Speed limits on Rural roads

[Philip Benstead]

moderator note: This topic has been split from Carol Boardman killed in cycling collision

This is my comment from the The Times of the tragic news
Philip Benstead 2 days ago
Sorry to hear about this tragic death of a fellow cyclist.
Even though we have no details of this collision between a motorised vehicle and a very experience cyclist, it is my view that many incidents of this type could be avoid if the following course of action was more widely implemented.
ENFORCING THE TRAFFI LAW
Reintroduction of traffic police to enforce the traffic laws and act as conduct of road users’ education.
PRESUMED LIABILITY
A changed from present fault based system to one of reversal of the burden of proof in collisions so that the more powerful will be presumed at fault unless proved otherwise. That means if cyclist knock a pedestrian down it is presumed the cyclist is at fault unless presumed otherwise but if somebody drive a car into a cyclist the car driver is presumed at fault. This the system used in most of Europe
http://www.roadpeace.org/change/fair_co ... liability/
DRIVERS
All drivers to undertake a cycle training course as adult before they start their driving lessons. This will give appreciation of the need to show due care (of course arrangement would be made to cover disable drivers)
COMMERCIAL DRIVERS
Many commercial drivers already undertake cycle awareness training as part of their continual professional development, I suggest this should be made compulsory in the UK and even EU.
http://www.cycletraining.co.uk/our-serv ... vers.htmll
CHILDREN
All children to have bikeability training (cycling as transport as oppose to sport) as part of the school curriculum under the heading of either physical education
or personal social and health education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal, ... _Education
ADULTS
All adult cyclist undertaken a course of one to one bikeability training.
An example in London
https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/cycling/cyclin ... cle-skills
OUTSIDE LONDON
http://www.cyclinguk.org/courses-traini ... l-standard
PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Of course there is the physical infrastructure, there has been improvements in Greater London Authority area, but must more need to be done in regard to junctions and whilst outside London the incidence of collisions in the rural environment is high http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cy ... 309128.ece
Often country lane has a national speed limits of 40/50/60 mph, this is madness. The default speed lime on unclassified roads should be 30 mph unless special condition prevail. Whilst village should have limit of 20 mph.
Most cyclist would prefer to ride on smaller roads but often hindered by the need to transverse major A roads often single lane what is need is high quality segregated cycle track that connects up the unclassified roads.
In some case there is no realistic alternative unclassified route we need high quality segregated cycle tracks either alongside or if possible a little away from the major roads. Other counties can do it why not us?
http://www.citylab.com/commute/2016/01/ ... rk/422451/
LIFELONG CYCLIST AND CYCLE INSTRUCTOR

[Flinders]

A 30mph limit unclassified roads is completely impractical, and not even necessary, if the law is correctly and consistently applied. Some unclassified roads are wide enough for two large vehicles to pass easily and safely have straight sections with good visibility where 30mph would be a ridiculous limit- you would be driving more safely there at 50 than on some motorways at 70. If a driver drives dangerously or carelessly they are already breaking the law. Drivers can be prosecuted if they are doing under the speed limit but they are still driving too fast for the conditions. A lorry driver here was prosecuted and convicted for driving too fast to stop when a child ran out in front of his lorry when he was doing well under the 30mph speed limit because, on that street, with the parking etc., that was still considered too fast to be safe.

One county (I think Oxfordshire?) has limited all unclassified roads to 50, that does seem reasonable. But a blanket 30 would be ridiculous- especially in some remote rural areas where all the roads are unclassified.

The law is already there, what it needs is enforcement - and more driver education, i.e., you are not 'safe' from prosecution if you just drive at or below the limit on any road- the limit is a top speed in the best conditions and visibility on the best stretches of road only.

[Philip Benstead]

A 30mph limit unclassified roads is completely impractical, and not even necessary, if the law is correctly and consistently applied. Some unclassified roads are wide enough for two large vehicles to pass easily and safely have straight sections with good visibility where 30mph would be a ridiculous limit- you would be driving more safely there at 50 than on some motorways at 70. If a driver drives dangerously or carelessly they are already breaking the law. Drivers can be prosecuted if they are doing under the speed limit but they are still driving too fast for the conditions. A lorry driver here was prosecuted and convicted for driving too fast to stop when a child ran out in front of his lorry when he was doing well under the 30mph speed limit because, on that street, with the parking etc., that was still considered too fast to be safe.

One county (I think Oxfordshire?) has limited all unclassified roads to 50, that does seem reasonable. But a blanket 30 would be ridiculous- especially in some remote rural areas where all the roads are unclassified.

The law is already there, what it needs is enforcement - and more driver education, i.e., you are not 'safe' from prosecution if you just drive at or below the limit on any road- the limit is a top speed in the best conditions and visibility on the best stretches of road only.

Often country lane has a national speed limits of 40/50/60 mph, this is madness. The default speed lime on unclassified roads should be 30 mph unless special condition prevail. Whilst village should have limit of 20 mph.
Most cyclist would prefer to ride on smaller roads but often hindered by the need to transverse major A roads often single lane what is need is high quality segregated cycle track that connects up the unclassified roads.

