Safe Speed Forums

But how would you know?



Agreed



Firstly, how would you know?

Secondly, its not the only reason for a local speed limit anyway. Its just one reason. After all, no-one is advocating axing the 30 limit - but I think its fair to say that on the majority of 30 limit urban roads that it is fairly obvious that speeds should be kept below 30. (Though one does have to wonder why so many people don't keep their speed under 30 on such roads).



Unless you were party to the investigative and/or political process, how would you know?



Perhaps the fact the nature of the road is apparantly "entirely obvious" is part of the problem.



Yes, but I'm not sure how thats relevant to the above.

Perhaps because so many people consider 30mph to be too slow?

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

But are they right?

As I said, no-one is advocating axeing or revising upward the 30 limit in towns. If so many people (society as a whole - not merely motorists) consider 30 to be too slow, one wuold think there would be.

It's an opinion. If you disagree, produce some counter-arguments. If you simply say "how do you know?" whenever anyone makes a statement, people will rapidly become fed up with it.


See above, you're sounding like a broken record.. In any case, I have read plenty of statements of reasons for reducing speed limits and I have never seen any mention of deceptive hazards or anything similar.

_________________
"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

But no one has yet answered this point yet - people seem very eager to claim such conditions where road users are being decieved into driving inappropriately are rare - but by definition driving past wouldn't be sufficient to determine whether this is true or not.



Quite a few people seem be sounding like a broken record in their repeated statement that something is wrong and they know better - but they seem to have decided this from what they can see, and don't seem able to see that they can't see everything.



No, but then a statement of reasons wouldn't necessarily be so specific.

BTW, all seems to be quiet on the subject of Pauls analysis of 20 zones and of cameras in roadworks. Why might that be?

NDP, not sure what it is you expect, but if I read correctly, you do not think the SCP's are involved in a form of entrapment?
I can provide an instance where a limit was imposed for no reason, other than 7 people who meet regularly in a pub, decided it would be a good idea to have a 40 limit on a road which bypasses their village. They got a petition going, and using accidents which happened OUTSIDE the area to be limited, which were NOT caused by speeding, whipped up enough histeria to get a lot more names on the petition than there were villagers.

The County Council stated that in line with their NEW policy of allowing people to determine the use of the roads in their streets, they would re-engineer the road - reducing three lanes to two, putting in a grassed median, protective turning lanes, traffic islands and phantom chicanes AND a 40 mph limit.

Inside of twelve months they announced that the limit was not working, and the newly formed "Safety" Camera Partnership would start operations there.
Using accidents which fitted the guidelines, but again which had nothing to do with speed, they formed two parking bays for mobile enforcement.

They remained largely unused, until Easter week, when the vans were there three days in ten, to take advantage of the busy tourist traffic.
In the meantime, accidents outside the limited area continued unabated - still with no suggestion that the NSL was being broken, while the camera partnership claimed to be reducing accidents at camera sites (fatals over the whole of the county went UP!).

The SCP raised over £1.5 million in twelve months, fatals were UP, and they spent over £1 million in expenses - such as wages, vans and cameras.

See how straight and clearly visible the road is, wide, with a separated footpath and cycle lane. The village lies on a narrow winding lane on the right, which rejoins the road a few hundred yards further on.
Most accident happen a few hundred yards behind this view, and a few happen at the other end, a similar distance past the limit end.

In one accident, my brother-in-law was struck by a local woman who pulled out of the lane on the right into the side of his car, just before the grassed central median starts - in front of a policeman who was a few yards away at the filling station. She claimed she had not seen his car, and admitted responsibility. Later, when her husband was filling in her insurance claim form, she changed her mind! The policeman pointed out that if she did - he would proceed with a careless driving charge.

These local people who decided they wanted a limit now complain that the traffic is bunched up and difficult to cross or join!!

