# Edmund King, President of the AA....



## User (21 Oct 2017)




----------



## Drago (21 Oct 2017)

He is indeed a tool. They should stick to fixing cars and selling insurance, and not waste members money getting involved in stuff that does nothing to further their business interests.


----------



## Glow worm (21 Oct 2017)

Chinless streak of pish. Best ignored!


----------



## Tim Hall (21 Oct 2017)

The BBC story is a bit more complex than King shooting from the hip though. Highways England have carried out trials at higher speeds and are making recommendations based on the findings from them.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (21 Oct 2017)

I missed the piece but such nonsense is a real disappointment. I'd always felt pretty positive about him because of his concern for cyclist safety. He's generally pretty pro-cyclist.


----------



## Jimidh (21 Oct 2017)

Tim Hall said:


> The BBC story is a bit more complex than King shooting from the hip though. Highways England have carried out trials at higher speeds and are making recommendations based on the findings from them.


Don’t spoil a rant by bringing in some evidence - shame on you!!


----------



## Joffey (21 Oct 2017)

50mph limits are fine when you see workmen actually working, as a driver I find myself paying more attention when people are wandering around on the side of the carriageway. I think the problem is the miles and miles of 50mph speed limits on works where no one is working. You should be allowed to drive at higher speeds through these unless they are taking you on to the other carriageway for example.


----------



## srw (21 Oct 2017)

[QUOTE 5007244, member: 45"]He's an idiot.[/QUOTE]
Why?

If there's evidence that increasing speed limits would improve safety around roadworks on motorways, let them be increased.


----------



## Jimidh (21 Oct 2017)

Although I agree that the speed limit should be set at what’s the appropriate speed for the road layout / works you will always get tools that drive way to fast for the conditions no matter what the speed limit is.


----------



## DRHysted (21 Oct 2017)

I could understand removing the speed limit when the workers are not there if the speed limit is innocent place to protect workers. The most amusing set of works I’ve driven past at 50 was 2 miles of conned off hard shoulder with a portaloo the other side of the crash barrier (not even on the hard shoulder) at the end.


----------



## srw (21 Oct 2017)

[QUOTE 5007287, member: 45"]And the findings are that drivers were anxious when around bullying, dangerous driving[/QUOTE]

No. The findings, of a very small study, were that drivers had lower heart-rates while driving at higher speeds. The link to dangerous driving is a hypothesis.


----------



## theclaud (21 Oct 2017)

_Jim O'Sullivan, chief executive of Highways England, told the paper that the 60mph limit was "something that we want to introduce to as many roadworks as possible".

He said: "If we're going to have this volume of roadworks we need to have some serious thought about how we improve the *customer experience*."_

The bold is mine.


----------



## Drago (21 Oct 2017)

Tim Hall said:


> The BBC story is a bit more complex than King shooting from the hip though. Highways England have carried out trials at higher speeds and are making recommendations based on the findings from them.



Unfortunately, the Wombles have only studied the matter from the road users perspective, and not the safety of the workers. This is a bit daft, as the reason for the limits in the first place was the safety of the road workers.


----------



## Tim Hall (21 Oct 2017)

Joffey said:


> 50mph limits are fine when you see workmen actually working, as a driver I find myself paying more attention when people are wandering around on the side of the carriageway. I think the problem is the miles and miles of 50mph speed limits on works where no one is working. You should be allowed to drive at higher speeds through these unless they are taking you on to the other carriageway for example.


Setting out the Traffic Management is a risky operation, so having to do it more often is generally a Bad Thing. Which is why you sometimes see "empty" road works.

(Edited to complete the final sentence)


----------



## srw (21 Oct 2017)

Tim Hall said:


> The BBC story is a bit more complex than King shooting from the hip though. Highways England have carried out trials at higher speeds and are making recommendations based on the findings from them.


...and the story makes it clear that - yes - they have considered road worker safety.

"While Mr King said increasing the speed limit could help reduce congestion, he said it had to be targeted at the longest stretches of road works where there were no workers.

He said: "When work is going on and it's in close proximity to the carriageways we should stick at lower speeds and sometimes it needs to be lower than 50mph, depending on the layout."


