Speed limits what should they be?

[HDi fun]

There are two sides to this. Yes, you do have a choice, dtick to the posted limits and you won't get a ticket.

I would like to see more enforcement in towns and villages. I see little point in placing a mobile safety unit on a dual carriageway bypass where 70 is allowed and probably even 100 is not unreasonable in some circumstances.

Why not occasionally put the enforcement van in the bypassed village and encourage compliance with the sensible 30 limit?

[pgarner]

thats what happens around here ive noticed the van sitting in smaller towns that run alongside the motorway on the apr road rather than on the motorway its self

[Forky]

I think speed limits on motorways especially 4 lane motorways and other wide straight roads could do with being more that 70mph. After all i believe breaking the speed limit is not the main cause of accidents although yes a lot of drivers get over cocky and speed on 30mph roads going through towns.
I believe it is driver errors such as failing to indicate and cutting other drivers up that cause most of the accidents. The problem is that this is hard to monitor and enforce but speed it relatively easy to enforce due to speed cameras. And as for minimum speed limits i agree, as accidents are more likely to happen when frustrate drivers try and over take that person in front that only doing 30mph on a national road

[giraffe82]

I think that speed limits around schools should be 20, all limits currently at 30 should be upped to 40 and motorway upped to 100.

I think a major problem with road safety is drilling the seriousness of the danger of roads into kids, I drive by a school regular and the kids seem to think they are immortal, idling across the road in front of moving cars like they have all the time in the world. Pedestrian crossings in school areas would probably be a better solution than lollipop people too... pedestrian crossings seem to have special powers that make people stop every time.

[aswearing]

to be fair in certain areas that are 30, its not exactly practical, or sensible to be doing such a speed, no matter how much experience you have.

on an estate with lts of turns and lots of blind corners, you have more chance of keepin ncd and not having to fork out money than if you were doing 30.

legally if you were doing 30 round a corner and you crashed into a person travelling at 20mph, then you would not be penilised. but you would be in a legal battle costing money and time and an increase in your insurance.

[old-git]

Originally Posted by Pixel

Yeah but Speed Cameras are all about money and if I was them (i.e. money grabbing bastards) then I would lower the point penalty for caught speeding to 1 point (from 3) or maybe even 0 points (if less than 45mph on a 30mph camera). Most people wont care about the fine and they will be minted!

Oh dear.....

Point 1

Have you not seen the ads on TV re the damage driving at 40mph does to a person compared to 30mph? If someone hit your girl friend or sister at 30mph whilst they were crossing the road near their home they have a 90% chance of surviving. If they are hit at 40 they have a 90% chance of dying! THAT IS WHY THE LIMIT IS SET AT 30MPH IN URBAN AREAS!!!!!!!

Point 2

If cameras were just there to make money, the trigger threshold would be set a lot lower than it is. For example, cameras in 30mph limits are not set at 31mph, despite rumours and tabloid stories to the contrary. They are set higher than this, but I am not telling how much higher They would also be placed in areas where the most speed related injuries occur and not where most speeding is happening.

Your suggestion actually proves that cameras are not just a money making exercise. Your idea would bring in more money but not reduce speeds. The idea is to persuade people to drive within the limits. The only realistic way to get through to the blockheads, ignorant or just plain stupid, is to threaten them with loss of driving privileges (I know the real dickheads will carry on without a licence but most don't).

I don't know about other parts of the country, but in Essex we follow the Government's strict guidelines for the location and installation of safety cameras (their official name). I get many calls and letters from members of the public wanting a camera in their street, but unless they meet the criteria (so many speed related injuries in a certain period) they have no chance of getting one. I know, because I have tried.

I have a particular stretch of road with a sweeping S bend and housing very close along one side. There has been, and continues to be, a steady trickle of vehicles misjudging the bends and ending up either in the gardens or the fields opposite. We have tried lowering the speed limit at this location, re-surfacing the road, bright orange backed signs, reflector posts, road markings, all to no avail.

The only thing that I reckon will work is a pair of cameras at each end. But, as no one has yet been hurt it doesn't meet the criteria so the safety team won't add the site to their list.