[Vorpal]

I think that the default speed limit on unclassified rural roads should be either 40 or 50 mph. However, lanes that are especially narrow, or have frequent hazards should have lower speed limits.

I do not think that it would generally be appropriate for higher speed limits. The vast majority of roads where speed limits higher than 50 are appropriate are classified roads.

It might be appropriate to have two 'standard' speed limits for unclassified rural roads. These could be set according to defined criteria, such as width, surface material, numbers of drives /entrances pre kilometer, population density, visibility distance, and/or traffic density.

[Richard Fairhurst]

One county (I think Oxfordshire?) has limited all unclassified roads to 50, that does seem reasonable.

Sadly not Oxfordshire, though I wish it were!

It's a shame the Quiet Lanes project seems to have died a death: http://www.cpre.org.uk/resources/transp ... uiet-lanes

[Bmblbzzz]

Speed limits, particularly on rural lanes, should not be only a matter of safety. Other considerations such as reducing noise and pollution, limiting damage to banks and verges, preserving roadside vegetation, discouraging non-necessary traffic and of course creating a pleasant environment for cyclists, horse riders, dog walkers, pedestrians etc - not forgetting local residents - should be taken into account.

[Vorpal]

All adult cyclist undertaken a course of one to one bikeability training.

Is that really practical?

Will you also require all adults to have pedestrian training? Maybe we can learn the little song they teach in schools about looking both ways (Look right! Look left! Look right again!....) before crossing the road.

Furthermore, whilst it may make some cyclists safer, I think puts the burden on cyclists to keep themselves safe.

I think that the obligations should be placed upon (in this order):
REGARDING INFRASTRUCTURE
1) The government to provide funding for a safe transport environment for all users
2) The Department for Transport and related agencies to establish standards for good highways infrastructure design
3) The Engineers and designers in the highways authorities to ensure work is designed and built to standard
4) The contractors and subcontractors who carry out the design and construction
REGARDING OTHER ROAD USERS (responsibility according to type and size of vehicle)
5) the drivers of large vehicles such as HGVs
6) the drivers of other four-wheeled motor vehicles
7) the drivers of small motor vehicles
pedal cyclists
9) pedestrians
10) children


Each of the above have responsibility to all of the others to behave with due care and attention, but there is an additional and increasing burden of responsibility towards those below (or with higher numbers) due to their vulnerability. So, the greatest burden of responsibility is upon the government to provide a safe road environment for vulnerable users, and especially children.

Bikeability is a good course, don't get me wrong, but it is designed to improve the safety and confidence of an individual cyclist. Whilst I agree that Bikeability should definitiely be available to any cyclist who wants it, I do not believe that it should be considered a road safety improvement scheme.

[mjr]

It might be appropriate to have two 'standard' speed limits for unclassified rural roads. These could be set according to defined criteria, such as width, surface material, numbers of drives /entrances pre kilometer, population density, visibility distance, and/or traffic density.

I favour 40mph standard for unclassified rural roads that have no centre line or where visibility is less than 50m (still 60mph with) and 30mph in all built-up areas (similar to France where I think a red-edged name sign signifies 50kph limit). It would enable removal of dozens of miles of repeater signs around here and correct the absurd situation where some gravel roads across nature reserves have theoretical 60mph limits but the better alternative tarmac roads are 30/40/50mph, resulting in predictable satnav mistakes.

[Vorpal]

It might be appropriate to have two 'standard' speed limits for unclassified rural roads. These could be set according to defined criteria, such as width, surface material, numbers of drives /entrances pre kilometer, population density, visibility distance, and/or traffic density.

I favour 40mph standard for unclassified rural roads that have no centre line or where visibility is less than 50m (still 60mph with) and 30mph in all built-up areas (similar to France where I think a red-edged name sign signifies 50kph limit). It would enable removal of dozens of miles of repeater signs around here and correct the absurd situation where some gravel roads across nature reserves have theoretical 60mph limits but the better alternative tarmac roads are 30/40/50mph, resulting in predictable satnav mistakes.

I think the speed limit should be 20 mph in built up areas. Otherwise, it makes sense to standardise and eliminate repeater signs.

[Flinders]

One county (I think Oxfordshire?) has limited all unclassified roads to 50, that does seem reasonable.

Sadly not Oxfordshire, though I wish it were!

It's a shame the Quiet Lanes project seems to have died a death: http://www.cpre.org.uk/resources/transp ... uiet-lanes

I can't remember which county it was. My bad.
A lot of places I drive (and I do a lot of rural driving) the more heavily used minor roads are now sprouting 50 limits, which seems like a good idea to me. It's bonkers that the limit on those roads is the same as for a dual carriageway.