----------



## srw (21 Oct 2017)

User13710 said:


> Why are you defending this?


I'm not. I think the study being cited as evidence by the people who run the roads isn't robust enough to back the recommendations made. But the "discussion" in the thread is taking a very predictable turn - and completely ignores the facts available.

It's unfashionable to say so on this site, but motorists are _not_ "the enemy". They're simply people trying to get around the country.


----------



## Tim Hall (21 Oct 2017)

Can any lorry drivers help with this bit?


> Edmund King, president of the AA, said that most trucks have a speed limiter set at 56mph: "And sometimes they're pretty reluctant to slow down so you get a lot of tail-gating of trucks driving very close to cars and then the cars are inclined to speed up."


My car has a speed limiter, which I can adjust. Lorry drivers, do you have adjustable limiters, or are they all glued to (slightly different values of) 56 mph?


----------



## srw (21 Oct 2017)

User13710 said:


> Personally I think the speed limit past coned-off areas on any road should be 30mph and sod the consequences for delays to people's journeys.


Even if that means more accidents? More people killed? More pollution? 

[For the record - I don't know if those are actual consequences, but they're plausible.]


----------



## Joffey (21 Oct 2017)

Tim Hall said:


> Setting out the Traffic Management is a risky operation, so having to do it more often is generally a Bad Thing. Which is why you sometimes see "empty" road works.
> 
> (Edited to complete the final sentence)



I appreciate that but maybe just signs at the beginning could be changed before they go home? Or maybe that is too simplistic and I'm missing lots of things!


----------



## Katherine (21 Oct 2017)

Tim Hall said:


> Can any lorry drivers help with this bit?
> 
> My car has a speed limiter, which I can adjust. Lorry drivers, do you have adjustable limiters, or are they all glued to (slightly different values of) 56 mph?



When drivers feel intimidated and bullied by lorries sitting on their tail at 50mph, would that mean that at 60 mph speed limit, lorries wouldn't be able to do this? 
I have had a discussion with a lorry driver about about driving through roadworks. He said that lorry drivers don't like having to go below the 50 limit when cars they are following consistently drive under the limit because of unnecessary caution or inaccurate speedometer. Whereas lorries have accurate speedometers regulated by gps. 
I said that is no excuse for them to sit on your tail when the whole queue of traffic is going at the same speed. He agreed.


----------



## srw (21 Oct 2017)

Joffey said:


> I appreciate that but maybe just signs at the beginning could be changed before they go home? Or maybe that is too simplistic and I'm missing lots of things!


Roadworks have speed limit reminder signs throughout their length, and they're heavy lumps of metal. You'd need to send someone along the motorway carrying enough signs to change them _all_, and getting off their van carrying a large lump of metal at regular intervals, each time exposing them and other road users to more risk. For a long stretch of roadworks, changing the speed limit signs before they go home would have to start at lunchtime, and changing them back would start first thing in the morning and finish just in time for lunch.

All of this discussion illustrates neatly that things are often rather more complicated than those of us who are not experts generally realise. As it happens I've just spent some time driving on Italy's motorways, at which point you realise that Britain's approach to road safety is, while not as good as we might like, pretty robust.


----------



## presta (21 Oct 2017)

srw said:


> No. The findings, of a very small study, were that drivers had lower heart-rates while driving at higher speeds. The link to dangerous driving is a hypothesis.


You would think that they'd have the sense to measure accident rates rather than heart rates, it reveals that the objective is driver convenience and not safety.


----------



## growingvegetables (21 Oct 2017)

Hmm - reading the BBC report and this in The Times suggests King, far from shooting his mouth off, was trying to head off the apparent looniness of Highways England? They are apparently planning 'that the 60mph limit was "something that we want to introduce to as many roadworks as possible"' and it's being misleadingly reported?

I'm reading it that he's saying - "Hold on, guys - there may be circumstances where a higher speed limit may be appropriate, but there's more where the speed limit should be reduced."


