National Speed Limit Petition, Sign in here, Closing date 9th September
- Thread starter Munkul
- Start date
Currently reading:
National Speed Limit Petition, Sign in here, Closing date 9th September
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 1,694
- Points
- 322
Absolutely sucidal to do 60mph down many country lanes marked "national speed limit"
Agreed, but the same applies to many 'B' roads also which can be safer to travel along at 60 on, but still become a cropper if you can't read the road.
Gurkhas?
BTW, we have had threads on here in the past where people have admitted to driving at whatever speed THEY feel is right for the road. The example I like to give...
Driving along a nice, straight A road - nice, long, straight bit of dual carriageway here, I can safely do 100mph no problem.
One of the locals is approaching this A road from a side road, sees your car in the distance & assumes you are driving at the limit.
They know from experience that they have bags of time to pull out.
But as you are going waaaay over the limit, he has just pulled out in the middle of your stopping distance!
Another interesting point, although cars have got 'safer' with ABS, traction control, better road-holding from tyres etc, you cannot change the laws of physics.
Also, the overall stopping distances given are grossly underestimated because the figures were achieved under test conditions.
When the examiner tells you they will hit the dash with their book or shout 'stop' and expect you to stop the car yada yada yada, you are ready & waiting to transfer foot from accellerator to brake. In the real world, you actually have to see the hazard before you can react to it, so if you decide that nice A road is good for 100mph, by the time you've seen the hazard it is already too late to brake!
Signed 
Then they're not driving safely - a dual carriageway you can do 100 on has no local entrances.
There's little doubt that traffic that moves "too slowly", and it's subjective as to what exactly constitutes "too slowly", can cause frustration with the attendant dodgy overtakes that go with it, but one reason I think this will go through (and by the way, I've signed the petition) is that most traffic actually doesn't travel at the existing 60 limit. All goods vehicles over 2 tonnes gross are limited to 50 on National Speed Limit single carriageway, and that includes Transits and Sprinters so they won't be objecting. On a recent journey from Middlesbrough to Manchester I took the "cross country" route and on the section from Ripon to Harrogate to Skipton, I was surprised how many other drivers seemed to think 40 was suitable on National Limit roads. It wouldn't have been so bad if the other drivers had kept to the left instead of hugging the centre line, a practice that makes overtaking more dangerous than it needs to be. So I would argue that driving at 60 isn't what causes crashes and the associated casualties, but inconsiderate driving.
Just as a matter of interest, can you ask the council for a copy of the Road Traffic Order for some of those new speed limits? Give them some old chat about joining the Cops and wanting to know something about the procedure for road management. If the new limit isn't on the order it isn't enforceable.
No. People, and that includes most on here, only want to pass a driving test rather than learning to drive. If the Government wants to improve road safety then they should make Pass + compulsory and make it a minimum of 20 hours instead of 6.
That's another area where the Government could make the roads safer. Increase road safety initaitives aimed at children. I've no idea how successful campaigns like the Tufty Club or The Green Cross Code were, but at least they were there. There always used to be Public Information films about road safety dealing with topics like lane discipline and reverse parking. We can laugh at them now, but despite it having been on the Driving Test for several years now, it's frightening how many people can't do it. Lane discipline is another area people moan about a lot.
If it was just the oldies we could put it down to senility. I'm afraid that's far too simplistic an explanation. The elderly quite often realise that their faculties are not up to the standard they once were and slow down as a result. Unfortunately, at the other end of the spectrum, the young don't realise the limitations of their lack of experience and are often victims of their own poor driving skills.
Apart from the below mentioned Gurkhas.....er.....no.
If you are starting out on your driving career and would like to drive safely on Motorways and National Speed Limit roads from the outset then that takes training and training costs money. Even the IAM costs some money, but also takes effort. You have to get up early on a Sunday morning.
A long time ago, (cough)30 years a mate of mine, similar age but with several years of racing, Formula Ford and Sports 2000 was giving me a lift in his Colt (Mitsubishi) Lancer 1600 from Buxton to Macclesfield across the Cat & Fiddle when we caught up with a Porsche 911S. Pete hounded the driver as he went up to, then beyond his comfort zone. We couldn't really get past him but despite losing ground on the straight, closed up rapidly under braking. Eventually, he made a mistake and we were past. The tyres were blistered and I've never smelt that level of hot machinery smell in a road car before. The difference was between a vastly superior car or a vastly superior driver. The only problem Pete had was that he was always arriving at situations far quicker than people thought, but then he always had an escape route. How many people on here drive quickly yet are always working out what they will do if it all goes pear shaped?
