50mph limit for rural roads

This is the place for posts that don't fit into any other category.

Moderator: RichardW

Are you in favour of this proposal?

Aye
1
4%
Naye
26
96%
 
Total votes: 27

ACTIVE8
Posts: 2317
Joined: 16 Nov 2004, 17:49
x 1

Post by ACTIVE8 »

Here's a case of too many road signs below, and note that the picture does not include every road sign on that road, and that apparently on that road there are 40 yes 40 no U-turn signs!

Image

Homer
Posts: 1504
Joined: 26 Feb 2003, 11:52
x 14

Post by Homer »

Toby_HDi wrote:
reblack68 wrote:I don't know what you drive when you're delivering but if it's a van with over 2000kg maximum GVW it's already subject to a 50mph limit on single carriageways and 60mph on dual carriageways. A lot of van driver have been caught out by that.
Indeed they have, thankfully I am aware of this fact. I drive a Mercedes Sprinter with 3500kg GVW
And is it less safe at 60mph than my Peugeot 807, which weighs in at over 2 tonne unladen, but since it's a car isn't subject to the van limits?

BARMY!

User avatar
jmaccyd
Posts: 11
Joined: 04 Sep 2008, 17:46

Post by jmaccyd »

As someone who walks and cycles in rural areas I have to say about time. Actually, the limit needs to be lower still and rigerously enforced. Fancy yourself as a racing driver, go on a race track, on a rural road with difficult road conditions and other road users such as horses, pedestrians, tractors and the like speeds need to be slower.

Tourist
Posts: 57
Joined: 25 Jan 2009, 14:59

Post by Tourist »

Signed.

Granted, some rural roads can be quite dangerous so use your common sense. Go as fast as is safe, just because the speed limit is 60, doesn't mean to say you have to go 60. My problem with this whole thing is not the new speed limit but the average speed cameras. What if it's safe? What if I want to have a bit of fun?

Deanxm
Posts: 3322
Joined: 18 Dec 2008, 18:57
x 42

Post by Deanxm »

Hi Gents
What if it's safe? What if I want to have a bit of fun?
There's no room in new labours plans for either free will or fun, you should all know this by now, they just want to stop you smoking, drinking and driving fast to keep you alive long enough to tax the shirt off your back to pay for public services no one wants :evil:

sorry about the rant :D

D

Toby_HDi
Posts: 1358
Joined: 05 Jan 2008, 22:31

Post by Toby_HDi »

jmaccyd wrote:As someone who walks and cycles in rural areas I have to say about time. Actually, the limit needs to be lower still and rigerously enforced. Fancy yourself as a racing driver, go on a race track, on a rural road with difficult road conditions and other road users such as horses, pedestrians, tractors and the like speeds need to be slower.
Am afraid I have to disagree with this. I also walk and cycle in such areas and I never find it a problem. When I drive down such roads I will drive according to the conditions and the road itself. If I come across animals or people I slow down. 60mph is not a 'racing driver speed'

As I said earlier, its not speed its peoples attitudes and the fact they need to adapt to conditions appropriately. Driving fast does not constitute driving dangerously all the time.

ACTIVE8
Posts: 2317
Joined: 16 Nov 2004, 17:49
x 1

Post by ACTIVE8 »

When a comparison is made to the motorways which are made for long distance journeys, and country roads do not compare to them, as 60mph has been determined to be O.K. for the country roads then surely 70mph is too slow for the purpose designed motorways.

Take it up to 80mph on the motorway at least.

Tourist
Posts: 57
Joined: 25 Jan 2009, 14:59

Post by Tourist »

I believe motorways should be 80 or 90, but to be honest, the majority of cars on the motorway are traveling at this speed anyway.

ACTIVE8
Posts: 2317
Joined: 16 Nov 2004, 17:49
x 1

Post by ACTIVE8 »

Tourist wrote:I believe motorways should be 80 or 90, but to be honest, the majority of cars on the motorway are traveling at this speed anyway.
Well yes so much for the 70mph they expect you to be at, in a modern car it's not right to be going at a speed set in the 60's cars have moved on a lot since then, it's a pity that the speed isn't set to be something more relevant!

User avatar
Xaccers
Posts: 7653
Joined: 08 Feb 2007, 00:46
x 4

Post by Xaccers »

For motorways, extend the variable limit scheme to the entire network.
Set the limit on each section to what is actually safe, ie early morning no traffic on a straight bit, have 100mph, rush hour with heavy rain or fog, drop it to 30 or 40, which ever is deemed suitable.
Catch those gits who do 70mph in thick fog.