Please don't believe everything you read in the daily comics. The only reasonably accurate facts in them are the cover price, issue date and football scores

Getting caught by a camera in not mandatory, you have a choice. If you don't want to give your hard earned drinking vouchers to the "money grabbing bastards" then don't speed past anything that is box shaped and bright yellow, simple really.

Oh, by the way, new legislation now means that the camera boxes no longer have to be painted bright colours or be visible. Just thought that you would like to know

Rant over.

Ah, that feels better

[Forky]

I drive by a school regular and the kids seem to think they are immortal, idling across the road in front of moving cars like they have all the time in the world.

very true it happens to me all the time, but whats really gets me is people that want to quickly cross the road, so they will run across the road get half way across thinking they have made a big enough effort and walk the rest of the way causing drivers to brake hard. Happened to me twice on the way home

[pgarner]

Originally Posted by old-git

Oh, by the way, new legislation now means that the camera boxes no longer have to be painted bright colours or be visible. Just thought that you would like to know

Rant over.

Ah, that feels better

has the law changed on this yet. i thought it was next year

i dont have many problems with speed cameras as there are no fixed ones in dumfries and Galloway. in fact the only problem i do have is that the mobile ones normally sit in long straights , 2-3 miles where there have been no speed related accidents yet on a corner at the end where 4 cars crashed within a week of each other, and i add a very good mate of mine with his cherished mini which was driven like it was a old man behind the wheel different story in his mondeo. nothin has been done apart from the first woman's husband suing the council as he was not happy that the road was in good condition as his wife slid off the road.and both of them thought there was oil on the road which had not been cleared up. next day 2 cars slid in the same place within 2 hours of each other. 2nd one had been slowed down due to recovery truck pulling the 1st one outo the ditch. and ma mate done it 3 days later

as far as i was aware its 3 accidents within 5 years and cameras are set at 10% ie 33 in town 77 on motorway

mobile cameras are the worst offenders though
a recently calibrated one was tested and got a limited wagon doing over 80, limited to 56. a car going negative speed even though it was coming towards the camera and the best a brick wall doing 30mph these were all the hand held ones i can only hope the ones in the vans are more accurate

[Twamgl3]

It's six fatal or serious 'road traffic collisions' or crashes (we're not allowed to say accidents) in five years, and where no other engineering measures will prevent the problem - i.e. straighten the road, traffic calming, et al.

Serious is anything that needs a visit to the hospital (broken finger/brain dead etc). Sure everyone can work out what fatal means. Like Old-Git I work in the trade, and I shall remain tight lipped about thresholds cameras are set to, but believe me if you get caught by one you deserve it!

Anyways, I think speeds should be higher on motorways and A roads ONLY, perhaps 85-90 but with much stiffer penalties for going over these speeds. I think 80-85 is pretty much the in-official speed limit for these roads anyway.

If you are very concerned about speed restrictions being too low/high on residential roads or past schools and such try reading Department for Transport Circular 1 of 2006. It's bloody boring, mind.

[Prince]

I think the motorway needs an increase in speed. They also need a minimum speed to be set. To try and stop people sitting in the middle lane at 40mph!! It's just dangerous!

[HDi fun]

I agree that limits need to be increased for some motorway sections, but perhaps with a corresponding increase in proper policing. Cameras are useless when it comes to detection of poor driving. The problem is, how do you fund this? Round we go again....

Perhaps getting some more CSOs into the offices to do admin work and get proper police officers back on the streets and highways would redress the balance a little.

30mph limits are generally sensibly applied and enforced.

I do think that a nominal change to the highway code allowing repeater signs to be erected regardless of the (rather silly) street lamp spacing rule would be helpful to those forgetful souls who can't remember (or work out for themselves) what the limit is.

[sbtUK]

My personal opinion is that most speed limits in cities, towns and villages are fine as they are. I have nothing against speed cameras in these places either. Encouraging people to drive carefully in these places is definately a good idea.

But... I'd want the majority of motorways to be no limit, autobahn style. Especially at 2am when I can't even see another car. Sticking at 70 is just no fun in that sort of situation. I'd even go as far as saying that it's actually quite hard to do without constantly checking your speedo (unless you have cruise control, of course).

