Bad speed limits

[Helvellyn]

The other night, I had someone who was doing 40 all the way home. Now and again you’ll get people who only want to do 20 through the village.

It always strikes me these people have either a very relaxed style of driving, or a very high perception of risk (particularly in the village). But what both seem to lack is the perception of their surroundings - on an S2 road it may be very difficult to overtake someone safely. And it really is not a good idea to make the person behind you have to limit their speed to 20, just because that’s what you feel comfortable with.

If you see someone in your rear mirror, try pulling in every now and again, so they can pass you.

That's why I also said that you shouldn't be holding up other traffic.

[Berk]

Totally agree. This is why I think any TRO’s should require a public inquiry - other than emergency TRO’s for a road closure for safety grounds.

There simply isn’t a meaningful notice period, which is long enough to attract sufficient objections against the change.

And when council officers are the ones responsible for weighing up the evidence, it makes them less than objective as they are usually the ones responsible for driving forwards and promoting the limit in the first place.

[fras]

The whole speed limit setting process is designed to make sure no objections are received by making the process as obscure and secret as possible. Yes, notices have to be posted on lampposts and notices put in local newspapers for one week, but nothing is put on-line on council websites at all, and all objections have to be in writing to a council address, no e-mails or web page forms. Heaven forbid ! I finally found this: -

https://www.cheshireeast.gov.uk/pdf/hig ... rategy.pdf

Most of this is cut-n-pasted from the Government Speed Limit Setting circular of 2013.

However there is absolutely nothing about proposed speed limits at all, these are kept firmly under wraps. So we end up with barmy 50 mph limits almost everywhere because Cheshire East officials (councillors are kept well away !), have clearly decided they have no "strategic" A roads in Cheshire East at all !! We are expecting the NSL Alderley Edge Bypass to come under notice soon for a 50 mph imposition. Let's face it, if the new A555 dual carriageway road is set at 50 mph, nothing else can remain higher, can it ?

[Roavin]

Oooh speed limits! Hehe

I'd say there are three broad categories for the worst speed limits:

1. Stupid 20mph zones on large, wide roads that don't even pass a school.
For example: https://goo.gl/maps/CUjMx5oAr3n

2. 30mph roadwork limits on roads that would usually be 50/60 mph that no-one seems to listen to.
For example: https://i2-prod.chroniclelive.co.uk/inc ... 121994.jpg

3. 60mph NSL speed limits on tiny, narrow and windy single carriageways that you could almost picture being accompanied with a sign saying "we f**kin' dare ya!".
For Example: https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/na ... id95914654

[Big L]

I mentioned recently in the appropriate thread about a 6 mile southerly extension of the 50 limit on the northbound M5 for the junction 2 -> 1 works. That's 6 miles of mostly 3 lanes of rural motorway restricted to 50 with no work happening. The original start of the 50 limit was more than a mile before the works.

Has anyone questioned why the extension has been put in?? At the very least that could’ve been as a 60 limit.

Yes, and it took until today for a reply to come.

[lefthandedspanner]

All 50mph limits on any DC or motorway.

The 50 limit on the urban bit of the M621 is sensible - it's like a switchback with very frequent junctions.

In some cities like Leicester, and Bournemouth, you’d be very lucky to even do 20mph. Some of their streets already have low limits like these.

Likewise in somewhere like Halifax or Bradford you spend most of your time doing 0 mph if you drive 2-3 hours either side of peak times.

Nottinghamshire - the county of inappropriate limits. Often applied for political reasons, in response to complaints or to be seen to be doing something (at low cost).

Except it isn't cheap - dropping the limit from NSL to 40/50 or from 30 to 20 requires the manufacture and placement of repeater signs, and they are definitely not free. That is, unless the council is completely ignorant of/couldn't give a monkey's about the legality of their new limit.

[Bryn666]

The whole speed limit setting process is designed to make sure no objections are received by making the process as obscure and secret as possible. Yes, notices have to be posted on lampposts and notices put in local newspapers for one week, but nothing is put on-line on council websites at all, and all objections have to be in writing to a council address, no e-mails or web page forms. Heaven forbid ! I finally found this: -

https://www.cheshireeast.gov.uk/pdf/hig ... rategy.pdf

Most of this is cut-n-pasted from the Government Speed Limit Setting circular of 2013.

However there is absolutely nothing about proposed speed limits at all, these are kept firmly under wraps. So we end up with barmy 50 mph limits almost everywhere because Cheshire East officials (councillors are kept well away !), have clearly decided they have no "strategic" A roads in Cheshire East at all !! We are expecting the NSL Alderley Edge Bypass to come under notice soon for a 50 mph imposition. Let's face it, if the new A555 dual carriageway road is set at 50 mph, nothing else can remain higher, can it ?

