Speed limits discuss

[reohn2]

Interesting distinction. Why, when you can see there is no-one else there and nowhere for anyone to emerge from, would 60 be inappropriate and inconsiderate? Inconsiderate of whom when there is no-one else to be affected?

Noise, pollution, danger to wildlife and possibly farm stock, intimidation. People don't have to be present to be intimidated; if you know that Little Cowpoo Lane is used by drivers at 60mph, it's likely to put you off walking or cycling there.

I don't drive a car with a noisy exhaust, noise pollution is the same for slow or fast driving.
No danger to wildlife or farm stock as the parts of the road it is safe to drive fast have good sight lines (by definition) and no-where from which hidden wildlife (or small human life) could emerge into the road.
There have been plenty of times I have had to stop for escaped horses, sheep, cows and ducks, also for horse riders, playing children, walking neighbours (usually have a chat). None have been endangered or intimidated. That's the whole point about understanding where it is actually safe to drive at 60 and where it isn't.

Can I draw your attention(once again,sorry)to the Rhyl incident where four people where killed and 2 seriously injured by a driver thinking he was in control of his vehicle in a 50mph limit and admitted to driving at that speed on an icy road.
I'm rather charitably discounting the fact that he had three defective tyres on his vehicle as the judge at his trial concluded they weren't a contributary factor in the in crash,however 50mph on an icy road wasn't either it seems

[mjr]

There's no single cause for people driving at inappropriate speed, but on narrow lanes familiarity is one. Many local drivers will know precisely the characteristics of the road ahead, whether the can see it or not. They also "know" from experience that there's never anything on the road out of sight round a corner or in a dip because there's never been anything there before. The countless tyre marks at these blind spot is evidence that this approach is wrong.

Is that true? When I drove a lot more for work, I used to be able to spot that someone was nearing where they lived because so many of them slowed down as they entered the settlement where they'd turn off into a residential area.

That would make sense on a safety (for road traffic alone) basis but not on an "other grounds" basis.
The lanes generally have fewer houses alongside them.

Is that true? Norfolk had a policy of refusing planning permission for houses that would feed directly onto main roads for some years, justified on the grounds of traffic flow, which I think is what's led to construction of some expensive so-called "distributor roads" to open more greenfield sites for building housing estates, as well as estates springing up along the starts of country lanes - I suspect the numbers in such village/market-town estates totals far more than those fronting along the rural A/B roads now. I think North Somerset had a similar policy, but I could be wrong because it didn't concern me there (no main roads in the area I served).

[AlaninWales]

Can I draw your attention(once again,sorry)to the Rhyl incident where four people where killed and 2 seriously injured by a driver thinking he was in control of his vehicle in a 50mph limit and admitted to driving at that speed on an icy road.
I'm rather charitably discounting the fact that he had three defective tyres on his vehicle as the judge at his trial concluded they weren't a contributary factor in the in crash,however 50mph on an icy road wasn't either it seems

Thank you reohn2, that is precisely my point! Most people when given a number on a stick, believe that is the safe speed for the road they are on, whatever the conditions. Set a 30 or 20mph limit on narrow lanes and people will believe they are safe simply because they are driving at that speed. I would further highlight the Michael Mason case, where one of the factors raised by the police for not prosecuting the driver was that she was within the speed limit (and therefore driving 'safely' ).

An hour ago I turned off a 30mph village street (wide for two way traffic) into a country lane which would have been also 30 or 20 mph default by the arguments on this thread. Since it had entrances both sides (houses to the right, mostly fields to the left with high hedges), 8 - 10 mph was more suitable. Give that a specific limit rather than the NSL sign and people would try to drive at that speed. Some probably do, but that's an argument for better training and a higher standard on the driving test (with compulsory re-testing); which I would whole-heartedly support.

[horizon]

How about discussing the following quote that I lifted from a Guardian comments column following an article about cycling safety:

It would be absurd, for example, to reduce the national speed limit to 20mph, which is what you would need to make country roads safe for bikes.

Just to come back into this debate, the reason I posted the quote was the use of the word "absurd". I was intrigued by the idea that travelling at 20 mph on a rural road (I presume they meant rural) was absurd. Absurd is quite a strong word and yet not much over 100 years ago it would have been equally "absurd" to suggest that travelling on rural roads above 20 mph might be possible. Funnily enough most people travel in rush hours all over Britain at less than 20 mph (in their cars) and it isn't seen as absurd at all. It just struck me that people are so blinded by what is common (as opposed to normal) that they couldn't conceive of any other reality. And yet we now have 20 mph zones in major cities, not just in residential backwaters.

Anyway, I don't know why we need to travel at more than 20 mph but I'm not sure we are ready to discuss that.

[gaz]

Some 'Rural Roads' carry 50 million vehicles a year .

[thirdcrank]

There's no single cause for people driving at inappropriate speed, but on narrow lanes familiarity is one. Many local drivers will know precisely the characteristics of the road ahead, whether the can see it or not. They also "know" from experience that there's never anything on the road out of sight round a corner or in a dip because there's never been anything there before. The countless tyre marks at these blind spot is evidence that this approach is wrong.

Is that true? When I drove a lot more for work, I used to be able to spot that someone was nearing where they lived because so many of them slowed down as they entered the settlement where they'd turn off into a residential area.

I don't understand how drivers slowing down in anticipation of turning off a road affects what I was trying to say. I realised after I'd posted that I meant to include that increasing levels of traffic on these narrow lanes have increased the chance of meeting somebody coming the other way. I can't see any other explanation for all the signs of emergency stopping.

