Deliberate dangerous riding?

[thirdcrank]

ChrisButch

The situation you describe is normal depending on local circumstances throughout the land.

Jdsk

Different local authorities do have their own policies. The streetview is where the B 6135 passes under the M62 which is more or less the boundary between Leeds and Wakefield. The now defunct county council used to be the highway authority and this road (with lamposts) was derestricted ie "National limit" repeaters on the lampposts. After highway responsibilities passed to the districts in 1985, Wakefield eventually opted for 40 and Leeds for 50. It's worth noting that the spur of the Trans-Pennine Trail to Leeds is signed as a cycle route on the Leeds bit.

https://goo.gl/maps/eykNQxFknyLaf7hx9

PS Go under the bridge into the 50 section and there's a lane off to the left which serves a few isolated houses and it's derestricted - illustrating a point some have been making

https://goo.gl/maps/nTq9GGwmRWoC3f627

[Bmblbzzz]

Here in rural Norfolk, we have the crazy situation where some B-Roads have a 40MPH limit in places (justified IMHO), but single-track roads leading off them (with grass down the centre included) have the de-restricted signs.

The lane on which I live is exactly as you describe. I can leave in three directions from my house, in each case on a narrow single-track lane without a speed restriction, but leading in half mile or so to wider roads with either a 40 or 30 restriction. In each case the entry from the wider road to the narrow lane has a de-restriction sign. This situation is pretty much the norm here in Mid Devon, and I'd say generally throughout the county.

It could be that the single track lanes are not thought worth going through the restriction process because there have been no incidents recorded (probably they don't get much traffic) and/or because of the physical difficulty of going faster whatever the limit, whereas the wider roads have no such physical limit and probably see more traffic, so more recorded incidents and more pressure to take some action.

[slowster]

Most road signs convey specific information or instructions about the road ahead. The NSL sign does the opposite. It does not tell you that any part of the road is suitable and safe for a speed of 60mph or any other speed, and it tells you nothing about the nature and condition of the road.

[Jdsk]

Different local authorities do have their own policies. The streetview is where the B 6135 passes under the M62 which is more or less the boundary between Leeds and Wakefield. The now defunct county council used to be the highway authority and this road (with lamposts) was derestricted ie "National limit" repeaters on the lampposts. After highway responsibilities passed to the districts in 1985, Wakefield eventually opted for 40 and Leeds for 50. It's worth noting that the spur of the Trans-Pennine Trail to Leeds is signed as a cycle route on the Leeds bit.

Thanks. But I was trying to ask a different question.

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

One thing in favour of a national limit of say 20 mph on single lane roads is you wouldn't have people saying

Any vehicle travelling upto 60mph is within the law to do so.

[Bmblbzzz]

VG point.^

[Mike Sales]

Most road signs convey specific information or instructions about the road ahead. The NSL sign does the opposite. It does not tell you that any part of the road is suitable and safe for a speed of 60mph or any other speed, and it tells you nothing about the nature and condition of the road.

I have just come across an NSL sign which seems unusually pointless.
There is a narrow, single car width lane which leaves the village near the church and in about fifty metres ends, where it was cut off by the bypass a couple of decades ago.
As you enter the village there is a thirty mph sign, backed by an NSL. It would seem to be very difficult for an average vehicle to reach sixty mph and then brake before erupting through the bushes onto the bypass!
Presumably the signing is left over frrom the time before the bypass cut the lane.

[thirdcrank]

There are all sorts of anomalies with speed limits. eg Until quite recently (in my time scales) it was not possible to have a 30 limit if there was no street lighting. This left the residents of some villages/ hamlets in a quandary, especially the comers-in. Street light is seen by some as infra dig and not in keeping with the rustic motif but nobody wants the "perfectly legal" at 60 drivers passing their front door, especially in the type of place where the front doors open directly onto the street. The answer was altering the regs to allow 30 repeaters instead of street lights, but in some of these places 30 is way, way too fast. As an example I've linked before here's Ledsham, West Yorks. Move the streetview forward a bit to see the bend referred to in the warning sign

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.76211 ... 312!8i6656

(BTW - it's only just dawned on me that the thread title may have been inspired by the "deliberate dangerous driving" thread - I'm slow on the uptake.)
viewtopic.php?p=1619375#p1619375

[ChrisP100]

There are all sorts of anomalies with speed limits. eg Until quite recently (in my time scales) it was not possible to have a 30 limit if there was no street lighting. This left the residents of some villages/ hamlets in a quandary, especially the comers-in. Street light is seen by some as infra dig and not in keeping with the rustic motif but nobody wants the "perfectly legal" at 60 drivers passing their front door, especially in the type of place where the front doors open directly onto the street. The answer was altering the regs to allow 30 repeaters instead of street lights, but in some of these places 30 is way, way too fast. As an example I've linked before here's Ledsham, West Yorks. Move the streetview forward a bit to see the bend referred to in the warning sign

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.76211 ... 312!8i6656

(BTW - it's only just dawned on me that the thread title may have been inspired by the "deliberate dangerous driving" thread - I'm slow on the uptake.)
viewtopic.php?p=1619375#p1619375

To be fair, I don't think many could do 30 round that firs bend without potentially ploughing (pun intended) through the farmyard.

[thirdcrank]

There are loads of discussion points. One that's been made a bit higher up is that the use of a sign with the limit in numbers shows that it's been somehow thought through. My Ledsham example seems to show something different.