User avatar
jmaccyd
Posts: 11
Joined: 04 Sep 2008, 17:46

Post by jmaccyd »

Tourist wrote:I believe motorways should be 80 or 90, but to be honest, the majority of cars on the motorway are traveling at this speed anyway.
Of course there is a problem with that. The increase in fuel consumption in going from 70 to 80 is actually fairly large because of the increasing effect of wind resistance. So you use a lot more fuel getting the 'extra' 10 MPH from 70 to 80 than for example getting from 60 to 70. I would think that a resource that is not infinate should at least be conserved so as to last longer. As someone has already said make the speed limit 80 and you are de-facto making it 90 to 100. Perhaps someone REALLY needs to get somewhere at 100 MPH, anyone? (car boot sales, a meeting you are a bit late to, delivering a cake to Auntie Bessie don't count!)

User avatar
jmaccyd
Posts: 11
Joined: 04 Sep 2008, 17:46

Post by jmaccyd »

Toby_HDi wrote:
jmaccyd wrote:As someone who walks and cycles in rural areas I have to say about time. Actually, the limit needs to be lower still and rigerously enforced. Fancy yourself as a racing driver, go on a race track, on a rural road with difficult road conditions and other road users such as horses, pedestrians, tractors and the like speeds need to be slower.
Am afraid I have to disagree with this. I also walk and cycle in such areas and I never find it a problem. When I drive down such roads I will drive according to the conditions and the road itself. If I come across animals or people I slow down. 60mph is not a 'racing driver speed'

As I said earlier, its not speed its peoples attitudes and the fact they need to adapt to conditions appropriately. Driving fast does not constitute driving dangerously all the time.

Of course speed is not the only factor, but is nothing short of self denying nonesense to pretend it is not a key factor on rural roads. I would add to speed the additional pre-requisite of safe driving to never drive faster than the distance you can safely stop in. I would argue that if you put this post on a walkers, cyclist or horse riding forum there would be massive support for the reduction in limits

User avatar
jmaccyd
Posts: 11
Joined: 04 Sep 2008, 17:46

Post by jmaccyd »

Jere are some figures,
All Casualties, GB, 2002 - 2005

2002 2003 2004 2005
RURAL ROADS Killed 2,102 2,245 2,092 2,102
Serious Injuries 13,232 15,555 14,456 13,323
Slight 94,605 92,958 93,175 90,065

Urban Roads Killed 1,099 1,261 1,125 1,099
Serious 15,615 18,107 16,657 15,615
Slight 167,873 160,086 153,096 148,683


Motorways Killed 204 217 164 204
Serious 1,063 1,234 1,137 1,063
Slight 12,763 12,578 14,144 12,515
TOTAL 316,056 304,241 296,046 284,669



So on rural roads, with less people around than in urban areas, almost twice as many people die (with approx the same serious injuries, and a lot less slight injuries) Figures from Rospa

User avatar
Xaccers
Posts: 7653
Joined: 08 Feb 2007, 00:46
x 4

Post by Xaccers »

Don't you just love statistics?
Are you suggesting that speed is the main factor in the larger number of deaths?
Above: higher traffic levels, more obsticals to collide with should an accident occur, lower road upkeep, use of dangerous road surface materials (that I believe in Eire are restricted to only be used in 30mph areas), more wildlife, more ice, more liable to flooding or standing water, longer response times for emergency services...

Of the two serious accidents I've had, both were on rural roads, one was at 40mph the other at 30mph (60mph limit).
The most serious of them was actually caused by slowing down.

User avatar
CitroJim
A very naughty boy
Posts: 43591
Joined: 30 Apr 2005, 23:33
x 1612

Post by CitroJim »

All those statistics really say to me (and I deal in them a lot 8) ) is that really, overall there is very little difference between them over the years so they prove nothing except that whatever you do, the figures remain about the same.

Rural roads are bloody dangerous but for reasons that have nothing whaever to do with speed, which is, in any case, generally self-limiting due to the conditions.

Rural roads are poorly maintained and this, I believe, is one of the main causes of accidents. A rural road I travel on every day has large potholes and vehicles now swerve to avoid them. It's only a matter of time before a swerve results in a bad smash. Additionally, this same road has collapsed edges and very poor camber resulting in poor handling and control. It suffers from standing water and consequent ice in winter. That's just one road I use and it's a pretty typical one.

All the authorities need to do to improve the situation is to spend a bit of time and money improving them. Simple.

Another issue with a lot of rural roads is that nowadays the volume of traffic they carry is far in exces of what they were designed to carry. This, around our way at least, is through a practice called "rat running" to avoid the heavily congested main roads on the commute to and from work. Why people choose to live so far from work and then suffer a miserable commute is totally beyond me.

I digress, but there, in a nutshell, is the nub of the problem and all the speed cameras in the world will do nothing to help. Rural roads need to be repaired properly to make them safe and the practice of rat running stopped by making main roads congestion-free by addressing the problems head-on rather than fiddling around the edges of the issue.

We're supposedly a first-world country. We have roads that a lot of so-called third-word countries I've visited would be ashamed of.