Last edited:
An interesting point you raise there about HGV's and van's Mr Beard, but in my experience (certainly on the single carriageways up here) most trucks/lorries do minimum 60mph and the transit/ducato/vito club are usually overtaking me!
tbh..... vans are driven differently by different people.... and also depending what the vans are like... take me for instance....
our sprinter flatbed is an s reg model, with 120k on the clock.... it has the 308d engine in with around 70bhp and no turbo.... you might see 70mph downhill if your lucky.....
our transit on the other hand, 53 reg... 150k, has the 125bhp turbo engine in....
guess which one i would choose
our sprinter flatbed is an s reg model, with 120k on the clock.... it has the 308d engine in with around 70bhp and no turbo.... you might see 70mph downhill if your lucky.....
our transit on the other hand, 53 reg... 150k, has the 125bhp turbo engine in....
guess which one i would choose
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2009
- Messages
- 1,414
- Points
- 264
I'm gonna have my penny's worth now! :devil: A rant of the grande variety here :yuck:
I work in a so-called "democratic" environment and I can tell you this - it is anything BUT democratic. Decisions are often already made in political group discussion and the phase they call "consultation" is just so they can say they did it. You will often find that in official "impartial" consultations the same few organisations are used to deliver completely loaded questions to a series of people who are likely to agree with what they want to do. At least that is what I have found at work! They recently imposed a decision which had just 10% favour amongst residents...
I'm inclined to agree with training pedestrians to not be complete *****. There is no accountability on them, cyclists, other priority road users such as buses who just stop with no indication (probably a shocking generalisation there, but that's how it feels sometimes) or pull out of their bus lanes straight into your path. The numbers of people I see walking out into the road without looking, walking in the road way for no reason at all - get them too! I live on a corner (no I'm not a lady of the night lol) and when I turn into my cul-de-sac I would have to say that I have only seen one person look when crossing the road in the 11 years I have lived here. It's my duty to make sure nobody is in my area of the road, where I have priority and then get blamed as someone is too lazy or too wrapped up in their own affairs to consider that there may be a road user using the road? (I haven't hit or killed anyone by the way! lol)
Motorcyclists weaving in and out of traffic is another one. I hate it! I mean if I overtake someone on the inside lane to them and they move into the inside lane at that point - my fault - unless it is a motorbike, when all rules are forgotten. Then you have the pizza delivery people who act like they are going round a rally track. These people are generally more vulnerable as there's little protection when involved in a collision. They should remember this when going around - and car drivers can't always see you. There is no excuse for car drivers not looking though.
But in all of these instances the car driver is almost certainly had. There needs to be more equal accountability. And one figure which was quoted on Top Gear was just 2% of country road accidents can be attributed to speed. Being read out by Jeremy makes me wonder whether it is true - but it shows the Government is missing the point again if is it.
And if anyone thinks I love all car drivers - this isn't the case either. I had to skid to a stop because some stupid tart who loved herself more than my safety pulled out on me while doing her make-up on the way home yesterday. She was driving a VW and they belong in the same league as many (not all) Audi and BMW drivers. One area which I think should be targeted with drivers is driving while using a mobile phone or any other such thing like a lipstick, eating a burger, etc.
And if I haven't said enough - I signed the petition too!
This was not written as seriously as it comes across, but I do feel strongly about it One party is rarely completely in the wrong - accidents, in my opinion, accidents more often than not occur with a series of errors by all those involved.
I work in a so-called "democratic" environment and I can tell you this - it is anything BUT democratic. Decisions are often already made in political group discussion and the phase they call "consultation" is just so they can say they did it. You will often find that in official "impartial" consultations the same few organisations are used to deliver completely loaded questions to a series of people who are likely to agree with what they want to do. At least that is what I have found at work! They recently imposed a decision which had just 10% favour amongst residents...
I'm inclined to agree with training pedestrians to not be complete *****. There is no accountability on them, cyclists, other priority road users such as buses who just stop with no indication (probably a shocking generalisation there, but that's how it feels sometimes) or pull out of their bus lanes straight into your path. The numbers of people I see walking out into the road without looking, walking in the road way for no reason at all - get them too! I live on a corner (no I'm not a lady of the night lol) and when I turn into my cul-de-sac I would have to say that I have only seen one person look when crossing the road in the 11 years I have lived here. It's my duty to make sure nobody is in my area of the road, where I have priority and then get blamed as someone is too lazy or too wrapped up in their own affairs to consider that there may be a road user using the road? (I haven't hit or killed anyone by the way! lol)
Motorcyclists weaving in and out of traffic is another one. I hate it! I mean if I overtake someone on the inside lane to them and they move into the inside lane at that point - my fault - unless it is a motorbike, when all rules are forgotten. Then you have the pizza delivery people who act like they are going round a rally track. These people are generally more vulnerable as there's little protection when involved in a collision. They should remember this when going around - and car drivers can't always see you. There is no excuse for car drivers not looking though.
