Safe Speed Forums

SafetyMan - I'm in a bit of a quandary, as I'm facing a conundrum that only you can solve. Here is a picture of a quiet residential road. But there are signs warning of the presence of children, walkers, cyclists and dogs. I take on board your earlier assertion that if we stick to the speed limit at all times, we will be safe. Therefore, owing to the presence of the sign, I deduce that it's safe to drive through here at 60mph.

So can you tell me what that "20mph" message means on one of the other signs? It can't possibly be a suggested maximum speed at which to drive because the sign is there, telling us that it's safe to do 60. Maybe it means that the cyclists/dogs/children in the area might be travelling at 20mph? I need to know, because in the new age of speed limits which you espouse, there should always be a sign there telling us the speed at which we should drive. Perish the thought of those dark days when drivers actually assessed the appropriate speed based on known risk factors.

So please do advise me. I also note that walkers might be present. This would mean that people are using this part of the public highway in the pursuance of enjoyment. I wonder what steps you think we should take to curb this outrageous misuse of the public highway.

60 must be OK, as they have warned the Children cyclists walkers and dogs to 'beware' and I reckon the 20 must apply to them.
That's what the sign says and we must comply!

fatboytim

you can tell it is a private road, no way are signs that clean under trees

As long as you look at neither you mirrors or your speedo you will be o.k.
talking on the phone or having one arm and leg may also help with the safety.
ignore both signs i suspect around 90 mph will be good,.

make sure your road angle is on so PLOD dont get you.

If caught cry like a BABY how its all wrong and they only catch motorists for the money ect ect

Where's that emoticon for being sick?

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

Still feeding it?

Nice rhetoric, now answer the question!

The whole thread is rhetorical. Would anyone mind if I moved it to "chat"?

IMHO it's in the right place. Sorry.

_________________
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)

ok.

Of course, this one would be safe to drive at 40mph too then Safetyman?

_________________
Smokebelching,CO2 making,child murdering planet raping,granny mugging,politically incorrect globally warming (or is it climate changing now it's getting colder?)thug.
That's what the government want you to believe of me. If they get back in I'm emigrating.

Where does the sign ask that you travel at 40mph??? I always thought that the numbers within the red circle were the maximum, on any streach of road until the next instruction, I think a read of the highway code is needed!!

I've been following with great interest your eminently sensible campaign to get "SafeSpeeders" to stick rigidly to the speed limit... And now you openly encourage people to ignore the NSL of 60mph, the ACPO limit of 68mph and travel at 90mph - 50% above the posted limit!

I'm sorry... You've just lost all credibility with me.

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

You see that big red 40 within the circle "safetyman"? That the maximum speed you can legally travel that section, thats what it means.
I would suggest if its safe to do so then legally it can be done. But would it be wise?
The problem you and your ilk have is that you espouse the painted numeral as THE only indicator of a safe speed, clearly from looking at the photos, thats not true. DISCRETION, JUDGEMENT comes into play.
If as you say all cars were speed limited then i could plant my foot and do that 40 limit and i would be safe would i? But more importantly id be legal.

Blown out of the water yet again.....stand by to shoot any survivors.......

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.

If you do not drive at 40 all the time then it requires the driver to make a judgment. A judgment that he/she can better decide on a safe speed than the one shown on the sign. Not total freedom to chooses any speed no matter how high, as claimed by those taking a straw man position: but a judgment as to what is the moment to moment optimal safe speed for the changing conditions.

If you vary your speed from 40 at all, you HAVE to use that skill.

Indeed.
This is one of the great paradoxes which has resulted from our road safety policy, one which I don't expect our new guest to be able to answer (or even acknowledge).

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

NO, the speed limit is only ONE of MANY indicators, however it IS THE legal limit and so SHOULD NEVER BE DRIVEN ABOVE, NO how simple a proposition is that, The difficulty here is that people want to make a case out of nothing you really just want to do what the hell you feel then complain when caught doing it.

'People here' seem to actually have a case. Where is yours?

I would be interested to hear Safetyman's opinion of this stretch of road?
Should they REALLY have squeezed two cycle lanes into such a narrow space, and then imposed a 20 mph limit?

What are the possible consequences of a driver watching his speedo instead of the road ahead?

The LOCAL council did not want this - it was imposed by the County Council at the behest of SUSTRANS.

I'm not sure whether Safetyman is qualified to make judgements on safety... maybe he could tell us why he thinks he IS qualified to judge us - NEVER having witnessed any of us driving.
His only arguments so far seem to be what is LEGAL, rather than what is SAFE.

So what does Safetyman think is the reason for the legal speed limit here?
The farms on the left are off a side road, not the main one. The rest of the village is off to the right on a back road, and the filling station at the far end has good sight lines, and the road was engineered with not just protected lanes for vehicles turning left and right, but solid islands in front of them.
Despite all this engineering, a 40 limit was imposed because of some spectacular accidents - including a fatal accident in which two motorcyclists were killed, when a foreign minibus driver clipped the kerb, and bounced out into their path!
However, the accidents - including the fatal - were OUTSIDE of the limited area, and did not involve drivers travelling at illegal OR inappropriate speeds.
TWO of the accidents involved drivers with medical emergencies at the wheel - one a stroke, one a heart attack - and one involved a drunken pedestrian who threw himself in front of the car!

The answer to the question "Safety"man is that this site has been engineered as a toll gate on the busiest route into the Lake District, and the speed limit imposed for NO reason to do with safety whatsoever.
As a result, drivers wondering what the heck they are driving so slowly for, stray over the limit earning the Safety Partnership involved an easy £60.
So desperate are they for the cash, that when they discovered drivers were slowing down for the camera then resuming a safe speed, they started placing a camera van to catch those who edged over the limit as they left it!
They are simply showing themselves up for the money grabbing charlatans that they are.
DEATHS in Cumbria have stubbornly refused to fall since they started with "Safety" cameras, despite they were falling before!

You cannot stop BAD or CARELESS driving with a camera, and yet the Government has seen fit to abandon all those safety measures we used to have advertised on TV - check your tyres, yellow box junctions, see and be seen, think once, think twice, think bike - in favour of a measure that earns them money - BLOOD MONEY.

They are aided and abetted in this by camera manufacturers who assure us that their products dont make mistakes.... but they DO.
If you came here to crusade and convince us to drive within the law, then you are in the wrong place - the law needs to be returned to those who recognise what IS SAFE, rather than those whose only interest is how they can earn themselves money.
Go and crusade there if you are REALLY interested in making roads SAFER.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

I saw this last night...


So you're in a 30 limit, you are approaching an un-signed tight bend and what do you get? NSL signs and a warning for a roundabout.

_________________
Andrew.