Safe Speed Forums

There are a whole raft of plans for reduced speed limits in Derbyshire on this web page.

In particular they include slashing the A623 from Chapel-en-le-Frith to Baslow from NSL to 50

Across much of Derbyshire, NSL on A-roads will soon be a thing of the past.

It is interesting that the police have objected to a number of the cuts but, predictably, have been ignored.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

As I'm sure you're aware, this is part of the nationwide policy to lower as many speed limits as possible.

We've already had many speed limit cuts here in Buckinghamshire, and more in Berkshire, and more on the way into London. Buckinghamshire is due yet another round of speed limit cuts soon - they've finished their "consultations" but I haven't heard which proposed limits are actually to be cut yet.

I posted a request on here to see if people wanted to put in objections to the Buckinghamshire cuts but I got no replies at all. Perhaps people didn't see my post, perhaps nobody lives/works in Buckinghamshire, or perhaps nobody's that interested?

If people on THIS forum can't get an organized objection together, I can't imagine the government will have much opposition from elsewhere!

Are you going to try to oppose the Derbyshire speed limit cuts?

I am sure that opposition to any pointless limit lowering could be raised by SS or an other lobby group but you ask why we don't do it. The answer is that there is no point and we don't like wasting our time. You can see from the post above that even police reservations are ignored. Who is going to listen to "speed freaks"?

Democracy, huh? Rule by control freaks more like.

I'm (cynically) sure that the nationwide speed limit reduction policy is being effected to ensure that predictions of casualty reductions due to cameras will come true and there is always "speed" to blame in any collision.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

If they reduce the limit to 50 then HGVs can do 50 instead of 40. They are doing this instead of increasing the HGV limit to 50 as they don't want to annoy the speed kills bleaters and ecomentalists .

There are also EU regs limiting limits to 40 mph where road furniture, trees etc are within a certain distance from the road. Rather than replacing dangerous road furniture or lopping trees they are just dropping limits because as usual HMG won't spend any money on improving roads.

No they can't. A posted limit of 50 does not override the 40 mph national speed limit for HGVs on single carriageway roads.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

How many know that even exists? I usually keep up with the highway code but that seems a weird inconsistency if the NSL is removed, 50 signs put in but HGVs are still stuck doing 40. Especially as the limits are the same in 30s and 40s but at 50s and 60s it is still 40. The 50 signs should have some sort of indicator to say that HGVs are still stuck at 40mph so people actually know rather than assume it is the HGV driver being difficult.

The HGV limit really needs raising to 50 mph. I bet rural road accidents would plummet as most drivers wouldn't mind cruising along at 50 mph but 40mph is way too slow. I assume this is why they are ratcheting down limits (and to get more speeding fine revenue). At this rate in 30 years time it will be quicker to walk

Last year I sent a polite and carefully worded letter to Derbyshire CC objecting to the imposition of a blanket 50 limit on the A515, which is arguably the worst of the lot. It wasn't even acknowledged.

Councils are dead set on these polices and in practice there is little point in opposing them at the detail level. That is realism, not defeatism. The only purpose it serves is to give the objector some sense of satisfaction that they have borne witness for the cause. As Malcolm says, if the councils ride roughshod over police objections they're unlikely to take much notice of a private citizen from outside the area.

I would say there is more point in continuing to make the arguments at a general level in the hope that eventually the climate will change. Even trends that on the face of it appear to be inexorable often turn out not to be. After all, it was to a large extent down to the Safe Speed campaign that the expansion of fixed speed cameras has virtually stopped and camera hypothecation was scrapped.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

No wonder the trolls hate us so much.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

1st you say there's no point in any individual objecting, then you say Safe Speed (largely the work of 1 man, correct me if I'm wrong) managed a nationwide policy change.

As far as I'm aware the councils are going through the motions of "consultations" and, if few people object to the speed limit reductions, then they will implement them and say "these are safety measures that have public support":

AND THEY'D BE RIGHT !

If SS members were able to put in over a thousand objections to each limit reduction proposal perhaps we could add to the achievements of the late Paul Smith?

If the councils recieved a flood of objections they would have to admit they were forcing through policies against the wishes and reasoned arguments of many.

But that would require a "SafeSpeed Speed-limit organiser" who collates objections and rallies the troops to write in to the councils. That takes time + effort!

This isn't surprising, given the DfT's new policy of using mean speeds with strongly worded "advice" that 50 mph should be the norm on rurul roads.

Has anyone actually seen any council speed limit review recommending a limit be increased? Every single one I've seen is a decrease, despite the government's insistance that "speed limits should also be increased where they are unreasonably low"...

There is a glimmer of hope for Buckinghamshire though:

• Proposal No.18. A40 Wycombe Road./Oxford Road ( West Wycombe to
Studley Green). and U624 Old Oxford Road .Proposed 50mph restriction.
Not to be progressed (National Speed Limit (NSL) retained).
• Proposal No.19. B482 (Marlow to Lane End). 50 mph restriction. Not to be progressed (NSL retained) except for the immediate vicinity of Clay Lane.
• Proposal No.20. C100 Wycombe Road.( Handy Cross to Marlow Bottom)
Proposed 50 mph restriction. Not to be progressed (NSL retained).
• Proposal No.21. A40 Wycombe Road.(Studley Green to Stokenchurch
Proposed 50mph restriction. Not to be progressed (NSL retained).
• Proposal No. 28. A4155 ( Danesfield to Medmenham). Proposed 50mph
restriction. Not to be progressed (NSL retained). However, the section from the northern terminal point to just south of the Thames Reach / SAS roundabout to be re-advertised as a 40 mph restriction.
• Proposal No. 29. B482 Marlow Road. ( Bolter End to NW end of
Cadmore End) Proposed 40 mph restriction. Not to be progressed as
advertised (NSL retained) but 40 mph to be implemented to encompass the community of Cadmore End only.
• Proposal No 32 B482 (between Cadmore End & Stokenchurch.)
Proposed 50mph restriction. Not to be progressed (NSL retained).


I think that proves that people power does sometimes work, and that it's always worth writing a letter of objection. Sometimes they'll see sense.

This is the flaw in your argument. They could receive thousands of complaints but would ignore them because of overriding Government priorities. It's not a democracy you know.


Paul did not write to councils (generally). He campaigned via the media for Government policy changes.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Yeah, this works at all levels too Peter. I have written several well constructed letters to government ministers and departments regarding the loss of my job a couple of years down the line. I know damned well that the political process will override any common sense or logical argument I may present, but at least I feel I have done something other than just bemoaning the situation.

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Yes, that's the point. The campaign was for top-level policy changes. If Paul had urged his supporters to write to councils to object to every single specific speed camera placement it would have been a singularly fruitless exercise.

Objecting to speed limit reductions that are clearly supported by a government policy document is unlikely to achieve much, unless it can be demonstrated that they don't follow the official line. Campaigning to change the policy might achieve something.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Yes, BUT it is worth objecting to the council's interpretation of the government policy document. As in my examples above, the council originally planned to reduce those roads to 50 mph, but after receiving objections from the public have reconsidered their changes and decided that they can meet the government's overall policy in other ways.

and the evidence for this is !!!,

yes SS has caused some embarrassment for individual SCP's, but to claim the above, the transition from hypothication to grant funding was always on the cards

_________________
now retired

To be fair though, if you had seen some evidence for it, would you have told us? (I doubt you'd have been allowed apart from anything.)

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

May I refer you to Paul Smiths posted reply to me here:



Quoted from here: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16683

I cannot believe you claim it is possible for 1 man to change NATIONAL decisions, yet you think others cannot change LOCAL decisions!

If you argued the other way round I'd understand!

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that you and others here should allow local councils a free hand in making outrageously incompetent decisions?

Remember that many local people will be campaigning FOR the speed limit reductions so, if there is little opposition, then (I repeat myself) you will be complicit should the council + safety camera partnerships claim:

"these (speed limit reductions) are safety measures that have public support".

Legion ,

It’s nice to have new people joining the SafeSpeed campaign and nice to see new users on the forums.

If you really are that concerned about the lowering of speed limits around Buckinghamshire, why don’t you organise a local campaign through your local paper. As you say it’s happening nationally and for SafeSpeed to fight every council and SCP would be a mammoth task.

I have written to my local paper several times about changes to roads in my area and about the tripe the Cheshire SCP spout with regards speed cameras. If everyone was to do the same, then surely the councils may start to take notice.

As already stated, Paul concentrated on the national press because councils act on Government policies, so it’s easier and more beneficial to fight the government through the national papers and radio, than it is to fight the councils through local papers .

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

I, too, have writen on many occasions to my local paper as this is read by both the public and the "opinion formers" in the Council. (In fact most of the letters in the paper are from Councillors slagging each other off.) I believe this to be more effective than actually writing to the Council itself and is actually Paul's "local resistance" in a practical form.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Seems to be a national disease. Redcar & Cleveland councillors do the same in our local nulabia-supporting local rag!