But in all of these instances the car driver is almost certainly had. There needs to be more equal accountability. And one figure which was quoted on Top Gear was just 2% of country road accidents can be attributed to speed. Being read out by Jeremy makes me wonder whether it is true - but it shows the Government is missing the point again if is it.
And if anyone thinks I love all car drivers - this isn't the case either. I had to skid to a stop because some stupid tart who loved herself more than my safety pulled out on me while doing her make-up on the way home yesterday. She was driving a VW and they belong in the same league as many (not all) Audi and BMW drivers. One area which I think should be targeted with drivers is driving while using a mobile phone or any other such thing like a lipstick, eating a burger, etc.
And if I haven't said enough - I signed the petition too!
This was not written as seriously as it comes across, but I do feel strongly about it
One party is rarely completely in the wrong - accidents, in my opinion, accidents more often than not occur with a series of errors by all those involved.
ghsaunders40
New member
I don't think the reduction of speed on rural roads for safety reasons is the primary catalyst for the Government doing this. I feel this is down to CO2 emmissions.
Reduction in speed=reduction in co2! Its being dressed as safety as safety sells!
They will go for the motorway in the next decade for the same reason!
Reduction in speed=reduction in co2! Its being dressed as safety as safety sells!
They will go for the motorway in the next decade for the same reason!
be a good idea to change it to 40mph and then have 50 an 60 signs where roads are a bit safer. lots of narrow bendy country roads now have a 60 limit and that makes people think its safe to do 60 down them even though they have no idea what is around the next bend
There is probably much in what you say. This Government is even more duplicitous than previous ones. However, personally, I don't think that will make any difference as, in my opinion, the vast majority of drivers don't travel at 60 on single carriageway roads anyway.
It might be worth remembering that in the '60s there was no such thing as the National Speed Limit(s). It was only after the 70 limit was introduced on Motorways that the powers that be realised that it was quite legal to travel at higher speeds on dual carriageways and even single carriageway roads.
Prior to the introduction of the 70 limit, the familiar white circular sign with the black diagonal band across it meant No Speed Limit. It wasn't intended to mean go as fast as you want, but in effect that's how it was interpreted.
In the mid-60s, even modern cars like the Austin A40, 1100, Mini 850, Ford Anglia and Vauxhall Viva HA would struggle to pass 80 and their acceleration could only be described as glacial. 0-60 in 18 seconds anybody? Drum brakes all round and cross-ply tyres meant speeds were lower anyway. Therefore, the number of cars getting anywhere near today's National Limit was a very small percentage of the total number on the roads. BMWs were almost non-existant, Jaguars were fairly common and Mercedes were quite a rarity too.
The only 4X4s were Land Rovers and the only "hot" hatch was an A40 with wider wheels and the air filter taken out.
The whole idea of that iconic white sign was that drivers would make their own decisions as to what speed was most appropriate, mainly for their vehicles. One other thought that springs to mind was the attitude of other drivers. I might be looking at the matter through rose-tinted spectacles, and I was only 10 in 1967, but in general I would say drivers were more courteous to others. A fast moving car meant a high performance car. Most people were
quite excited at seeing an exotic car and would move over to let it past. A driver waving past a faster moving car was quite common instead of sitting out on the centre line. High performance cars were something to be desired not resented.
I haven't quoted Garree 001 because I agree with almost everything posted.
Last edited:
You've not driven along the A5 past Milton Keynes then?
There's a couple of roundabouts south of MK but also some very long, straight stretches of road, mostly wide enough for 3 cars but there are some parts where it is dual carriageway.
The example I gave actually happened to my elderly neighbour, he was turning left onto the A5 from the Tebworth Rd when he was hit in the side. His ford Escort was bent in half as it wrapped around the other car with the force of the impact.
The other guy was doing 110mph (his speedo stuck on impact).
A witness in the car behind my neighbour said he never stood a chance, the road was clear.
Much of that road now has loads of white paint all over it for ghost islands etc.
Why do people look at speed limits and assume their car is perfectly safe to exceed these limits? They are there for a reason.
There are also a million reasons why you or your car might not be safe to exceed the posted limit.
Last edited:
Nope. The average car is most economical (both on fuel and emissions) at 55-60 MPH, reducing the speed to 50 WILL increase emissions, as well as fuel use
Now money collection from tax on extra fuel used sounds more like our government
Now money collection from tax on extra fuel used sounds more like our government
More like double collection
the buggas get fuel tax AND vat, don't you just love being taxed on tax :bang: I've added my sig to the petition.
Trev
Signed
More like double collection
Oh, and don't forget the income tax you've already paid on the money your spending on the fuel if you a hard working citezen! (sp?)
