10/10 for effort...

What about 10% speedo error? Seems a bit of an urban myth to me...

Stuart

More info:

-- Thanks, Paul

Ah just checked the details - 41 in a 30 zone. Tut, tut. Frankly, he deserves all he gets.

Stuart

Ah, that depends if the limit is sensible. There is part of the A30 dual carriageway between Bedfont and Staines that goes from 40mph to 30mph when it should be 50mph all the way along and that's the speed the majority of traffic flows at. Some coming off the bypass in the other direction and not seeing the 30mph sign on the bend just before the lights are doing nearer 70mph. If you try to keep to the limit as I do it can become dangerous, I've had fists waved at me etc. Cops sometimes have a purge but everyone knows they are just money making, there is no reason for the limits to be so low, any houses along there have long front gardens and 50mph is the right speed for the road.

So 50mph in a 30 limit, dreadful? Not in this case.

Yes and he isn't the brightest candle in the box having been caught speeding twice in 48 hours most folk would have slowed down after the first time wouldn't they ?

If you missed the flash from the camera the first you would know of it would be the letter in the post a week or so later.

AJH

It's the very inconsistency of our speed limits which gets up my nose

-- 2 examples from near me:

The main road from Teesside to Whitby and Scarborough climbs up quite a steep hill onto the North York Moors -- this section of road has been designated 50 because of perceived danger from the bends. About a mile further on there is a quarter-mile stretch with two roads going off. It's dangerous and deceptive, and there have been a number of accidents.

The local authority decided to impose a 50 limit there -- no quarrel with that. But instead of imposing a limit over that short stretch (which would have reinforced the fact that the area is dangerous), they decided to extend the earlier limit for another 2 miles. Now everyone climbs the hill onto the moor, sees a wonderful, almost straight road and relaxes. NO-ONE drives it at 50, and they all drive blithely through the dangerous junctions without any realisation that there is an increased hazard. I pointed this out at the proposal stage, and was told that "It would send confusing signals to drivers" if the limit came and went.

Conversely, where the A19 trunk road crosses the River Tees, it's on a high viaduct. Because of junctions before and after the bridge, slip roads actually extend onto the bridge itself at both ends, so that there are a great number of merging/lane-changing movements within a quarter-mile stretch of road, high up in the air. ANYONE would agree that this is a prime situation for a 50 limit. But no.... it's 70!

Bonkers!

GRAEME ALDOUS Yorkshire

ISTR that this is a single carriageway, unlit, non-built up, road this the default limit is 60. Are there not regular, small, 50 repeater signs? If there aren't either the 50 is unenforceable or you have a lot of blind drivers in North Yorkshire...

Correct, having limits that come and go often, with little obvious reason (you state yourself the junctions are deceptive) does confuse drivers and/or cause frustration. "WTF is there a 50 limit on this straight bit?"

Yes, there ARE repeaters... and what a blot on a beautiful, dramatic, gateway-to-the-Moors landscape they are! Enforcable? Only if scarce officers can be spared from their more important duties? Blind drivers? No, not physically blind, but hopefully posessed of that in-built computer that assesses danger and reacts accordingly... it's called the Mk 1 Human Brain.

Unfortunately we are no longer allowed to use the Mk 1 Human Brain, but have to be guided/bullied/terrified-into following like meek sheep rules which seem to be more and more invented by bureaucrats who know all the theory and have none of the common sense to put it into practice in a realistic way. I've corresponded with the guy who devised this particular scheme, and his letters showed he had no more idea of what happens in the REAL world than fly to the moon!

OK, so there will always be a minority of people who will act dangerously -- there are times when I wouldn't drive at 40 on this stretch of road, but there are others (and bear in mind that after 32 years and maybe 10,000 journeys along it I may know what I'm talking about) when 80 would be perfectly safe. Lunatic drivers are a social problem as much as a 'road legislation' one -- my contention is that the more we impose unrealistic blanket, nanny rules, the less the 'law-abiding citizen' is encouraged to think for himself, and act responsibly.

To me, people who say "It's the Law so it must be right... and we must all follow it slavishly because it IS the Law" are the ones who are encouraging our dumb society. And dumb society makes for dumb legislators and dumb laws.... and leaving the road between Birk Brown and Stanghow Road End at an un-neccesary 50mph is DUMB! It's also counterproductive where the real danger lies.

I feel passionately about this... but it doesn't mean that I am a mad tearaway. In fact, I can be anally retentive about much of our legislation on and off the road, recognising and following petty regulations to the letter. I wonder how many of the "There must be a reason for this being 50mph so I won't go above 49.5" brigade flash their headlights to invite other drivers to cross in front of them? A potentially lethal practice which is advised against in the Highway Code, and rightly so as it encourages the sheep to take an action without assessing the whole situation... "He's flashing so I'll go. Oops, there was a cyclist!"