I figure, if you're not looking at your speedo all the time, you can concentrate on the road more.

The cameras that really annoy me are on a few sections of the M1. They're the type that take an average speed, and they've dropped the speed limit to 50mph in those sections too. The amount of times I've drifted up to 55 by accident and then had to slow to 40/45 for the rest of the distance is just silly. Because all the traffic gets closer together when the speed limit drops, I don't want to be staring at my speedo all the time. And then when I have to slow down to compensate for drifiting over the limit, it just makes the congestion worse.

I hate those damn things. They're all over Nottingham too.

Rant over.

[waynne]

That seems to be the effect of cameras - drivers staring at their speedos. Whenever i'm in a line of cars that passes a camera I would 80% of drivers slow to 10% under the speed limit (just in case!) This causes bottlenecks and is dangerous in itself. Lets keep the roads running smoothly.

Interestingly in one region of Germany they have introduced an autobhan speed limit to 75mpg!

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,...n-ger-1023-rdf

The current minimum speed on our motorways is, I believe, 30mph - this is too low.

[HDi fun]

I do have crusie control and it's no easier to maintain a needless 70mph. Cruise control doesn't overcome the boredom.

Further, I think that varying your speed during the course of a journey reduces monotony and the possible driver fatigue that occurs as a result.

[Izo Azlion]

Originally Posted by old-git

Oh dear.....

Point 1

Have you not seen the ads on TV re the damage driving at 40mph does to a person compared to 30mph? If someone hit your girl friend or sister at 30mph whilst they were crossing the road near their home they have a 90% chance of surviving. If they are hit at 40 they have a 90% chance of dying! THAT IS WHY THE LIMIT IS SET AT 30MPH IN URBAN AREAS!!!!!!!

Point 2

If cameras were just there to make money, the trigger threshold would be set a lot lower than it is. For example, cameras in 30mph limits are not set at 31mph, despite rumours and tabloid stories to the contrary. They are set higher than this, but I am not telling how much higher They would also be placed in areas where the most speeding is happening and not at locations were most injuries occur.


Your suggestion actually proves that cameras are not just a money making exercise. Your idea would bring in more money but not reduce speeds. The idea is to persuade people to drive within the limits. The only realistic way to get through to the blockheads, ignorant or just plain stupid, is to threaten them with loss of driving privileges (I know the real dickheads will carry on without a licence but most don't).

I don't know about other parts of the country, but in Essex we follow the Government's strict guidelines for the location and installation of safety cameras (their official name). I get many calls and letters from members of the public wanting a camera in their street, but unless they meet the criteria (so many speed related injuries in a certain period) they have no chance of getting one. I know, because I have tried.

I have a particular stretch of road with a sweeping S bend and housing very close along one side. There has been, and continues to be, a steady trickle of vehicles misjudging the bends and ending up either in the gardens or the fields opposite. We have tried lowering the speed limit at this location, re-surfacing the road, bright orange backed signs, reflector posts, road markings, all to no avail.

The only thing that I reckon will work is a pair of cameras at each end. But, as no one has yet been hurt it doesn't meet the criteria so the safety team won't add the site to their list.

Please don't believe everything you read in the daily comics. The only reasonably accurate facts in them are the cover price, issue date and football scores

Getting caught by a camera in not mandatory, you have a choice. If you don't want to give your hard earned drinking vouchers to the "money grabbing bastards" then don't speed past anything that is box shaped and bright yellow, simple really.

Oh, by the way, new legislation now means that the camera boxes no longer have to be painted bright colours or be visible. Just thought that you would like to know

Rant over.

Ah, that feels better

To sum that up, if people had proper driver training (Like, its forced to take an advanced driving course) there'd be much less need for speed cameras, or rather, the speeds could be slightly higher in appropriate places. As people would know how their car is going to react better than they do when they come out of their "driving" lessons, which effectively just teach you to operate the car. Not how to "drive."

Nice of you to share your information on how much higher they're set by the way. Speed cameras are not the way forward. A decent standard of driving is.