There is nothing in the Local Government Procedures for TROs that prevent an email objection from being received.

There would be grounds to query the process in my view if a council refuses to accept any form of written objection. The reason telephone calls are not accepted is because they are not recorded.

When I have done TROs I have always accepted emails. In fact I prefer emails as I don't have to scan those to attach to a recommendation report when objections are considered by members.

[Bryn666]

And it is also a nonsense to suggest councils never abandon plans in the face of objections.

I had to kill an entire road safety scheme because locals didn't want double yellow lines on a junction even though alternative on street parking was being provided a few yards away. I recommended that such objections were overruled in safety grounds but members rejected the report.

There is still dangerous parking on that junction today. The fun I shall have if there is a collision.

[Berk]

And it is also a nonsense to suggest councils never abandon plans in the face of objections.

I had to kill an entire road safety scheme because locals didn't want double yellow lines on a junction even though alternative on street parking was being provided a few yards away. I recommended that such objections were overruled in safety grounds but members rejected the report.

There is still dangerous parking on that junction today. The fun I shall have if there is a collision.

What was the background to that scheme?? Was the street a cul-de-sac??

[Bryn666]

It was a major A road with a bus service entering a side road. Residents parked around the junction mouth removing visibility and making bus access difficult.

Apparently the 'right' to park outweighs the right to not be involved in a road collision.

[jgharston]

Not a specific, but a general: limits jumping from NSL to 30 on the mainline coming into the edge of town, resulting in most people spending the first 1/4mi of the 30 zone decelerating down from 60. I'd prefer something like half a mile of 40 before dropping to 30.

Clearly, turning off the mainline straight into a 30 is ok, as you've slowed down to do the movement, but this sort of thing results in people zooming past the 30 sign at 40+ with their brakes on if at all.

[Chris Bertram]

Not a specific, but a general: limits jumping from NSL to 30 on the mainline coming into the edge of town, resulting in most people spending the first 1/4mi of the 30 zone decelerating down from 60. I'd prefer something like half a mile of 40 before dropping to 30.

Clearly, turning off the mainline straight into a 30 is ok, as you've slowed down to do the movement, but this sort of thing results in people zooming past the 30 sign at 40+ with their brakes on if at all.

You're asking for a "buffer zone". I thought these were deprecated these days. Place a reduced speed limit on a piece of open road and it's unlikely that drivers will obey it in the absence of enforcement measures. The restricted road should begin at the edge of the built up area.

[Berk]

It was a major A road with a bus service entering a side road. Residents parked around the junction mouth removing visibility and making bus access difficult.

Apparently the 'right' to park outweighs the right to not be involved in a road collision.

I share your concern. My parents street has a similar scenario. It’s long, and bendy, built-up but rural (leading out into the countryside). The only places people seem to park on-street are places which cause visibility or safety issues - in the bends, basically.

I should really nag a councillor about getting double-yellows installed. My own street often has people parking within 2 metres of the junction (sometimes less than 1). This obviously means you have to pull out on the wrong side of the road.

[Berk]

Not a specific, but a general: limits jumping from NSL to 30 on the mainline coming into the edge of town, resulting in most people spending the first 1/4mi of the 30 zone decelerating down from 60. I'd prefer something like half a mile of 40 before dropping to 30.

Clearly, turning off the mainline straight into a 30 is ok, as you've slowed down to do the movement, but this sort of thing results in people zooming past the 30 sign at 40+ with their brakes on if at all.

You're asking for a "buffer zone". I thought these were deprecated these days. Place a reduced speed limit on a piece of open road and it's unlikely that drivers will obey it in the absence of enforcement measures. The restricted road should begin at the edge of the built up area.

That would be fine as long as the 40 zone ended where the 30/restricted zone originally began.

What actually happens is that the buffer zone pushes the restricted limit out into the countryside - anything up to 200 yards extra. So the buffer basically extends nearly ½-mile from the nearest house.

[FosseWay]

Not a specific, but a general: limits jumping from NSL to 30 on the mainline coming into the edge of town, resulting in most people spending the first 1/4mi of the 30 zone decelerating down from 60. I'd prefer something like half a mile of 40 before dropping to 30.

Clearly, turning off the mainline straight into a 30 is ok, as you've slowed down to do the movement, but this sort of thing results in people zooming past the 30 sign at 40+ with their brakes on if at all.

Since this was a general comment, I'll suggest two general answers:

1. Is there actually a problem with people doing more than 30 during those few hundred metres - i.e. is there evidence that people have been put at risk, or actually hit, in circumstances where the higher speed is relevant? If not, I don't particularly see what the problem is. The first few hundred metres of the 30 limit is essentially its own buffer zone, and what is more important is that they do actually reduce to 30 by the time going faster than that really is a safety issue, so concentrate efforts there.