----------



## srw (21 Oct 2017)

[QUOTE 5007372, member: 45"]It's a very small suggestion that might warrant further investigation[/QUOTE]
Ummm.....


srw said:


> I think the study being cited as evidence by the people who run the roads isn't robust enough to back the recommendations made



As it happens, I suspect that if you ask drivers on a motorway to slow down suddenly from 70mph* to 30mph rather than to 50mph, the results would be chaotic. You would get lots of rear-end shunts.

*I'm being generous


----------



## marinyork (21 Oct 2017)

srw said:


> All of this discussion illustrates neatly that things are often rather more complicated than those of us who are not experts generally realise. As it happens I've just spent some time driving on Italy's motorways, at which point you realise that Britain's approach to road safety is, while not as good as we might like, pretty robust.



Safety! Some seriously scary slip roads on both the autostrade and faster statali. And some comically patched up bollards, tape and warning signs after minor inconveniences like earthquakes putting big cracks in roads. Although sometimes substantial country road repairs can be like that. Gaping ravines with no safety barriers or crumbling ones great for views on the bike.


----------



## srw (21 Oct 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> Hmm - reading the BBC report and this in The Times suggests King, far from shooting his mouth off, was trying to head off the apparent looniness of Highways England? They are apparently planning 'that the 60mph limit was "something that we want to introduce to as many roadworks as possible"' and it's being misleadingly reported?
> 
> I'm reading it that he's saying - "Hold on, guys - there may be circumstances where a higher speed limit may be appropriate, but there's more where the speed limit should be reduced."


I don't think there's any Highways England looniness either. As the BBC report says...

"But Mr O'Sullivan said that lower speeds were likely to be maintained in areas with narrow lanes, contraflows or where workers are close to the road, due to safety reasons.

Highways England has been testing different speed limits since September 2016 as part of a wider initiative to assess the benefits associated with increasing speed limits through roadworks.

Those trials on a section of the M1 near Rotherham and on the A1 between Leeming to Barton examined the safety implications of the scheme as well as the journey-time benefits for drivers travelling through roadworks"

[O'Sullivan is the HE CEO]

So far from basing their conclusions on a single, small survey, Highways England have done some long-term research.


----------



## Milkfloat (21 Oct 2017)

User13710 said:


> Not to me they're not.



Stands to reason doesn’t it


----------



## growingvegetables (21 Oct 2017)

srw said:


> I don't think there's any Highways England looniness either. ...


OK - looniness a bit strong. Replace with "gung-ho eagerness "to introduce (60mph limit) to *as many roadworks as possible*"?


----------



## srw (21 Oct 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> OK - looniness a bit strong. Replace with "gung-ho eagerness "to introduce (60mph limit) to *as many roadworks as possible*"?


Replace "gung-ho" with "researched and evidenced", and add "to do their job of ensuring that the roads are efficient as well as safe" and I'd agree.

[QUOTE 5007388, member: 45"]Yes, but what we have this morning is the public, who largely think they are good drivers and who don't like being told to slow down, being told by the slant of the reporting that very clever and important motoring people agree with them that they can drive faster.

And Edmund King being a nobber with his public presentation of the issue.[/QUOTE]
Yes, that's one interpretation. I tend to believe that the public are not quite that dumb - and will respond to existing speed limit signs as they have always done, with a mixture of acceptance and impatience.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (21 Oct 2017)

Whatever the speed limit, I drive within it and at a speed I asses as appropriate for the circumstances and conditions. That won't change if the speed limit through roadworks is raised, and I won't go faster just because some nobber is up my chuff. Tailgating me results in me reducing speed.

Have the representatives of the roadworkers expressed a view on this call for increased speed?


----------



## srw (21 Oct 2017)

[QUOTE 5007414, member: 45"]I tend to agree. But then I go on FB.[/QUOTE]
You need a better class of friend.


----------



## snorri (21 Oct 2017)

theclaud said:


> _Jim O'Sullivan, chief executive of Highways England, told the paper t..........He said: "I.........we need to have some serious thought about how we improve the *customer experience*."_


I haven't heard the phrase ' improving customer experience' used by transport engineers before, this is a breakthrough, I trust it will extend to include _all _road users.


----------



## User482 (21 Oct 2017)

srw said:


> It's unfashionable to say so on this site, but motorists are _not_ "the enemy". They're simply people trying to get around the country.


You rebel.