It seems to me that speed limit signs tell road users nothing other than the speed limit beyond them. In formation is - in theory - conveyed by triangular signs, the source of endless amusement eg "man struggling with umbrella" and confusion, as revealed by the occasional surveys into sign recognition.

So much of this is the legacy of earlier times when eg methods of speed detection were much less sophisticated and rural roads carried much less motor traffic so the statistical likelihood of speeders meeting other traffic was smaller. Going back to the days of Leslie Hore-Belisha, he might have done better to introduce a "start of built-up area speed limit" sign without numbers: it might then have been easier to lower it on a national basis. As it is, and for whatever reason, what was then the "end of limit" sign was number-free. That enabled the introduction of the national 70 limit without a lot of new signs and its reduction to 60 on single carriageways in due course. It also avoids the need for signs with different figures for vehicle-related limits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Hore-Belisha

[Pete Owens]

I see what you mean but IME that assessment isn't necessarily particularly scientific. I've objected to proposed speed orders which I thought were too high - in one case because I didn't believe it was physically possible to drive at the speed of the proposed limit. All I got back was something on the lines of "it is considered appropriate" without any technical evidence.

I have done the same - and objected to those limits at traffic comittee meetings where the traffic regulation orders were being set. Usually it comes down the an auto-centric official having to confess that they had used their "proffesional judgement" to overule the official guidance (I always came with the official guidance) However, the point remains that when a number is podted on a sign that means that a deliberate decision has meen made (however badly) and a bar just means the the road has not been assesed.

[/quote]
As the national limit on single carriageways is 60mph, I cannot think of circumstances when the specific 60 sign will be shown there. If I'm right that that sign will only be on a DC - to modify either the national 70 limit or 30 (with lampposts) then it will be only on roads where it's physically possible to drive fast.

True, they wouldn't put up signage for a specific limit unless it was different from the national default (apart from special roads)

About 15 years ago there was a speed limit review that systematically assesed all A & B roads in the country. So if you see a black bar sign on an A road then that dioes mean there was a delibarate decision not to lower the limit. Certainly round here most of the A and B roads now have 50 or 40 mph limits and NSL A roads are not that common.

The vast majority of unclassified roads (such as the one in this thread) have simply not neen assesed - so tmost NSL signs just indicate that you are leaving a road that has been assesed to one that hasn't. This will invariably be where you are leaving a classified road or the edge of a built up area to drive onto a small unlit country lane (as is the case with the street view photo above). The sign coincides with a road where you should expect to drive slower rather than faster.

I can only reiterate my view that all this detracts from the overriding point that speed limits are merely a legal maximum, not a target; the appropriate speed may be much lower.

Absolutely, anfd one of those circumstances where drivers should lower their speed is:
"Aproaching a cyclist"
However, in normal good conditions driving near to the speed limit may be too fast it is unlikely to be ridiculously so. For most roads subject to the national speed limit(ie unclassified country lanes) 59mph would be dangerous driving. Describing such roads as "60mph roads" is absurd.

[slowster]

The OP is probably no longer reading this thread following the criticism he has received, but if he is still reading, I would strongly urge him to take the IAM RoadSmart advanced drivers course.

[thirdcrank]

To be fair, I don't think many could do 30 round that firs bend without potentially ploughing (pun intended) through the farmyard. :D

Cyclists are not subject to speed limits, of course.

I must have mentioned on a previous thread using this road as an example, the only traffic I've met going too fast - though not speeding - was when I was driving at a crawl and couple of roadies came the other way at quite a clip, only managing to avoid my almost stationary car by passing on both sides. No wrecks and nobody drownded, but had there been a collision, who knows what might have been alleged? No matter: all recorded on my dashcam.

[Bmblbzzz]

There are loads of discussion points. One that's been made a bit higher up is that the use of a sign with the limit in numbers shows that it's been somehow thought through. My Ledsham example seems to show something different.

Your Ledsham example shows that it has been assessed as a built-up area using slightly more sophisticated criteria (ie the presence of buildings...) than the presence of street lighting. It would be impossible to have an appropriate speed limit signed for every sharp bend and narrow road, for every possible vehicle.

Going back to the days of Leslie Hore-Belisha, he might have done better to introduce a "start of built-up area speed limit" sign without numbers: it might then have been easier to lower it on a national basis. As it is, and for whatever reason, what was then the "end of limit" sign was number-free. That enabled the introduction of the national 70 limit without a lot of new signs and its reduction to 60 on single carriageways in due course. It also avoids the need for signs with different figures for vehicle-related limits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Hore-Belisha

That would have been a good idea not least because it could also signify the beginning and end of slightly different rules which might be appropriate in a town or village but not in rural areas, for instance regarding pedestrian priority or give way rules.

[thirdcrank]

Unless something has changed, I think that in France the start of a built-up area is indicated by the nationally standard place name sign and the exit is shown by the same sign "cancelled" with a red diagonal.

I do appreciate that you cannot vary the speed limit for every twist and turn in the road and once upon a time the national guidance warned against frequent changes of limit and IIRC specifically banned a limit for an individual hazard. Nowadays, Highways England have short lengths of signed limits all over the place.

I don't think speed limits are the issue here at all; it was just something chucked in by the OP which raised hackles. Dog whistle?

What they really seemed to be complaining about was what they considered to be inconsiderate cycling. (As I've posted, I suspect "dangerous" cycling was used because of a current thread about dangerous driving.