It is a cause of great bemusement to my foreign friends that you can turn off a dual carriageway that has a specific limit of 50mph or even 40mph onto a tiny rural road where the absolute limit in theory is 60. But of course, if you actually did 60 on most if not all of it you'd be up for a charge of dangerous/careless driving....

[gaz]

... Maybe we can learn the little song they teach in schools about looking both ways (Look right! Look left! Look right again!....)

Altogether now "We must have safety on the Queen's Highway".

On a more serious note Department for Transport document "Update of Circular Roads 1/93", Setting local speed limits has guidelines for reducing speed from NSL on rural roads, it is a consultation document rather than policy.

General gist is that speed on rural roads can only be limited by design, e.g. the road layout. So a narrow, twisty, turny NSL road will generally achieve a lower actual driving speed than a wide straight one (remember people are paid to figure this stuff out )

The upshot is that if you set a speed limit far below the speed that the majority of traffic currently drives on any given road it will be ignored, e.g. if the limit's 60mph and the road layout determines that over 80% of motorists drive at 52mph then they might slow down to recognise a 50mph limit. Stick a 40mph or lower limit in place on the same road and it won't work, people drive according to their perception of the danger not the legal limits.

[Bmblbzzz]

One county (I think Oxfordshire?) has limited all unclassified roads to 50, that does seem reasonable.

Sadly not Oxfordshire, though I wish it were!

It's a shame the Quiet Lanes project seems to have died a death: http://www.cpre.org.uk/resources/transp ... uiet-lanes

I can't remember which county it was. My bad.
A lot of places I drive (and I do a lot of rural driving) the more heavily used minor roads are now sprouting 50 limits, which seems like a good idea to me. It's bonkers that the limit on those roads is the same as for a dual carriageway.

It is a cause of great bemusement to my foreign friends that you can turn off a dual carriageway that has a specific limit of 50mph or even 40mph onto a tiny rural road where the absolute limit in theory is 60. But of course, if you actually did 60 on most if not all of it you'd be up for a charge of dangerous/careless driving....

Ahem!

[Vorpal]

General gist is that speed on rural roads can only be limited by design, e.g. the road layout. So a narrow, twisty, turny NSL road will generally achieve a lower actual driving speed than a wide straight one (remember people are paid to figure this stuff out )

The upshot is that if you set a speed limit far below the speed that the majority of traffic currently drives on any given road it will be ignored, e.g. if the limit's 60mph and the road layout determines that over 80% of motorists drive at 52mph then they might slow down to recognise a 50mph limit. Stick a 40mph or lower limit in place on the same road and it won't work, people drive according to their perception of the danger not the legal limits.

Well, there's something to that. But 'by design' doesn't have to be only narrow and twisty. Roads can be artificially narroed with by painting lines on the sides, and not in the middle, by hedges and traffic calming measures.

[Bonefishblues]

General gist is that speed on rural roads can only be limited by design, e.g. the road layout. So a narrow, twisty, turny NSL road will generally achieve a lower actual driving speed than a wide straight one (remember people are paid to figure this stuff out )

The upshot is that if you set a speed limit far below the speed that the majority of traffic currently drives on any given road it will be ignored, e.g. if the limit's 60mph and the road layout determines that over 80% of motorists drive at 52mph then they might slow down to recognise a 50mph limit. Stick a 40mph or lower limit in place on the same road and it won't work, people drive according to their perception of the danger not the legal limits.

Well, there's something to that. But 'by design' doesn't have to be only narrow and twisty. Roads can be artificially narroed with by painting lines on the sides, and not in the middle, by hedges and traffic calming measures.

Agree completely. Road design in a tin, very effective and shamefully under utilised.

[Pete Owens]

On a more serious note Department for Transport document "Update of Circular Roads 1/93", Setting local speed limits has guidelines for reducing speed from NSL on rural roads, it is a consultation document rather than policy.

General gist is that speed on rural roads can only be limited by design, e.g. the road layout. So a narrow, twisty, turny NSL road will generally achieve a lower actual driving speed than a wide straight one (remember people are paid to figure this stuff out )

That guidance is also a quater of a century out of date and has been replaced three times by guidance that has progressively given greater emphasis on using speed limits to control speeds.

The 20th century guidelines essentially encapusulated the dogma that motorists were themselves the best judge of the safe speed to drive - so speed limits were set at the speed of the fastest 15% of drivers. This resulted in a self-serving circular argument in support of the policy - Since speed limits were set faster than most motorists were already choosing to drive it is hardly surprising that studies found that those speed limits had little effect. For years this held up the progress on setting sensible speed limits.

More recently this has changed. Now councils are positively encouraged to adopt widespread 20mph limits rather than small zones backed up with humps. All councils were required to review speed limits on A and B roads, with limits based on the safety record rather than existing speeds - which is why you now see many A roads with 50 or 40 mph limits. And what is more these limits are complied with - try driving along the 50mph roads in the Peak District - here for example:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.3018931,-1.8037277,3a,75y,123.49h,80.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6V3a_JIcE__4EzgItRUtnQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1