Bryn, read the post properly and you will see that i'm NOT saying, "i use the roads a lot I'm an expert", I'm actually saying that the traffic police (by nature of their job), a)use the roads much more than most drivers, (especially located within a given area as opposed to long distance drivers),

b) are trained to drive at a high,safe standard,

c) have experience of accident investigation and causes and

d)are responsible for policing the roads,

so can you think of anyone better qualified to say "yes" or"no" to some local councillor, who insists that the road past his new house, which has been NSL for decades, should warrant a 40MPH limit?

You've already said, yourself, that it isn't fair on Highways engineers to make these decisions, as you feel "pressurised" by the public, councillors and fear that to say "no" too often may jeopordise your job.

Don't forget that , in the majority of cases, these roads have been in use for many decades so have a speed limit that has either proven to be safe or not, for decades and if below the accident threshold of change, then why change it(unless further frontages have been built). Admitedly road surfaces change and wear out but are you then going to change the speed limit on a monthly basis until the road is resurfaced?...I think not..just as weather conditions change drivers have to change their driving speed, so it makes sense to set the limit at a MAXIMUM safe speed then let drivers think for themselves.

It would be different if you were setting ADVISORY speed limits, then engineering would take a bigger criteriea but don't forget we are setting LIMITS here not advisory speeds.

Then give me a warning at the corners until the time and money is available for resurfacing.

What was your objective measure for arriving at the 40 MPH advisory speed? Did you, for example, perform a ball-bank test?

No, the measure was a review of the accident statistics that suggested a number of the vehicles that came off the road at the bend had 'lifted-off' from 50mph mid-curve and then ended up in the wall. Other accidents were caused by traffic turning across oncoming vehicles (there's a junction on the bend).

Objective tests are only applicable on roads designed to DMRB standards - not 19th century turnpikes that are nowhere near suited for 60-70mph.

If the road surface is generally knackered then a 'slippery road' sign should be erected for a temporary period pending repairs - but then you get the CPRE complaining about too many traffic signs urbanising the countryside. And That's Terrible. The hypocracy of campaigning organisations that want lower rural speeds but no signs to encourage this (other than speed limit ones) baffles me.

Like I have said, the problem is with DfT policy - don't badger engineers who are required to follow statutory requirements, badger the DfT for making the statutory requirements in the first place.

Little story here that may or not be relative.

last winter was long and pretty severe as we all know. Our local council ran low on salt for a couple of days so cut back on gritting.

There's aroad near us that used to be NSL and now is 40MPH.

Our neighbour's teenage daughter, who has only past her test about a year or two, went to work one morning , span on the 40MPH road and crunched the back end into the hedge.

Her first words to her father were...."I wasn't doing more than 40!"

Which goes to show that if you reduce limits too low, to a point that inexperienced drivers take them as a "guide", more so than a limit, they stop thinking for themselves...do you think if that road was still 60MPH, she would have attempted to do 60MPH on it....very unlikely, she would have thought twice about the speed she was doing.

I wasn't aware that that's what they wanted, but can't disagree with you there if it is.


I'll badger anyone who disagrees with me - that's the point of having a discussion! I'm not posting here in the expectation that it's going to help to get anything changed.

She'd have done 40mph, because as any fule kno, the national speed limit is 40mph.

Hey Bryn, joking aside, I said a few years ago, that I could see a national limit of 40MPH before too long. There are certainly more people doing 40MPH everywhere, now ,than there ever used to be.

Actually Bryn, your example of the toilet isn't so crazy as you intended it to be.

Imagine , the toilet you use every day, stops flushing...you're no "expert", but you know something's wrong. You call a plumber and he "fixes" it but the next time you use it, it flushes but not as well as you know that it always has...so do you call him back or assume he's done everything right and he knows best, (he is an expert after all)?

My brother's a plumber, so I know that it's easy to "fix" a toilet to make it flush but at the same time not do the job totally right, so the flush isn't as efficient as before....so just like regular road users, we can see when the highways engineers have attempted a "fix" that just doesn't work as it used to.

Then after the gas "expert" has left, you smell gas....but he knows best why question his ability?

After the electrical "expert" has left, your bulbs blow every other day or you get a tingle when turning on a certain switch...would you call him back or assume that , "he's the expert, he couldn't possibly have got it wrong, and it's not my place to question him ?"

Experts are only as good as they want to be, Bryn and everyone has an off day.

Nobody is perfect. Except me, of course.