-holes, which then becomes a virtuous circle financially for the council's road-maintenance department;
- Reduced stopping-distances, in dry and especially in wet conditions;
- Better road drainage will reduce or eliminate standing water, which can lead to loss-of-control through aquaplaning;
- Reduced risk on the roads (an uneven surface can affect the path of a motor-vehicle);
- Generally improved journey-times and journey-comfort for road users, particularly cyclists who are most at-risk from poor surfacing.
2) Government statistics show 'excessive speed' to be a causal factor in 7% of KSI road-traffic accidents. As a result, I would question the wisdom of spending all of the £2m purely on speed-related measures, when far greater improvements in road-safety could be achieved through investment in:-
- Education, especially young drivers;
- Improved sight-lines;
- Reduced road-furniture and 'hard obstacles' (trees, lamp-posts/sign-posts, etc.);
- Lighting;
- Improved road surfaces as mentioned above.
3) Widespread reduction in speed-limits on roads which residents and regular users are familiar will lead to increased contempt for the new speed-limits, and as a result speed-limits nationally. This could have a counter-productive effect where someone ignores a speed-limit which IS appropriate and necessary.
3a) It will also lead to the criminalisation of many more road-users, especially in the early stages of adoption. This will lead to increased resentment of the Police, the SCP, and the Council, and will further erode the relationship between the public and the authorities. I need not catalogue the wide range of negative consequences here.
In summary, I would propose the investigation of alternative measures of improving road safety (outlined above, detailed below), and a more balanced approach to be taken by the council addressing all forms of risk on the road, not just excessive speed:-
- Improved sight-lines, particularly on rural roads.
- Reduce road furniture - remove some of the clutter and excessive signage that bombards the modern driver, and takes his/her attention away from the real environment and potential hazards.
- Remove hard objects from the immediate vincinity of the roads. Many rural KSI accidents are single-vehicle accidents, and elimination or reduction in the number of trees/telgraph poles in close proximity to the road will massively reduce the consequences of such accidents (hitting a tree almost inevitably results in a KSI incident, while ending in a ditch is far less likely to do so).
- Improve road surfaces, as detailed more fully in point 1a.
I look forward to your response, and would welcome the opportunity to continue this dialogue in more detail with an appropriate Council member / employee.
Yours faithfully,
Mr Havoc.
Have also posted this up on the Midlands forum.
Wondering how the can find the money - twice in last six months I've hadto replace front nearside tyre - bulged after striking drains on a main road in a Warks town - asked why these had not been done - lack of cash by WCC.Yet they had the money to do part of this road /pavements / replace Zebra crossings and spend an unforeseen amount of money now changing speed signs etc.
Similar item in http://www.hen-news.co.uk/heartlandnews/ ---putting brakes on speeders.
http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/speedlimitreview SHOWS WHAT THEY INTEND.
And http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/web/corporate/webma...
to send in a reply/complaint -
Suspect the only way to remind the county councillors who fall for these daft schemes (and there are still some waiting for the speed balloon to burst) who pays their allowances and excessive car mileage allowances is to turn out in force at the May elections and turf them out .
Wondering how the can find the money - twice in last six months I've hadto replace front nearside tyre - bulged after striking drains on a main road in a Warks town - asked why these had not been done - lack of cash by WCC.Yet they had the money to do part of this road /pavements / replace Zebra crossings and spend an unforeseen amount of money now changing speed signs etc.
Similar item in http://www.hen-news.co.uk/heartlandnews/ ---putting brakes on speeders.
http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/speedlimitreview SHOWS WHAT THEY INTEND.
And http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/web/corporate/webma...
to send in a reply/complaint -
Suspect the only way to remind the county councillors who fall for these daft schemes (and there are still some waiting for the speed balloon to burst) who pays their allowances and excessive car mileage allowances is to turn out in force at the May elections and turf them out .
Edited by Who me ? on Thursday 10th January 14:02
My comments submitted through the website:
response to review said:
I saw an article in the paper about your speed limit review. I have now looked at your proposals for Warwick area on your website. I'm amazed that you're even thinking of making such widespread reductions on good roads that have no issues. You plan to reduce many limits from 60 down to 50: if you genuinely think that speed between 60 and 50 is the cause of many accidents, please provide me with the evidence. If not, what possible justification is there for reducing the speed of hundreds of people? You will just prolong their journeys for no benefit.
Did you consider the negative impact of reducing speed limits? If so, how did you quantify it? How do you quantify the positive impacts of reducing speed limits? What process did you then use to assess the negative impact against any possible benefits of reducing accidents caused by speeds between 50 and 60?
I'm very concerned that this is being planned against the wishes of the majority of drivers. It is unnecessary, and not justified by the accident records of these roads. I am looking forward to hearing of all the accidents on these roads which were caused (and I mean caused) by speeds between 50 and 60.
Did you consider the negative impact of reducing speed limits? If so, how did you quantify it? How do you quantify the positive impacts of reducing speed limits? What process did you then use to assess the negative impact against any possible benefits of reducing accidents caused by speeds between 50 and 60?
I'm very concerned that this is being planned against the wishes of the majority of drivers. It is unnecessary, and not justified by the accident records of these roads. I am looking forward to hearing of all the accidents on these roads which were caused (and I mean caused) by speeds between 50 and 60.
http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/web/corporate/webma...
Theres the feedback page. Get writing people. I have.
Theres the feedback page. Get writing people. I have.
It's no surprise, I try to avoid warwickshire as much as I can these days. Half the roads have camera vans parked on the side of the road and the speed limit changes every 100yds making it quite hard to know how fast your supposed to go unless you have your eye on signs and not the road.
