I reckon the roundabout might be a medium / mini one and that will cost far less of course. I am curious that the Caravan place paid for this - although they must be one of the largest in the Country ! I dare say it is cheaper to keep the locals happy, than moving operations!
GreenShed wrote:
Some points:
1. The speed limit is not an option dependent upon workers being present. If you find it hard to spot the limit and observe it why be given an option to observe FFS?
?FFS?
I agree that legally the temporary lower speed limit for roadworks is expected to be obeyed, and for the most part most people do. There is a case of cry wolf however and people can be very frustrated when there is either nothing to slow for (a regular all too common observation these days) and I am not just talking about whether workers are present or not, but the needless miles of full carriageway reduced limit for nothing other than slowing area and filtering 'room'. It appears to be totally needless and even more so when the roads are not at peak traffic times.
Variable limits are often a joke in their application and considering all the 'technology at their disposal it is a disgrace'.
- We need to teach how to better recognise danger and manage risk as well as judge better.
GreenShed wrote:
2. The level of speed appropriate has been decided for you, observe it.
That isn't really right, it is a speed by which it is expected to be generally best for the 'whole' motoring sector during that specific period. It has not been specifically selected for each individual, and this is also part of the problem, it dumbs down the ability of all to the lowest common denominator. Now for genuine roadwork reasons it is fair and reasonable and especially for the general motoring population.
However roadworks now 'caterpillar' along roads and take weeks/months to complete and are often far 'longer than necessary in the eyes of the motoring public. A drying concrete 'soft' bridge was a prime example as miles either side were coned off.
Now if that was the whole reason why not 100yds after the bridge, reverted back to the standard speed limit (Motorway I believe it was, so 70mph).
GreenShed wrote:
3. ... increase the penalties, this can be done by prosecuting the most serious offence with the more harsh sanction.
Have you proof of any kind that that would work at all ?
What works reliably at road works are Police presence. Those that are well over the limit are tugged immediately and will remember that stop far into the future and what they are told too. It is personal direct immediate proportional and appropriate guidance or enforcement that takes most circumstances into consideration.
GreenShed wrote:
At 60mph; the fastest speed on a dual carriageway for a car that only leaves 4.36s between signs and 17.44s from the first sign to the camera.
... err really ? ! Try 70mph for dual carriageways !
Here.
That of course throws out your calculations, unless this d/carriageway was already reduced to 60mph? (Not checked the calculations ...) You have assumed too that no tall vehicles have obscured all motorists, along with no incidents or potential hazards occurring that may have averted their attention and observations !
But something more has to have occurred here for this number to be over.
GreenShed wrote:
There are strict conditions that require lighting of signs, this relates to the type of road, the position of the signs in the system of signs and the street lighting at the location. If these are not met then no lights are required.
The Council is under a legal obligation to the Government - a lot more than strict conditions IMHO !
Unlikely to have street lighting on a d/c but not impossible but most 60mph or 70mph have no street lighting unless at a junction. As this was close to a town it might be that it was with additional signs and repeater signs to show the speed limit. (Street lighting further than 250m apart too.)
GreenShed wrote:
Considering the reason behind the limit and its obvious provision of signs and the number who have chosen to ignore the limit, probably purposefully,
... you are not taking the conditions into consideration at all - why?
Why assume that people have 'deliberately' chosen to disobey? That makes you sound terribly harsh - like you are at war with the 'enemy' really. Understanding how to help people drive / ride better and more safely surely ought to be your aim n'es pa ?
GreenShed wrote:
then rather than providing more signs it perhaps needs more severe sanction to make it more effective. There is no doubt that many who passed through this and were caught over the limit and a generous margin past it have done so because they see no need for the lower limit.
All you teach with that if I may say appalling attitude is that the camera and the speed are the most and only important 'thing' to consider and observe above all else. How does that help anyone observe better, drive to conditions, take into account the environment and prepare and consider all potential and developing hazards ?
Your assumption that they did it deliberately is unproven or have you asked them all ?
Of course not, you just cannot perhaps envisage events of driving that will obscure a few signs. A lorry might do this - not at the high speeds but several lorries all slowing for the roadworks might though. Many motorists are now very familiar with lorries all bunching and going much slower than the rest of the traffic, so a not unusual sight. By the time they see the roadworks and especially a forward facing camera it is just too late. It is perfectly possible.
GreenShed wrote:
for a ban to be imposed immediately. After all, if you choose to think you know better or are not observant enough to see a sign placed at 4.36 second intervals on 5 occasions as you drive past; THINK! Should you really be driving among other people you are prepared to put at risk.
Well we could argue that if 1000's of motorists disobeyed and no one lost a life then that proves that, it cannot after all, have been that dangerous or were they all just terribly 'lucky'? Hardly.
I cannot agree with them all disobeying the intended lower speed, we encourage all motorists to obey the laws of the road; but considering all this punishment has been dolled out relentlessly on the motoring population, and people still admit to speeding, then does that not make you wonder what is really going on ? That it may just be more complicated and involved than you first thought ?