Over the years my local council have imposed a number of 40 mph sections on roads that used to be 60 mph. On my way to work this morning I was looking around and could not understand the rationale for why the 40 mph was in place.

Who makes the decision as to whether a 60 mph road section should be changed to 40 mph and can the decision be retrospectively challenged.

ps – I am all in favour for speed limits in residential areas, but open sections of a highway where there are no houses …

Nine pages.

Seem to recall it’s the most cost-effective way of making the road ‘safe’ enough to meet H&S/liability/Euro standards

Rather than fix all the potholes and cut back the undergrowth it’s easier and cheaper to make it slower

On the other hand it could be a local councillor playing the safety card.

Yeah my journey over Rushup Edge must take a good minute longer since the 50 limit was put on it.

11, and I’ve run out of biscuits.

One near me has gone from a national speed limit to 30! It’s a country road between towns. I challenge it by not going 30. But then I is a cwiminal.

Then again, think of the fuel you are saving! Add in the reduced air pollution and noise. And it’s only costing you a few minutes in time.
Whoever reduced that limit is a genius. You should write a letter of congratulations!

makes it easier to make progress if everyone else is doing 40…

That kind of change is counter-productive. Before, (most) drivers would slow down entering the town. Now, they’ll look about between the towns, decide that 30 is daft and speed up. Then they’ll be going at 40 or whatever (more?) between the towns and when they get to the town, there’s no trigger to reconsider their speed.

They shouldn’t do it – but that’ll be what happens.

makes it easier to make progress if everyone else is doing 40…

You’re right: reducing the speed limit increases the capacity of the road, reducing congestion and allowing everyone to make better progress.

Speed limits are only reduced following data showing the safety benefits of doing so e.g. If that road has a particularly high accident rate or if something changes like they build a school on or nearby it. Just because you can’t see a physical reason for it doesn’t mean there isn’t a justified reason.

Haha. There’s a section of road on my commute (past ecclesfield school in Sheffield if anyone knows it) where it’s 40 one side of the hill and 30 the other, with fixed cameras at the top by the school gates. The cameras used to be in the 40 section but a couple of years ago the change to 30 was moved a few yards so that the cameras are now in a 30 zone. I expect one or two got points in the few weeks after. I don’t really see why there is any difference over the stretch, other than the 40 stretch has open fields on one side and houses on the other, as opposed to houses both sides along the road. Should all be 30 really.
All seems a bit random

They have just dropped the limit on a road near me from 40 to 30. The reason given is that the roads off the previous 40 stretch are now 20’s and that slowing down from 40 to 20 is dangerous……..

Who turns at 20 mph unless you are a lunatic ?

Another road near me, not much pedestrian activity, houses set back, fields on the other side, is now a 20 and if you do 20 you are really bullied from behind.

as euain will know near us a 4 lane road was reduced to 40 on justification that it had crossing points for junctions and a non continuous central reservation.

yet the a90 remains a 60 despite the broken central reservation for junctions at the accident blacks spots of fordoun and laurencekirk.

systems broken.

You’re right: reducing the speed limit increases the capacity of the road, reducing congestion and allowing everyone to make better progress.

Maybe so, but makes it bloody slow going. Bad enough getting stuck enough behind some tw!t driving their Nissan Micra at 40 all the way let alone being forced to do it.

No, in practical terms you can’t challange it.

Reducing speed limit increases the capacity at peak times only. The rest of the time it just slows traffic down

My issue with these sort of changes is that the lower limit makes sense at peak times but not at night when the road is deserted. However variable limits cost a lot of money to enforce and so we are stuck with the cheap solution of a few new signs

@simmy limit should be 20 in residential areas, past schools etc

s – I am all in favour for speed limits in residential areas, but open sections of a highway where there are no houses …

Slowing down gently – rather than 60-30mph has a huge perception on what speed is OK to drivers IME. I *guess* that fewer will speed in the 30 section if they have had to do 40mph before they get there.

If, twice a day, children walk to school (for example) on that section, you would never know if you did not pass at the right moment.

11, and I’ve run out of biscuits.

I predict a closed thread.
We just opened a lardy biscuit selection box in the office.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1D_A2sneZ9Q[/video]

There are no biscuits in the house. Have I got time to pop to the shop?

Could you not start a riot? That would draw the attention of the authorities, thereby indicating to them that you have a grievance.

Peak traffic you’ll be going slower than the limit anyway. Off peak just ignore, having due regard to road and traffic conditions and location of speed traps. I’ve ignored speed limits for the last 35 odd years (as have the majority of other drivers). Try finding a car doing less than 60mph in the 50mph section of the M8 at 11pm.

No chance of getting a speed limit raised. The next time someone got injured on that road blame would be flying everywhere no matter whether or not speed was a factor.

I think it’s because most people seem to have had it drummed into them by the vocal, misguided and sometimes hysterical anti-speed campaign that rather than ‘good courteous driving, observation and improved driver training makes you a safer driver’ it’s instead ‘not speeding makes you a safer driver’. No surprise then that some councils under pressure from the self righteous local campaigners have reduced limits accordingly.

Regardless to the above I’ll generally drive to whatever speed feels appropriate for the conditions and still allows for a good margin of safety be that 100+ on a deserted motorway (over the limit), or perhaps 10-15 past the local school (well under the limit).

Appreciate that this may leave me liable for the odd fine now and again but with good observation this can be mitigated. Just 2 x speeding fines in 20 years of driving isn’t too bad.

I think you need to work for the government or something and then influence policy. Or lobby someone at parliament if you have much dollars and friends.