2. If there is such a problem in those first few hundred metres, perhaps it is a sensible site for a camera. And/or move the limit slightly further out - far enough to allow drivers to register both the limit and the camera sign, but not so far that there seems to be a 30 in the middle of nowhere.

In itself, the fact that people regularly exceed the limit at place X over Y metres and Z mph over the limit is not nearly as much of a problem as the fact that people are regularly put at risk by drivers going inappropriately fast, but it's always what those digits in the roundels say that people fixate on.

[FosseWay]

It was a major A road with a bus service entering a side road. Residents parked around the junction mouth removing visibility and making bus access difficult.

Apparently the 'right' to park outweighs the right to not be involved in a road collision.

I'm somewhat torn here. Parking that causes obstructions is unacceptable. It's bad enough that the bus passengers are inconvenienced by bad parking that means the bus can't physically pass - I've been a bus passenger in such circumstances several times. But if a bus can't pass, it's highly likely a fire engine won't be able to either, at least not without barging through and causing damage to Fire Service property causing the need for repairs whose cost could be spent on better things. So on that criterion alone it would seem a fine candidate for parking restrictions (and enforcement).

Reducing visibility I have more of a problem with as a reason for restricting parking. All roadside parking reduces visibility to some extent - where do you draw the line? Other things on the roads - buildings, overhanging trees, good old-fashioned darkness - can obscure visibility to a much greater extent than a parked car. It's up to drivers to drive to the conditions and to slow down and/or give way if they can't see that where they're aiming for is clear. There will be exceptions, of course - a major road that invites higher speeds (even if these are illegal) with a blind bend is not somewhere you want people parking on. But at a junction, people will be driving slowly anyway when turning into/out of the junction, and those exiting from it have, as said, a duty to check their way is clear before continuing. If they can't do that past parked cars, God help them if they encounter Hunningham Hill from either of the Fosse Way directions.

[A9NWIL]

It was a major A road with a bus service entering a side road. Residents parked around the junction mouth removing visibility and making bus access difficult.

Apparently the 'right' to park outweighs the right to not be involved in a road collision.

I'm somewhat torn here. Parking that causes obstructions is unacceptable. It's bad enough that the bus passengers are inconvenienced by bad parking that means the bus can't physically pass - I've been a bus passenger in such circumstances several times. But if a bus can't pass, it's highly likely a fire engine won't be able to either, at least not without barging through and causing damage to Fire Service property causing the need for repairs whose cost could be spent on better things. So on that criterion alone it would seem a fine candidate for parking restrictions (and enforcement).

Reducing visibility I have more of a problem with as a reason for restricting parking. All roadside parking reduces visibility to some extent - where do you draw the line? Other things on the roads - buildings, overhanging trees, good old-fashioned darkness - can obscure visibility to a much greater extent than a parked car. It's up to drivers to drive to the conditions and to slow down and/or give way if they can't see that where they're aiming for is clear. There will be exceptions, of course - a major road that invites higher speeds (even if these are illegal) with a blind bend is not somewhere you want people parking on. But at a junction, people will be driving slowly anyway when turning into/out of the junction, and those exiting from it have, as said, a duty to check their way is clear before continuing. If they can't do that past parked cars, God help them if they encounter Hunningham Hill from either of the Fosse Way directions.

Regarding a fire engine not getting past I have heard that fire fighters will just pick cars up and move them if they can, so people might come back and find their cars in different places to where they left them!

[Bryn666]

Yes and the time spent moving that obstructive vehicle can mean life or death for someone in a burning building.

The fire brigade couldn't get to Grenfell Tower easily because of narrow streets and abandoned cars. I say abandoned because considerate parking is a thing of the past in urban areas.

[Fenlander]

I say abandoned because considerate parking is a thing of the past in urban areas.

There's a planning application in for a site in town that involves about 20 flats but no parking spaces, there's not enough around the location as it is (edge of town centre) but the developers have told the council it's OK as they will be providing secure bike storage instead. At the same time the developers are advertising the new flats on their nearby road links via the A16 to Peterborough and the A1, which are 20+ miles away. That's a long bike commute.

[Bryn666]

I say abandoned because considerate parking is a thing of the past in urban areas.

There's a planning application in for a site in town that involves about 20 flats but no parking spaces, there's not enough around the location as it is (edge of town centre) but the developers have told the council it's OK as they will be providing secure bike storage instead. At the same time the developers are advertising the new flats on their nearby road links via the A16 to Peterborough and the A1, which are 20+ miles away. That's a long bike commute.

And likely a lethal one too if using high speed roads...

Typical planning dodge though