----------



## Crackle (21 Oct 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Tailgating me results in me reducing speed


I appreciate the sentiment of it but it actually makes things worse for everyone behind. Personally I just change lanes. 

I actually think driving behaviour has changed as there are more variable speed limits introduced, which are great and in fact what a lot of the recent roadworks are for, new variable speed limit signs. Whining about these things is the first stage of acceptance.


----------



## Drago (21 Oct 2017)

srw said:


> I don't think there's any Highways England looniness either. As the BBC report says...
> 
> "But Mr O'Sullivan said that lower speeds were likely to be maintained in areas with narrow lanes, contraflows or where workers are close to the road, due to safety reasons.
> 
> ...



Not terribly balanced research. They investigated the road users perspective down as far as the heartbeats of individual drivers. They don't appear to have researched the safety of road workers down to the macro level, but have rather settled for a review of existing safety data for road workers. Send a load of road workers out wearing heart monitors and they might see a different story unfolding.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (21 Oct 2017)

Crackle said:


> I appreciate the sentiment of it but it actually makes things worse for everyone behind. Personally I just change lanes



I keep to the leftmost lane and will happily let tailgaters pass me, I won't be bullied to drive faster through single lane roadworks.


----------



## swansonj (21 Oct 2017)

If it were desired to have speed limits that could be changed when workers are present or not, that could easily be delivered by LED signs. The talk of the safety risk of putting out heavy signs seems an irrelevance (or an excuse).


----------



## swansonj (21 Oct 2017)

srw said:


> ...
> 
> It's unfashionable to say so on this site, but motorists are _not_ "the enemy". *They're simply people trying to get around the country*.


They are that, but no way are they "simply" that.


----------



## theclaud (21 Oct 2017)

srw said:


> *It's unfashionable to say so on this site*, but motorists are _not_ "the enemy". They're simply people trying to get around the country.


Oh no it isn't. The slightest criticism of people's motoring habits is always greeted with a tide of defensiveness and indignation.


----------



## pawl (21 Oct 2017)

Joffey said:


> 50mph limits are fine when you see workmen actually working, as a driver I find myself paying more attention when people are wandering around on the side of the carriageway. I think the problem is the miles and miles of 50mph speed limits on works where no one is working. You should be allowed to drive at higher speeds through these unless they are taking you on to the other carriageway for example.






Just thinking the same thing.Mile upon miles of coned of motorway with nothing happening is very frustrating.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (21 Oct 2017)

pawl said:


> Just thinking the same thing.Mile upon miles of coned of motorway with nothing happening is very frustrating.



What would you suggest happens when road workers stop for the day?


----------



## pawl (21 Oct 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> What would you suggest happens when road workers stop for the day?






Most of these road work speed limits are governed by average speed limits.Is it not possible to switch these off when finishes for the day?A lot Mways now have gantry advising of variable speed limits


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (21 Oct 2017)

Any policy that allows cars to go faster to get a safe distance from lorries that don't observe the speed limit is never going to work, and worse, it rewards lorry drivers for exceeding those limits.


----------



## Welsh wheels (21 Oct 2017)

[QUOTE 5007244, member: 45"]Was just on the BBC arguing that speed limits should be raised at motorway roadworks. The reasons? Apparently loads of trucks tailgate dangerously, and everyone else gets on their phone.

He's an idiot.[/QUOTE]
So people can drive faster whilst looking at their phones?


----------



## Welsh wheels (21 Oct 2017)

[QUOTE 5007691, member: 45"]His argument seems to be that if you slow people down they start looking at their phones.[/QUOTE]
Probably does to be fair. I think phone usage behind the wheel should be a lifetime ban.


----------



## User482 (21 Oct 2017)

pawl said:


> Just thinking the same thing.Mile upon miles of coned of motorway with nothing happening is very frustrating.


A lot of people say that, but I don't understand why. The delay on all but the longest journeys is trivial.


----------



## srw (21 Oct 2017)

theclaud said:


> Oh no it isn't. The slightest criticism of people's motoring habits is always greeted with a tide of defensiveness and indignation.