I was sure enough of the facts, that on this forum, I described the manager of the safety camera partnership as a charlatan - at which point he threatened to take me to court if I did not retract.
I did not, challenging him to meet me in court with evidence that accidents were caused by speeding, and that he was reducing the same. He could not.
Instead, he used Cumbria Constabulary resources to put pressure on the US service provider, who forced Paul to remove the posts which he claimed were defamatory, but which he was unprepared to prove in court.
He also denied the local paper a freedom of information request for the causes of accidents at Ings, which is on appeal at present.

He had previously claimed that the vans were not hidden, but were in plain sight from beyond the distance at which "enforcement" could start, yet in the picture above, he claimed I had taken it on a day when the camera van was not there - until I showed this -

which was taken on the same occasion. He was forced to conceed I was right, and have the council come and cut the grass, and trim trees to make them visible again.

I mentioned this in my complaint about him to the chief constable - their responce was:

It did not say that the SCP manager when informed by a member of the public should dismiss his concern out of hand and accuse him of deception, until the van driver says otherwise!! WHITEWASH.

This is purely about creating an offence in an area where tourist traffic ensures a substantial revenue with which to employ a useless shower of incompetants, and pass it all off in the name of safety!
In this manner, they hope to persuade the public that they care, and are doing something.
In fact in Windermere, a short distance away at a zebra crossing outside of a school, with an appalling history of accidents, but thankfully with no deaths, the councils road safety officer Nick Raymond said a PELICAN crossing would cost £48000, and in view of the lack of fatalities and serious injuries, could not be made a priority!!
(There HAVE been serious injuries - a police motorcyclist stopped at the crossing and had his bike smashed out from under him by a car which failed to stop, was off work for four months)

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

Frankly it's because I don't presently consider you worth the time to converse with. I warned you. I begged you to make reasonable arguments. I even said 'please, please, please'.

You're a young chap with a good education but limited experience. My advice to you would be to listen, explore and participate. That way you would gain some benefit from other's experience; because (allow me to assure you) education alone isn't enough.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Your general point that 'deceptively innocuous' environments (to the extent that they exist) would be, by definition, innocuous, so likely to pass unnoticed, is a fair one; but the logic of the argument does nothing to prove that such environments do exist to any particular extent.

I'm struggling to think of examples of what you're talking about. Why don't you tell us - if you can. Otherwise, what's the difference between your position and that of my daughter, who tells me she sees fairies in the garden but I won't be able to see them "because I'm a grown up"?

Probably. At least, they're more likely to be right than traffic engineers or councillors whose priority is revenue generation...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Ernest, you could not have put your point over any clearer, I don’t say to much on these forums because people like yourself spell things out much clearer than I ever could. I’m at the age now where I have enough knowledge to know what this government, councils, and these SCP’s are about and it’s not about caring for the British people. To "all" keep up the good work and I will endeavour to carry on with my support.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

It was you who made the claim first - unless you can come up with some evidence that large numbers of speed limits are explicitly imposed because of the presence of deceptive hazards people are unlikely to give it much credence. And I think I am very well placed to decide whether something is an urban street, or a motorway, or a non built up rural road, thank you very much.

Can you produce a single example where a speed limit has been cut because of the presence of hazards that would not be obvious to an experienced, observant driver?


Two wrongs don't make a right.


But councils' public statements are all the general public have to go on, and you would think if they were slashing limits because of the presence of deceptive or non-obvious hazards they would say so. Instead, they tend to make general statements, usually about safety, sometimes about consistency or quality of life.

Of course if it is all kept within the traffic engineers' box of secrets and ordinary mortals are not allowed to see then we will never know, will we?

But "you can't see the fairies because you're not a traffic engineer" is an argument that isn't going to win you any respect either here or elsewhere.

_________________
"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

NDP - I note no response to your earlier question...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

How much experience do you have of designing accident remedial schemes?




I am participating. I've put forward issues with your analysis of 20 zones and cameras in roadworks, and asked you how you have considered these issues, as there doesn't appear to be any consideration of these issue on the pages you cite.

If you have considered these issues, why not lay the question to rest and say why? And if you haven't - again, why not say so and put the question to rest?