Not to mention the bloody stupid LED signs that warn you about the bleedin obvious, I'm waiting for the "cow in field" one that will no doubt spring up soon.
Not to mention the bloody stupid LED signs that warn you about the bleedin obvious, I'm waiting for the "cow in field" one that will no doubt spring up soon.
S'cuse the French.
What the f!&% do they use the £1.2mill for?! Don't tell me, they outsource to a private body who further outsource to 5 agencies to source Polish workers to hang new speeding signs up?! Nice to see our money's being spent on giant d!ldos to f!$k us up the ar$e.
This country is f!%$ed up.
What the f!&% do they use the £1.2mill for?! Don't tell me, they outsource to a private body who further outsource to 5 agencies to source Polish workers to hang new speeding signs up?! Nice to see our money's being spent on giant d!ldos to f!$k us up the ar$e.
This country is f!%$ed up.
cluelessboy said:
S'cuse the French.
What the f!&% do they use the £1.2mill for?! Don't tell me, they outsource to a private body who further outsource to 5 agencies to source Polish workers to hang new speeding signs up?! Nice to see our money's being spent on giant d!ldos to f!$k us up the ar$e.
This country is f!%$ed up.
Traffic orders don’t come cheap, reflective signs are not cheaply available from B&Q and you can guarantee there is a consultant or 3 in place to ensure that the new speeds limit signs don’t get messed up especially with the ever growing internet experts on the subject looking for a loophole! (Colour, size, placement, angel to road, reflective ness, distance, size, font, numbers required height etc etc)1.2 million to get it right cheap at half the price.What the f!&% do they use the £1.2mill for?! Don't tell me, they outsource to a private body who further outsource to 5 agencies to source Polish workers to hang new speeding signs up?! Nice to see our money's being spent on giant d!ldos to f!$k us up the ar$e.
This country is f!%$ed up.
You can see why there is no provision in law to sign 30mph roads which have street lights and any unlit national speed limit as it would bankrupt the country with in weeks!
Happy new year all and safe one I hope.
Parrot of Doom said:
http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/web/corporate/webma...
Theres the feedback page. Get writing people. I have.
your linky didnt workTheres the feedback page. Get writing people. I have.
try this
http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/web/corporate/webma...
mssg sent btw.
I was thinking again about the justification for limit reductions. Going back to what's been stated by the government:
Quite simply, the government thinks that the speed limit on a road must be set at a level that is safe for its whole length. Therefore, if there is a section of road that has junctions, bends and other features where drivers must otherwise exercise judgement, then the limit must be reduced.
How did we get to this point? What made the government think that drivers cannot read the road and set their speed (and position, level of alertness, etc) accordingly? Or is it that this is a proactive action, ie. it doesn't want drivers to think so it's making these changes to remove the need?
Either way, it's a going to be a disaster for safety because it will further remove driver judgement from the process of driving. The only reason that there are so relatively few KSIs on the roads is that drivers continue to exercise judgement despite the best efforts of the government. When we are finally cowed into submission and give in, then watch those KSIs rise.
- 60 mph: high quality strategic roads with few bends, junctions or accesses. When the assessment framework is being used, the accident rate should be below a threshold of 35 injury accidents per 100 million vehicle kilometres.
- 50 mph: lower quality strategic roads which may have a relatively high number of bends, junctions or accesses. When the assessment framework is being used, the accident rate should be above a threshold of 35 injury accidents per 100 million vehicle kilometres and/or the mean speed already below 50 mph.
- 40 mph: where there is high number of bends, junctions or accesses, substantial development, where there is a strong environmental or landscape reason, or where the road is used by considerable numbers of vulnerable road users.
- 30 mph: should be the norm in villages where appropriate.
Quite simply, the government thinks that the speed limit on a road must be set at a level that is safe for its whole length. Therefore, if there is a section of road that has junctions, bends and other features where drivers must otherwise exercise judgement, then the limit must be reduced.
How did we get to this point? What made the government think that drivers cannot read the road and set their speed (and position, level of alertness, etc) accordingly? Or is it that this is a proactive action, ie. it doesn't want drivers to think so it's making these changes to remove the need?
Either way, it's a going to be a disaster for safety because it will further remove driver judgement from the process of driving. The only reason that there are so relatively few KSIs on the roads is that drivers continue to exercise judgement despite the best efforts of the government. When we are finally cowed into submission and give in, then watch those KSIs rise.
Yes but by reducing speed limits cars are being forced to make similar journey times to buses.
I have been driving some large vehicles lately and i have been surprised how the journey times are similar to a car now.
Next time you want to fly especially from Heathrow, consider taking the bus... its now cheaper (including parking) and about the same time.
I have been driving some large vehicles lately and i have been surprised how the journey times are similar to a car now.
Next time you want to fly especially from Heathrow, consider taking the bus... its now cheaper (including parking) and about the same time.
Peter has a very good point.
PnB...it could be to do with public transport...but you never see public transport in rural areas, so the rural speed review makes absolutely no sense in that regard...I'm inclined to believe Peter...someone (lots of people?) in power really is on a control-freak trip, and this is the result...
PnB...it could be to do with public transport...but you never see public transport in rural areas, so the rural speed review makes absolutely no sense in that regard...I'm inclined to believe Peter...someone (lots of people?) in power really is on a control-freak trip, and this is the result...
Looks like I left England at just the right time
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7067305.stm
Time to think about selling my cottage in Warwickshire
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7067305.stm
Time to think about selling my cottage in Warwickshire
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff