dcbwhaley wrote:
It must have come as a terrible shock after she bought the house to find that the road outside was open to the public. She should sue her solicitor for not warning her.
I'd like to add, since when was the noise level of traffic a criterion for setting speed limits? Would not a better course of action for this somewhat hard of thinking woman have been to buy a house that was in a quieter area, rather than buying a house in a noisy area and then attempting to quieten the traffic.
I also wonder how much difference this will make to the noise level. If I were driving my car in a 50 limit, in all likelihood, I will be in 5th gear with the engine running at about 2,000 rpm. In a 40 limit I would likely be driving in 4th gear with the engine running at, you guessed it, 2,000 rpm. Now I have never put a noise meter on the car, but I suspect that the noise will be similar, only the road noise from the tyres will be different. What does make a huge difference to noise level I find is the road surface. Roads that have been "dressed" (which seems to mean throwing loads of grit at tarmac, with about 20% of the grit sticking to the tar) are fantastically noisy. Whereas a few roads I drive on have been laid with noise reducing tarmac, and these produce almost no road noise. I suspect they are much safer for our friends on 2 wheels also, since one is unlikely to grate all ones skin off in the event of a tumble.
So my point is, if noise were the issue why didn't she campaign to have the road properly surfaced - which would have worked, rather than reduce the speed, which won't work.