Who makes the decision as to whether a 60 mph road section should be changed to 40 mph

probably people in possesion of more facts and data about that road than someone who ‘had a look around’, often stuff like this:

If, twice a day, children walk to school (for example) on that section, you would never know if you did not pass at the right moment.

If that road has a particularly high accident rate

or plans to build something nearby or other stuff that neither you nor I know…

Maybe so, but makes it bloody slow going. Bad enough getting stuck enough behind some tw!t driving their Nissan Micra at 40 all the way let alone being forced to do it.

nonsense! how long is this road? let’s for the sake of argument assume it’s dead straight, with no corners, turnings, junctions or lights or any other hazards that might cause you to need to adjust your speed anyway, so a road you can travel at a constant 60mph on, 1 mile per minute, at 40mph it’s 1mins 30 seconds, a whole 30 seconds extra for each mile under perfect conditions, in real life less difference, especially since you said ‘sections’ of road, so I’m assuming the actual impact on you overall is almost negligible.

If you get that wound up by a few mins on your journey to consider challenging a speed limit I respectfully suggest (with my best jedi voice on) that you ‘go home and rethink your life’, there are much better things to expend your energy getting worked up about.

It’s telling that your response was asking if it could be challenged, rather than asking how you find out the reasons for it being reduced in the first place…FOI request should get you that BTW 😉

Disagreeing with the reasons is one thing, assuming they were wrong and getting upset that you might have to slow down is somethign else entirely.

You could ask for the evidence used to justify the change under an FOI request. then see if you think its reasonable. I bet you this tho – you would find good reason for the change.

We have a hill with a round about at the bottom here that has gradually reduced the speed limit to 30 and people still over shoot and launch off a wall into a field or destroy the pedestrian crossing. People are idiots that’s generally why they get reduced. Previous are I lived in went from 60 everywhere to 50 and 40 in places after about a dozen Road captains did somersaults into field through brick walls and one half way up a tree. All in the space of a month.

Regardless to the above I’ll generally drive to whatever speed feels appropriate for the conditions and still allows for a good margin of safety be that 100+ on a deserted motorway (over the limit), or perhaps 10-15 past the local school (well under the limit).
Appreciate that this may leave me liable for the odd fine now and again but with good observation this can be mitigated. Just 2 x speeding fines in 20 years of driving isn’t too bad. [/I]

+1

There’s a road that runs along the Buckinghamshire/Oxfordshire border, it’s a 60 in Buckinghamshire and a 50 in Oxfordshire – and as it continually crosses the border it means it goes back/forth between the limits.

And the road outside my house is a 60 limit, the road is barely wider than a single vehicle, has a long distance path running along it and goes through a steading with a stables. To get the speed limit reduced there needs to be a reason. According to my friendly council chap a death would do it…

I wish there was. Then I could demand all those 60’s turned into 40’s. The overall time reduction would be small, roads would be nicer to be on generally and fuel consumption would be less which handy when we are running out. If the lack of speed is a problem get up earlier or just be a touch less selfish?

We have a hill with a round about at the bottom here that has gradually reduced the speed limit to 30 and people still over shoot and launch off a wall into a field or destroy the pedestrian crossing. People are idiots that’s generally why they get reduced. Previous are I lived in went from 60 everywhere to 50 and 40 in places after about a dozen Road captains did somersaults into field through brick walls and one half way up a tree. All in the space of a month.

Isn’t that natural selection? If you use the argument “because a minority of fools … then rules for the majority must be changed” where do you draw the line?

I wish there was. Then I could demand all those 60’s turned into 40’s. The overall time reduction would be small, roads would be nicer to be on generally and fuel consumption would be less which handy when we are running out. If the lack of speed is a problem get up earlier or just be a touch less selfish?

Do you own a Nissan Micra?

Isn’t that natural selection?

problem is this “natural selection” tends to take out innocent parties aswell. In fact the bell ends behind the wheel have a better survival rate than any passing pedestrians/2 wheelers/others.

So yes occasionally you do have to cater for minority of fools

especially so with normalised activities like driving which seemingly knocks 20 IQ points off anyone who gets in a driving seat. (how many normally quite sensible people follow sat navs instructions into quite obvious trouble?)

Appreciate that this may leave me liable for the odd fine now and again

It also means that you’re not consistent – and consistency is important for OTHER people to judge your behaviour, which improves safety.

Your reactions are only part of the story – the other part is other people’s reactions to you.

It also means that you’re not consistent – and consistency is important for OTHER people to judge your behaviour, which improves safety.

OK I’ll bite! Not sure if you’re trying to be difficult but the whole premise behind driving is that you have to assume it’s totally unpredictable the whole time and make allowances for this. If you can’t deal with this or foresee ‘unexpected stuff’ happening (e.g. surprises always seem to happen to you) then you might perhaps benefit from some more training?

I would argue I am very nearly 100% consistent – in that I consistently select a speed that allows me to travel as quickly as possible with a good margin of safety for whatever the given conditions are at the time. Sometimes as stated before that means traveling at well below the legal limit.

Every driver should be capable of doing the same, but those with a lower skill level, a less able car, or perhaps those who are feeling slightly under the weather today might have to adjust their speed downwards accordingly in any given conditions to maintain the same margin of safety.

Familiarity breeds contempt.

Your reactions are only part of the story – the other part is other people’s reactions to you.

Which is why you should be consistently monitoring other peoples reactions to what you’re doing and what other road users are doing whilst you’re driving.

So much awesomeness already on this thread, so much promise…

I miss surfmat 🙁

Hi, i’ll be popping in and out to say things like:

’20’s plenty’ (and often it really is)

and ‘speed reduction isn’t *just* about safety’ (noise and pollution reduction are key benefits)

i’ll be back in a page or 2 to see how things are getting on…

People are idiots

Good point.