Firstly, I can't speak for anything specific to West Bromwich



Is possibly there to alleviate local concerns about "rat running", speed of traffic, or to prevent rat running to ensure that traffic is kept where it can be seen by a UTMC system



Unfortunately, too many motorists fail to obey Highway Code rule 198, and this results in delays buses who get stuck in the layby. Additionally, it can be difficult for buses to manouevre into the laybys, and thus they may have to stop away from the kerb. This isn't good for the disabled, the elderly, those with pushchairs and so on.



It is somewhat difficult to comment on vague examples like this.


Now, all of these things may have their costs to motorists, but motorists don't have a monopoly on the right to use the highway. Sometimes motorists (like everyone) have to put up with something that may inconvenience them to ensure others are able to use the highway.

Why would traffic enginners or councillors place raising money for someone else as a priority?

The wording of HC Rule 198 is not really such as you would expect people to "obey" it - it's merely a recommendation, not a MUST or even a "should".


And surely here we get into a vicious circle, that the more bus stop laybys are filled in, the less other drivers will be willing to show courtesy to buses. If you know the bus will dive into another layby half a mile down the road, you won't lose out, but if it is going to stop in the road and end with you being boxed in behind it, you might well think twice.

Even worse is where local authorities deliberately build central islands opposite bus stops on two-lane roads, such as this example in Stockport:

_________________
"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

Local councillors are members of scamera partnerships. Traffic engineers - in broad terms - take their orders from councillors.

_________________
"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

But the fact of the matter is an awful lot of drivers seem willing to make these claims about limits being wrong with no idea of why it might have been imposed.

Its a rubbish situation - but there needs to be trust on both sides. Its all very well asking the other side to do their bit - but when everyone wants to play persecuted then that the conditions for that trust to exist won't happen.

The other issue is that everyone has a different opinion. While most people may see a limit as resonable - some will not. So what can you do in this circumstance other than say "put up with it"?

Its not a recommendation its a rule. I agree its not worded as strongly as some of the other rules - but then thats true of rule 144, rule 149, rule 159, rule 163 and so on - and its important these rules are adhered to (not watching out for long vehicles on a roundabout because the relevant rule doesn't contain the words "MUST" or "should" would be foolish).



Of course, laybys should be provided every so often to provide timing points for the buses.



We've discussed this one elsewhere - as I pointed out then the pedestrian refuge needs to be near the bus stop to cater for desired lines for pedestrians (they wouldn't use a refuge further away), and the location of this refuge has been constrained of the junction and the junction/private access. You'd either have to scrap the refuge (rubbish for pedestrians), or move the bus stop (which would require paving a section of verge whilst keeping private accesses clear, and if it came at the cost of on-street parking, would likely attract howls of protest from residents and so on).

Its never as simple as it seems from the drivers (cyclists, pedestrians, whatevers) perspective.

You did seem to imply that it was fairly general. I accept it can be reasonable in some circumstances (and indeed gave a specific example of a type of road where this might be done) but it is my belief that it is relatively rare as an explicit reason for cutting a speed limit.


Yes, but the point is that the general character and hazard density of most roads is fairly obvious - those where it isn't are relatively rare.


No, but highway engineering is done on the assumption of a reasonable level of competence amongst drivers.


No, obviously they won't have done, but they need a feeling of trust that the process has been done properly and fairly.


Yes, quite so, there needs to be trust. But that trust appears to have been broken by local authorities setting speed limits that are substantially at variance with the official guidelines, often for political rather than specifically safety reasons. One of the first examples of this was Suffolk's "30 in all villages" (and a lot of things that aren't villages) initiative in the mid-90s, when rather than examining each location on a site-by-site basis, they decided on an arbitrary definition of a village and slapped a 30 on everything that fitted.


Which surely is a strong argument for a greater measure of consistency being applied to speed limits - in a sense it is better for them to be consistently wrong, than wildly inconsistent.

If the former, the level of the speed limits is at least a matter of open public debate, if the latter it all depends on local interpretation and throws up numerous anomalies.

_________________
"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