Put another way, the extra traffic is often not using the roads for their original purpose of pretty limited access to the fields through which they pass, but rather as commuting routes from dormitory villages and commuting often generates a sense of urgency, combined with misplaced confidence about what's safe.

[Bmblbzzz]

And a lot of people don't like to speed (or be seen speeding by their neighbours) through the area they live in but are quite happy to do so in other residential areas.

[Bmblbzzz]

Can I draw your attention(once again,sorry)to the Rhyl incident where four people where killed and 2 seriously injured by a driver thinking he was in control of his vehicle in a 50mph limit and admitted to driving at that speed on an icy road.
I'm rather charitably discounting the fact that he had three defective tyres on his vehicle as the judge at his trial concluded they weren't a contributary factor in the in crash,however 50mph on an icy road wasn't either it seems

Thank you reohn2, that is precisely my point! Most people when given a number on a stick, believe that is the safe speed for the road they are on, whatever the conditions. Set a 30 or 20mph limit on narrow lanes and people will believe they are safe simply because they are driving at that speed. I would further highlight the Michael Mason case, where one of the factors raised by the police for not prosecuting the driver was that she was within the speed limit (and therefore driving 'safely' ).

An hour ago I turned off a 30mph village street (wide for two way traffic) into a country lane which would have been also 30 or 20 mph default by the arguments on this thread. Since it had entrances both sides (houses to the right, mostly fields to the left with high hedges), 8 - 10 mph was more suitable. Give that a specific limit rather than the NSL sign and people would try to drive at that speed. Some probably do, but that's an argument for better training and a higher standard on the driving test (with compulsory re-testing); which I would whole-heartedly support.

It's generally accepted that most people feel confirmed that they're ok if they're driving below or at (or only just a tiny little bit over...) the official limit, whatever the conditions. I can easily believe that on the particular stretch of road you're talking about 8-10 mph was a sensible speed. But how many people do you see driving there at 10 mph?

[mjr]

There's no single cause for people driving at inappropriate speed, but on narrow lanes familiarity is one. Many local drivers will know precisely the characteristics of the road ahead, whether the can see it or not. They also "know" from experience that there's never anything on the road out of sight round a corner or in a dip because there's never been anything there before. The countless tyre marks at these blind spot is evidence that this approach is wrong.

Is that true? When I drove a lot more for work, I used to be able to spot that someone was nearing where they lived because so many of them slowed down as they entered the settlement where they'd turn off into a residential area.

I don't understand how drivers slowing down in anticipation of turning off a road affects what I was trying to say.

I'm not talking about slowing down in anticipation of turning. I'm talking about slowing well down before entry to the settlement, possibly a mile or more before the turn (including ribbon villages), when they'd been quite happy to blast through other villages above the limit and I'd only caught back up within sight after a sustained stretch of straight few-junction wide-shoulder ex-railway or similar where they'd not quite done NSL. I agree with Bmblbzzz - put more colourfully, people don't like to defecate where they sleep.

I realised after I'd posted that I meant to include that increasing levels of traffic on these narrow lanes have increased the chance of meeting somebody coming the other way. I can't see any other explanation for all the signs of emergency stopping.

I'd agree with that, but I doubt that much of the emergency stopping is by locals because we see the horrific aftermaths on those lanes: the cars stove in from impact with trees, left with police-aware tape on them until recovery (because it's not as important to clear up as a major A road), the burn marks and glass where a car caught fire after tackling a tractor head-on, or the gouges cut by tyres as a vehicle skidded into the wide drain before its occupants drowned, preventing from opening doors by the drain banks.

Put another way, the extra traffic is often not using the roads for their original purpose of pretty limited access to the fields through which they pass, but rather as commuting routes from dormitory villages and commuting often generates a sense of urgency, combined with misplaced confidence about what's safe.

I think they're not being used for gaining access to residences that they pass or lead to as much as unofficial bypasses by satnavs that think dangerous NSL minor roads may be safe for some miscalculated average speed, with drivers who use both speed limits and satnav ETAs as targets.

[Bmblbzzz]

On mjr's second point above, I don't quite share his optimism that these are not locals. In my observation there's a substantial proportion of mostly (but by no means entirely) young and male, bored, rural and rural-urban fringe dwellers who seek out minor lanes for late night burn ups precisely because they know the chance of encountering police on them is (even) lower than on more major roads.

[SilverBadge]

Can I draw your attention(once again,sorry)to the Rhyl incident where four people where killed and 2 seriously injured by a driver thinking he was in control of his vehicle in a 50mph limit and admitted to driving at that speed on an icy road.
I'm rather charitably discounting the fact that he had three defective tyres on his vehicle as the judge at his trial concluded they weren't a contributary factor in the in crash,however 50mph on an icy road wasn't either it seems

IMO it was deemed that encountering an icy patch of main road was one of those circumstances that shouldn't have happened. I don't think anyone drives every day at a speed which would be safe if there were a diesel spill etc, though I accept that cold weather and the possibility of ice is a bit more predictable to allow a greater safety margin. IIRC of the presumably dozens or hundreds of vehicles which had negotiated that minor bend that morning, only two others failed to make it round safely and one was a police officer, which may have swayed the court.
As I see it a speed limit is a maximum not a target, furthermore it is a speed from which an adequately alert driver can slow down to a more appropriate speed in good time for all "hazards" (term from Roadcraft IIRC) they encounter.