I can't decide whether you're reading a different forum to me or whether I'm blanking out a handful of posters who you're fixing on. What I see is _cycling_ habits - however dreadful - being greeted with defensiveness and indignation and driving habits - however careful or thoughtful - being criticised. Which, in society, I'll give you, is unusual.

Oh well.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (21 Oct 2017)

User482 said:


> A lot of people say that, but I don't understand why. The delay on all but the longest journeys is trivial.


And who do the longest journeys? I suspect that the road haulage industry is behind this proposed change, through lobbying or perhaps funding ''research'' - all done in the name of safety, of course.


----------



## Aravis (21 Oct 2017)

User482 said:


> A lot of people say that, but I don't understand why. The delay on all but the longest journeys is trivial.


This I completely agree with. In fact, once I've reached the real roadworks, I quite enjoy the stress-free experience of easing along at 50mph knowing that my fuel consumption is improving, and that the impact on my journey time is negligible.

What is stressful is prolonged crawling and jostling as three lanes funnel themselves into 2 or 1. Made worse by those who insist on carrying on until the last moment in the lane that's about to disappear before forcing their way across. If that process could be improved so that the delay is minimised, then I think (hope may be nearer the mark) there'd be much less complaint about the 50 limit.


----------



## growingvegetables (21 Oct 2017)

User said:


> Where the filtering takes place is immaterial. It is how it takes place that matters. If people were to be able to drive more collaboratively and less competitively, they could merge more easily and all get along better. Self-driving cars should be able to sort the problem.


I *LOATHE* and *DETEST* optimism.


----------



## growingvegetables (21 Oct 2017)




----------



## swansonj (21 Oct 2017)

Aravis said:


> This I completely agree with. In fact, once I've reached the real roadworks, I quite enjoy the stress-free experience of easing along at 50mph knowing that my fuel consumption is improving, and that the impact on my journey time is negligible.
> 
> What is stressful is prolonged crawling and jostling as three lanes funnel themselves into 2 or 1. Made worse by those who insist on carrying on until the last moment in the lane that's about to disappear before forcing their way across. If that process could be improved so that the delay is minimised, then I think (hope may be nearer the mark) there'd be much less complaint about the 50 limit.



[QUOTE 5008105, member: 45"]The delay would be minimised if everyone did the correct thing and filtered towards the front. Instead of those who joined the lane too early then getting annoyed at the driver, doing the right thing, who they think got one up on them.[/QUOTE]
We did this a few years ago on here and someone dug out some American research.

If the traffic is flowing at a reasonable speed the optimum strategy is to get into the new lane early, while you still have space to do so without having to slow. If the traffic is dense enough for crawling to be inevitable, the optimum strategy is to leave it to near the end so as to maximise use of road space. That US paper had specific data on speeds and volumes for the switch point.

The UK is crap at telling you what to do. We put the diagonal sideways arrow on about three successive motorway gantries before the red cross and no one knows whether to treat the diagonal arrow as an instruction or a warning. 

Of course, @User13710 's point is absolutely valid, that if we treated motoring as a collaborative activity it would matter much less. But that problem is not confined to motoring....


----------



## swansonj (21 Oct 2017)

[QUOTE 5008224, member: 45"]I agree. We were talking about the latter (bold).[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. But whilst there are times when stop-start is inevitable, there are also times when people leaving merging to the final stretch of road forces what could otherwise be free-flowing unnecessarily into stop-start.


----------



## srw (21 Oct 2017)

Aravis said:


> Made worse by those who insist on carrying on until the last moment in the lane that's about to disappear before forcing their way across. If that process could be improved so that the delay is minimised





swansonj said:


> If the traffic is flowing at a reasonable speed the optimum strategy is to get into the new lane early, while you still have space to do so without having to slow. If the traffic is dense enough for crawling to be inevitable, the optimum strategy is to leave it to near the end so as to maximise use of road space. That US paper had specific data on speeds and volumes for the switch point.


If memory serves, that was the optimum strategy _for the population as a whole_ - rather than for the individual switcher or crawler. So those who "insist on carrying on until the last moment" are in fact improving things for everyone.


----------



## boydj (21 Oct 2017)

Funny how average speed cameras have the capacity to raise compliance levels to close to 100% and at the same time reduce incidents and ksi's, without raising the risk to roadside workers.


