Lowering Rural Speed Limits from 60 to 40

[CopperCyclist]

I'm not in favour. NSL routes are fine, it's the minority of drivers on them that can tend to be the problem. Reducing the speed limit from 60 to 40 (or fifty) is unlikely to stop the drivers who would have crashed from driving recklessly anyway. All it will do is get the odd motorist (from both camps, the reckless and the ok) the occasional speeding fine.

 

[Peteaud]

Good idea but it wont make a difference.

 

[summerdays]

I think it will make a slight difference. Those law abiding motorists will slow down, the ones who think they are safe doing 50/60+ around a blind bend will still think that as they are safe it doesn't apply to them (and that there is probably zero chance of being caught). The main benefit that I can see is that law abiding motorists will partially slow the other motorists, and possibly give nicer overtakes of cyclists/pedestrians.

 

[sidevalve]

Will it improve things on twisty roads - no. Our village has had 2 serious accidents in the last year, both caused by "joyriders" both were way way way over the speed limit. Now we have people crying for a 20 limit in the village, why ? It won't affect the loonies [the only goodpoint being one of 'em was killed] they'll still do 100 +. It will allow councils to try more speed traps to make money [if you really believe they do it to promote road safety you probably still believe in the tooth fairy] and not much else. CopperCyclist is pretty spot on, it's a bluff, calculated to make people feel "the government" is "making the roads safer" and oddly it just happens to make 'em a bit of cash on the side.
Remember speed does NOT kill {else they'd have needed a lot of bodybags on concorde} but speed in the wrong place / at the wrong time DOES !

 

[OldManBike]

Don't know what all the fuss is about, I can't even do 40 mph on my bike, let alone 60mph. Derrrrrrrr!!!!!

 

[srw]

On a serious note, this constant obsession with speed for 'safety' reasons really grips my s***. I did the research in around 1997 or so and then, there were 2500 deaths attributed to speeding yet in the same year there were 250,000 deaths attributed to smoking.

So why don't they make smoking illegal on grounds of 'safety'? Maybe it's the £9 billion raised in revenue on duty? The NHS takes £2.5 billion out of that but that's still a lot of money!

Lowering the speed limit will cut deaths BUT also raise lost revenue from the decline in smoking since the public smoking 'ban'.

You're a cynic.

£9m is a small amount (2% or so) of the overall government budget. Smoking has been falling constantly for decades, driven by government policy to increase tax and restrict sales and use. The result has been a dramatic fall in the incidence of lung cancer and a consequent increase in national prosperity.

As well as the few thousands killed on the roads, a couple of hundred thousand are injured. Most road accidents are, one way or another, linked to excessive speed. Anything we can do to reduce speeds will have a positive impact on road safety. Reducing speed on the roads also makes them more attractive for residents and visitors.

 

[Norm]

. The result has been a dramatic fall in the incidence of lung cancer and a consequent increase in national prosperity.

Until we have to pay for the care for the millions who would have died through cancer... but that'll be an issue for the next government to deal with, so that's ok.

 

[xpc316e]

I'd love to see better driving everywhere, and in particular lower speeds on some of the rural roads on which I ride. I'd also love to see a law stating that cyclists must be given a 2 metre gap when being overtaken - if that could be ensured, I wouldn't really mind how fast the numpties chose to drive.

Sadly, I am not holding my breath waiting for either measure. If we did get lower speed limits on rural roads, they would have no effect without the enforcement to back up the law.

 

[Robeh]

it'll save a few lives, but millions will be late!

If it only saves one life then it will be worth it IMO...

 

[subaqua]

Until we have to pay for the care for the millions who would have died through cancer... but that'll be an issue for the next government to deal with, so that's ok.

but the care costs for non smoking related diseases are likeley to be less than the cost of smoking related diseases so there could well be money kleft in the pot , or at least a "break even" figure.