Sorry for rant. How can I bring that OT? Ah, most of those 10K journeys will have been behind a green oval!

GRAEME ALDOUS Yorkshire, North Riding (but not NORTH Yorkshire, because that is an administrative area which doesn't cover the road in question -- don't start my other hobby horse!)

Hmm. Wasn't it a previous administration of a similar ideology to the current wastes of space that introduced that and similar abominations.

But he wasn't talking about a 50 limit coming and going often, just one around the junction, and I have to say I agree entirely. There is a bad junction around here - it has a 50 limit posted several hundred yards either side with warnings, on an otherwise 60mph national speed limit. The 50 limit around the junction make you realise that that specific place is particularly dangerous, and drivers *do* slow down for that bit, even though they drive very fast along the rest of the stretch of (very open, very wide) road. If there are several miles of 50mph limit for no apparent reason people just ignore it, and will inevitably drive past the real danger point unaware that it exists.

Matt (Formerly of the West Riding of Yorkshire until "they" decided we should live in Cumbria, simultaneously wiping out the great county of Westmorland!)

In message , Teeafit writes

They ought to try the A51 from Stone down to Lichfield. I defy anyone to be 100% sure all the time what limit they're in - and it must have the highest intensity of speed cameras per mile of any road in the UK. It's a nightmare in the dark.

|| and leaving the road between Birk Brown

Thought you were talking about our dear Chancellor for a minute.

Rich Pembrokeshire (not Dyfed, which it was for a few years until public pressure forced a reversal)

Sorry, that was a typo -- the location is 'Birk Brow'. But what a wonderful (unconsious) typo it was!

Glad to see that there is as least one other person out there who agrees with me about un-necessary (and hence counter-productive) speed limits. Anyone any thoughts on the point of view that limits can sometimes INCREASE the danger?

An example: a road on the outskirts of Middlesbrough with excellent sightlines that was once 50. I'm not aware that it had a particularly bad record, but now it is 40, so the silver Fiesta/Micra brigade travel it at 38 and one loses the will to live! I now find that I've reached the end of it whilst driving entirely on auto-pilot, my thoughts miles away from the job in hand. At 50 the Mark 1 Human Brain had to be engaged, and hence driving was possibly safer.

Now THAT'S one to upset the PC brigade!

GRAEME ALDOUS Yorkshire (N.Riding)

Agreed, but unfortunately that doesn't include the limits due to the other road going idiots

a few years ago I saw an inteview with a guy from somewhere in Europe that used to drive around at 120 mph or so most of the time (road permitting obviously) the drivers said at 120 you are focussed on the road and what is happening around you whereas he'd passed people doing 60 or 70 reading newspapers, maps etc and generally not paying attention I think here lies the problem most people overestimate their ability I would say only a very small percentage of people are as good as they think and possibly a smaller percentage have cars that are as good as they think One thing that I think proves this is how many times do you see a car in a ditch or into a tree on a straight road I mean what's to misjudge on a straight road?

adrenilin does that.

well - although definately not in favour of legislation and nanny state interference I concede there are strong arguments for vehicle type endorsements. It seems obvious to me that a few hours training in a micro-hatch will not give anyone the skills required to master ... o Aston Martin o Land Rover o Iveco

The voices can be distracting.

Two years compulsory on a motorbike, followed by two years in something with less than 1000cc engine (or equivalent power restriction)*, then a HARD test before you can drive owt else. Then compulsory re-testing every five years. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and the sooner the (insert favourite bad driving cliche here#) buggers realised that, the better.

Stuart

*Could be bypassed if you take the EVEN HARDER test first, and can prove the need for a larger vehicle, e.g. big family or work

# pipe-smoking, flat cap wearing, Volvo driving, council estate etc. etc.

I WANTED to say that myself, but thought it would be a step too far, and I'd be flamed. Yes, I'd like to see a situation where we abolish ALL speed limits (except perhaps one or two localised ones in very special circumstances), but put the onus on everyone involved in an accident to prove that excessive speed wasn't a factor. If it was, then the penalties to be VERY severe indeed. As virtually every accident involves inappropriate speed in one way or another, it would certainly encourage people to engage the Mark 1 Human Brain a little more.

But it would also allow us to go past a school at 0300 on Christmas Morning at a little more than the 20mph limit without fearing an instant camera-instituted 'ker-chingg' on the old governmental cash register.

GRAEME ALDOUS Yorkshire