[i]Not all limits were set in the past. Plenty around where I live have been altered over the last few years. This is normally down to the number of accidents that have occurred on certain stretches of road. As I've previously said, some limits probably need looking at. In all fairness this would more than likely lead to further reductions not increases in limits. The road network appears to not be equipped to deal with the amount of traffic that utilises it. [/I]
Although its often 'policy' too, there's a road that travels down the Buckinghamshire/Oxfordshire border and it's 60 in Buckinghamshire and 50 in Oxfordshire...
Exactly as you say, without good reason. Driving idiotically slowly, as mentioned above, is also extremely dangerous. If the road was covered in ice or you were driving in heavy fog you'd have good reason to drive at 15mph. Some people would continue to drive to the limit though because they seem to think that's the speed you have to go.
No arguments here, that's bang on the money.
Not all limits were set in the past
You have limits set in the future?
😆You have limits set in the future?
Roads, where we're going you don't need roads.
Too much traffic, too much emissions, increasingly lazy driving standards. People driving around with 30 points cause "they couldn't work without a car". Brits treat cars like sacred cows, it's pathetic. They should start crushing cars and permabanning people for much less than they do. make people take a bit more responsibility and care over their driving.
OllyToo much traffic, too much emissions, increasingly lazy driving standards. People driving around with 30 points cause "they couldn't work without a car". Brits treat cars like sacred cows, it's pathetic. They should start crushing cars and permabanning people for much less than they do. make people take a bit more responsibility and care over their driving.
Honestly, why stop there.
There are some places where speed limits have been set deliberate low, with a camera, before the road was even open: the Batheaston bypass. It was built to take traffic from the highly congested village, which was also an accident blackspot, and was constructed as a dual carriageway from some way up a hill, and the limit was set at 50mph, with a camera set up under a bridge where the road straightens up from the bend as the traffic comes down the hill.
The justification for having the speed limit on a dual carriageway and a camera before the road was opened was down to the rules stating a camera can be installed a kilometre from an accident blackspot - so they put one on a brand new road, designed to bypass the blackspot, with an artificially low limit for a dual carriageway.
The camera is now off.
I was reminded of this discussion after a mate told me he got flashed by an "other side camera" yesterday on a 70MPH Dual carriageway with a wide central reservation.
He was in the inside lane, doing 90+ and the camera was on the other side of the dual on the hard shoulder side.
Apparently it was early morning, bright and nobody on the road in either direction but him. Is he done for?
If it's a double flashy distance travelled between the two photos job then I expect not. He'll have triggered it but even if there were lines painted on his side I'd imagine his vehicle would only be in 1 photo and not 2..
IANATrafficpolice
Nick, that's what I thought, but IA also NATrafficpolice... It was a double flashy, no lines painted on his side (I drove past it to have a look on my way n this morning). I wondered about the wideangleness of the lens. I wonder if the lens only covers the lane it is interested in, whereas the radar to trigger it may have wider coverage.
I've often thought that painting lines on both sides like the example given above is a cheap way to try and enforce both carriageways at one time. Some may take the risk, most won't.
As for the 'law of the land' argument. Nobody asked me to sign up for these before I popped out of the womb. Like everyone else, I abide by the Laws I agree with, and I ignore the Laws I disagree with. The nation state's ability to lock me up and throw away the key is driven purely by use of force.
The morality of breaking the Law is irrelevant to me, because I am already abiding by the Laws that I agree with by my individual moral code.
You can argue that by the process of applying for a driving licence, sitting my test, etc. I agreed to abide by the law of the land as regards motoring. However, I see it as a bit like the Apple terms and conditions, there is no other way to get to the end result I'm after, I'll say anything and then carry on as I see fit. There was a good article on here a while back about how it can actually work out cheaper to drive unlicenced, untaxed and uninsured. Even if you get caught. I just don't want that hassle, as I suspect the majority of people don't.
I speed. I religiously stick to the limit in built up areas because of my perception of risk to other road users and innocent bystanders. I also just do not think it is right to treat somewhere people live as a racetrack. Otherwise, I break the law if I want to, and I feel it is safe to do so. If I get caught, so be it.
I am happy to admit that by speeding when I feel it is safe to do so, I am still endangering other road users and innocent bystanders unnecessarily, purely for my own enjoyment or other selfish reasons.
But then I am only driving a car in the first place, because I have chosen to be a very selfish person. In the same way that I heat my house, and add to the population pressure by existing. The logical conclusion to the question, 'how can I remove all risk I pose to other people?' is to commit suicide. But then EVEN doing that does not actually remove all risk to other people!
(I am not arguing that I speed because I'm not suicidal BTW!)
I've often thought that painting lines on both sides like the example given above is a cheap way to try and enforce both carriageways at one time.
Apologies, my English isn't always the best. I meant that there were NO LINES painted on his side.