----------



## smutchin (21 Oct 2017)

srw said:


> As it happens, I suspect that if you ask drivers on a motorway to slow down suddenly from 70mph* to 30mph rather than to 50mph, the results would be chaotic. You would get lots of rear-end shunts.



There are works on the M2 at the moment, around junction 5. The works are signed 2 miles in advance. The reduction in speed limit is staggered - reduced to 50, then further along reduced to 40. Suggesting that people are being asked to "suddenly" slow down is disingenuous.



Crackle said:


> I appreciate the sentiment of it but it actually makes things worse for everyone behind. Personally I just change lanes.



Not always possible. At the above mentioned works, drivers staying on the M2 have to stay in the right hand lane - the left lane filters off into the junction, the road reducing to a single lane, then at the other side of the junction, the sliproad forms a new left-hand lane. So the other day, I'm coming past the junction, observing the 40 limit (got my speed limiter set). As I come past the junction, traffic joining from the junction means I can't move over to the left. Twat comes up from behind at ridiculous speed and has to brake hard to avoid shunting me, sits centimetres from my bumper and starts flashing his lights at me. I'm going nowhere simply because there is nowhere to go. I have the self-confidence to refuse to be intimidated but I can understand that others wouldn't.

Raising the speed limit is not the answer to that problem.

I don't care if some arrogant twat thinks he's in a hurry, driving fast is not a right. You're impatient? Not my problem. And I refuse to let you make it my problem. If it's a real emergency, stick your feckin' blue flashers on.

Also, hasn't it been comprehensively proven that raising the speed limit does _not_ reduce congestion? Isn't it generally people driving too close to the car in front that causes congestion on motorways?


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (21 Oct 2017)

So the answer to HGV tailgating and flashing lights to shunt everyone out of lane 2 is to put the limit up so the poor truckers don't have to be forced to take such action.

Put some speed cameras in road works. Sorted.

They don't do it because they think it inefficient to go slower. They do it because they get away with it.


----------



## Drago (21 Oct 2017)

Brown shoes with a blue suit. That's the level of idiocy this guy stoops to.







The problem with speed cameras is that the working prosecution limit is 10%+2, which is 57MPH. The trucks are restricted to 56 and they know that if they keep their feet on the boards they will avoid prosecution. Instead of raising the speed limit they could more vigourously enforce the existing ones, use a prosecution limit of 2MPH over the limit, that would make them pay attention.


----------



## srw (22 Oct 2017)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> Put some speed cameras in road works. Sorted.


You don't drive on motorways much, do you?

Speed cameras - the average speed ones you can't easily evade - are bog-standard along roadworks these days.


----------



## srw (22 Oct 2017)

smutchin said:


> There are works on the M2 at the moment, around junction 5. The works are signed 2 miles in advance. The reduction in speed limit is staggered - reduced to 50, then further along reduced to 40. Suggesting that people are being asked to "suddenly" slow down is disingenuous.



If we're swapping anecdotes, there were roadworks and a lane closure on the M40 yesterday aroung the Beaconsfield junction. Advisory speed limit only - 50mph - and the traffic slowed down to 50mph.


----------



## srw (22 Oct 2017)

[QUOTE 5008819, member: 9609"]it don't get much thicker than this.

so the problem is tail gating lorries and if we can drive at 60 we can out run them - problem is when a car speedo shows 60 it is probably doing about 56. When a truck is on his limiter at 56 he is doing about 56. So the same problem is going to exist but at about 20% faster, so the carnage will probably be about 20% greater.

Why can't they just remove the licences of the morons in lorries that tail gate cars ?[/QUOTE]
Because you're misreporting what's being discussed, and it's already the subject of a thread.


----------



## smutchin (22 Oct 2017)

srw said:


> If we're swapping anecdotes, there were roadworks and a lane closure on the M40 yesterday aroung the Beaconsfield junction. Advisory speed limit only - 50mph - and the traffic slowed down to 50mph.