 

[MrB1obby]

I'm not in favour. NSL routes are fine, it's the minority of drivers on them that can tend to be the problem. Reducing the speed limit from 60 to 40 (or fifty) is unlikely to stop the drivers who would have crashed from driving recklessly anyway. All it will do is get the odd motorist (from both camps, the reckless and the ok) the occasional speeding fine.

Agree!

I believe they should be educating motorists, making them better drivers and more aware of what can happen beyond the level of safe driving. In my eyes it's covering a problem instead of fixing it.

In some cases I can see why they would reduce the posted limit, my main itch being that they will just end up doing it to most NSL roads, where 50 and 60 mph is still safe to travel at. I already know of many many roads that have been reduced down to 50mph which IMO it would be easily be safe to do 60 down them most of the time. One of which, is a 2 mile straight, has about 2 farm entrances on, newly surfaced, flat, a hedge which you can see over. When they re-surfaced it, they put it down to a 50.

 

[Norm]

but the care costs for non smoking related diseases are likeley to be less than the cost of smoking related diseases..

Possibly, but that seems to depend which news report you have read most recently. Most care requirements for the elderly are not only expensive but also, potentially, needed over a relatively long period. The costs will hit even harder with the implementation of the cap that has recently been discussed.

 

[snorri]

Remember speed does NOT kill but speed in the wrong place / at the wrong time DOES !

When are the right and wrong times?
It's not just deaths and injuries, driving at inappropriate speeds on rural roads is quite simply anti-social. Non motorised users are deterred by fast motor traffic from using the road to the extent that the freedom of individuals to go about their normal lives is restricted as people feel unsafe walking or cycling on the roads, and many do not allow their children to walk or cycle unsupervised.

 

[snorri]

I'm not in favour. NSL routes are fine, it's the minority of drivers on them that can tend to be the problem. Reducing the speed limit from 60 to 40 (or fifty) is unlikely to stop the drivers who would have crashed from driving recklessly anyway. All it will do is get the odd motorist (from both camps, the reckless and the ok) the occasional speeding fine.

NSL routes are definitely not "fine", and it is not a minority of drivers that tend to be the problem. The 60 mph limit encourages rather a high proportion of drivers, to drive at up to 60 mph on rural roads many of which which were designed for the horse and cart. The designed road speed for relatively modern rural roads was only 45mph. You fail to consider the effect on other road users of motor vehicles travelling at 60mph, it's not just drivers crashing that have to be considered.

 

[CopperCyclist]

NSL routes are definitely not "fine", and it is not a minority of drivers that tend to be the problem. The 60 mph limit encourages rather a high proportion of drivers, to drive at up to 60 mph on rural roads many of which which were designed for the horse and cart. The designed road speed for relatively modern rural roads was only 45mph.

You fail to consider the effect on other road users of motor vehicles travelling at 60mph, it's not just drivers crashing that have to be considered.

No, I don't - honestly. However I've been on driving courses where for all intents and purposes the NSL has been 'No Speed Limit'. This doesn't mean you fly everywhere at 100, it means sometimes the appropriate speed may be 40, sometimes it may be less, and sometimes I'll have been doing much, much higher.

Obviously I'm not advocating speeding for speedings sake, and when driving normally or on non emergency runs the limit exists and is there as that, a limit not a target.

Other road users are just some of the many factors that come into play to adjust speed. You should also consider weather, road conditions, camber, vehicle capabilities etc (not an exhaustive list).

I still think the number of people that think 'Its a sixty so I must drive at sixty regardless' is very low. Rather, you have reckless or ignorant drivers that drive too fast for the conditions, that would be just as unlikely to vary their speed due to a lowered limit as they would because they see a cycle ahead of them.

Luckily, in my personal experience around me, these sort of drivers are in the minority, and I feel sorry for anyone where this isn't the case, but still think lowered speed limits isn't the answer.

I'm not sure what is... How about the courts being able to force people to take an advanced driving test at their own expense, or suffer a six month ban?