Reducing from 70 to 50 is _very_ different to reducing from 70 to 30, and I am willing to bet good money that those roadworks on the M40 are signed well in advance, so no one is required to "suddenly" reduce their speed.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (22 Oct 2017)

srw said:


> You don't drive on motorways much, do you?
> 
> Speed cameras - the average speed ones you can't easily evade - are bog-standard along roadworks these days.



Oh are they? Thanks for being patronising.

No, only 200 miles every other weekend for the past 2 years, and 25 miles every Monday for the past 7 years.

Those will be the ones with the signs underneath saying 'Average speed cameras not working'.


----------



## Drago (22 Oct 2017)

You can easily evade SPECS, generation 1 and 2. I don't intend divulging any tips, but it's nothing Google can't tell you.


----------



## Fab Foodie (22 Oct 2017)

swansonj said:


> If it were desired to have speed limits that could be changed when workers are present or not, that could easily be delivered by LED signs. The talk of the safety risk of putting out heavy signs seems an irrelevance (or an excuse).


As seen between Folkestone and Dover.


----------



## swansonj (22 Oct 2017)

Fab Foodie said:


> As seen between Folkestone and Dover.


I knew I'd seem them somewhere, thanks for reminding me


----------



## classic33 (22 Oct 2017)

Drago said:


> You can easily evade SPECS, generation 1 and 2. I don't intend divulging any tips, but it's nothing Google can't tell you.


Avoid or evade?


----------



## Tim Hall (22 Oct 2017)

Drago said:


> You can easily evade SPECS, generation 1 and 2. I don't intend divulging any tips, but it's nothing Google can't tell you.


I'll tell you a good way. Don't drive faster than the posted limit. You can have that one for free.


----------



## Fab Foodie (23 Oct 2017)

Tim Hall said:


> I'll tell you a good way. Don't drive faster than the posted limit. You can have that one for free.


Man, the stress man, I’m already having palpitations over the thought....


----------



## Drago (23 Oct 2017)

I would agree completely, but it seems that view places me very much in a minority when negotiating 50mph limits anywhere, never mind on the super slab.


----------



## User482 (23 Oct 2017)

smutchin said:


> Also, hasn't it been comprehensively proven that raising the speed limit does _not_ reduce congestion? Isn't it generally people driving too close to the car in front that causes congestion on motorways?



In general, increasing speed has the effect of reducing the carrying capacity of the road. Presumably, that's why managed motorways impose a lower limit during busy times.


----------



## jefmcg (23 Oct 2017)

[QUOTE 5007679, member: 45"]Cost v benefit. Weigh up the cost of installing variable speed limit equipment at every set of roadworks, just to save a bad driver 3 minutes off his journey.[/QUOTE]
Haven't we already spent billions on motorways? Wouldn't it make sense to do our best to keep them running as designed? 

You could argue that we don't need an 8 lane bitumen rivers criss-crossing the country, but if we agreed to that we could have saved a lot more than the price of a few electronic signs and batteries.

And while I am here, this hasn't had enough love:


DRHysted said:


> workers are not there if the speed limit is *innocent* place to protect workers.


(autocorrect, I assume)


----------



## J1888 (24 Oct 2017)

Not read the thread but presumably they took into account the fact that people may be less stressed as they don't feel like they're having to go 'slowly' and are not being delayed, hence the lower heartrate?


----------



## srw (24 Oct 2017)

J1888 said:


> Not read the thread but presumably they took into account the fact that people may be less stressed as they don't feel like they're having to go 'slowly' and are not being delayed, hence the lower heartrate?


Why don't you read the thread and find out?


----------



## J1888 (24 Oct 2017)

srw said:


> Why don't you read the thread and find out?



It's 7 pages long and I can't be arsed.


----------



## Tim Hall (24 Oct 2017)

J1888 said:


> It's 7 pages long and I can't be arsed.


Not read the thread but presumably they took into account the fact that people may be less stressed as they don't feel like they're having to go 'slowly' and are not being delayed, hence the lower heartrate?


----------



## User482 (24 Oct 2017)

J1888 said:


> It's 7 pages long and I can't be arsed.


Do you drive? I ask because I worry about your attention span.


----------



## J1888 (24 Oct 2017)

User482 said:


> Do you drive? I ask because I worry about your attention span.



Nope.


----------

