20mph on the motorway Options

[glasgow_bhoy]

Noticing a couple of posters in the speeding forum for exceeding 20mph on variable motorways.

Does anyone understand the reasoning behind these speed limits?

Personally anything under 50mph on the motorway makes me feel quite vulnerable!

[Advertisement]

[typefish]

On that basis we should all be using plastic knifes and forks.

Been to an airport recently? Knives and forks are what are known as "blunt"

[seank]

People think a 30mph limit outside a school seems sensible.
The same limit at 3:00am as at 8:30am
The same limit on Sunday as any other day
The same limit on an icy winter morning as in mid-summer.

20mph on a motorway is arbitrarily set.

So you argue for variable speed limits to suite the conditions and then state they are set arbitrarily when that is exactly what happens, as an example of the logic you want it falls flat on it's face spectacularly!

No, I don't argue for variable speed limits. I point out that the arbitrary limits are irrelevant when they don't apply to weather, time of day or vehicle types.
Maybe a bit more thinking before writing, eh Rookie?
Who says a limit should be 20, 21, 19, 30 or whatever? A local council with no reality of private sector efficiency.
On motorways that would be the HA, Jeremy Clarkson's wombles. They'll happily stop 3 lanes of a motorway when some cretin gets a door mirror knocked off. It makes no difference to them whether lanes are running or stopped.
A 20mph limit on a motorway is ridiculous.

A bloke sitting in the council offices has no idea what the traffic situation is in front of me now, what vehicle I'm driving, what the weather conditions are or my driving competence.

Quite right. So, to account for that, the law caters for the lowest common denominator. It would be nice if everybody had the common sense to drive to the conditions without the need for any speed limits at all, but there's always somebody who thinks they're the greatest driver in the world and should be allowed to drive past a school at 8:30am doing 80mph.

A person can be smart. People as a whole are idiots. This is why we can't have nice things.

On that basis we should all be using plastic knifes and forks.

Exactly right.
I read last week that some cretinous MP was calling for "acid sales" to be banned because people in London had sprayed folk with acid.
Is he saying we can't have vinegar on our chips?
What about Harpic Power Plus for the toilet? That is 3 molar hydrochloric acid.
What about alkalis? Can we use caustic soda?
If I have to drive at 20mph because "someone" thinks I might have an accident at 21mph it's time to get out of this nanny state country.
My God, there are roads in Germany called autobahns. How do folks survive on the stretches without speed limits?

[fedup2]

You keep spouting common sense,your not going to fit in here lol.

Im pretty sure some would be quite happy to be told they cant wear lace ups because someone tripped over an untied lace and tried to blame the shoe shop,as there was no warning label.

This post has been edited by fedup2: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 - 12:10

[The Rookie]

People think a 30mph limit outside a school seems sensible.
The same limit at 3:00am as at 8:30am
The same limit on Sunday as any other day
The same limit on an icy winter morning as in mid-summer.

20mph on a motorway is arbitrarily set.

So you argue for variable speed limits to suite the conditions and then state they are set arbitrarily when that is exactly what happens, as an example of the logic you want it falls flat on it's face spectacularly!

No, I don't argue for variable speed limits. I point out that the arbitrary limits are irrelevant when they don't apply to weather, time of day or vehicle types.
Maybe a bit more thinking before writing, eh Rookie?

Of course the variables aren't set arbitrarily and you say you don't want arbitrary limits, so that IS arguing for VSL, the logic was easy I thought?

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 - 12:25

[NewJudge]

So basically, then, we should all be allowed to travel at unlimited speed because we know the prevailing conditions where we are (the traffic flow, the weather, the time of day, what’s around the corner, etc.). There is no place for “arbitrary” speed limits.

The difficulty is that whilst you are blessed with second sight, superb car handling skills, lightning reactions and X-ray/telescopic vision, not everyone is so fortunate. So whilst you are tanking along at 100 plus on a small-ish dual carriageway which you use every day and of which you know every inch, nook and cranny, some poor sod pulling on to it for the first time in his life has to anticipate your arrival on his rear bumper at over 50 metres a second.

Speed limits (whether permanent or temporary) are set with a balance in mind. A balance between safety and expediency. If roads were to be 100% safe the limit would be 0mph; if they were simply for the expediency of every motorist there would be no limit. Parliament (the "somebodies") has decided on a framework of limits aimed at striking such a balance and in the main they seem to work quite well.

[typefish]

A balance between safety and expediency.

Don't forget politics.

[NewJudge]

A balance between safety and expediency.

Don't forget politics.

Sorry you've lost me. Where does politics come into the setting of speed limits?

[seank]

You keep spouting common sense,your not going to fit in here lol.

Im pretty sure some would be quite happy to be told they cant wear lace ups because someone tripped over an untied lace and tried to blame the shoe shop,as there was no warning label.

I think you're right.
The Forum used to be a valuable asset, with lots of people offering help and advice as well as sensible discussions.
These days it seems to have turned into a clique of 5 or 6 people who think they know it all and don't entertain other people's ideas.
A great pity.

[emsgeorge]

You keep spouting common sense,your not going to fit in here lol.

Im pretty sure some would be quite happy to be told they cant wear lace ups because someone tripped over an untied lace and tried to blame the shoe shop,as there was no warning label.

I think you're right.
The Forum used to be a valuable asset, with lots of people offering help and advice as well as sensible discussions.
These days it seems to have turned into a clique of 5 or 6 people who think they know it all and don't entertain other people's ideas.
A great pity.

Or there are those who have actually been in a control room, seen why the limits are set with their own eyes, try to explain to you, and still you ignore.

What does it take - do you want me to see if I can arrange a visit to one of the regional control centres for you to see first hand the idiocy that drivers do, daily, that makes them put the limits on ?

Or would you prefer to close your eyes and put your fingers in your ears and pretend there is only one version of the truth, yours.


There's more than just you on the road.

[roythebus]

What about some of the specialist vehicles that may not be capable of doing 20mph? Wide loads, very heavy loads etc. 20mph might be dangerous for some of them.

[superSmiffy]

You keep spouting common sense,your not going to fit in here lol.

Im pretty sure some would be quite happy to be told they cant wear lace ups because someone tripped over an untied lace and tried to blame the shoe shop,as there was no warning label.

I think you're right.
The Forum used to be a valuable asset, with lots of people offering help and advice as well as sensible discussions.
These days it seems to have turned into a clique of 5 or 6 people who think they know it all and don't entertain other people's ideas.
A great pity.

Or there are those who have actually been in a control room, seen why the limits are set with their own eyes, try to explain to you, and still you ignore.

What does it take - do you want me to see if I can arrange a visit to one of the regional control centres for you to see first hand the idiocy that drivers do, daily, that makes them put the limits on ?

Or would you prefer to close your eyes and put your fingers in your ears and pretend there is only one version of the truth, yours.


There's more than just you on the road.

Exactly.
I think some people think that there are jokers in the RCC passing the big red speed limit switch, flicking it to 20 and retiring to say “there! That’ll fu*k-em all up”
Not only that but even if that did happen that it makes the limit unenforceable.

[fedup2]

You keep spouting common sense,your not going to fit in here lol.

Im pretty sure some would be quite happy to be told they cant wear lace ups because someone tripped over an untied lace and tried to blame the shoe shop,as there was no warning label.

I think you're right.
The Forum used to be a valuable asset, with lots of people offering help and advice as well as sensible discussions.
These days it seems to have turned into a clique of 5 or 6 people who think they know it all and don't entertain other people's ideas.
A great pity.

Or there are those who have actually been in a control room, seen why the limits are set with their own eyes, try to explain to you, and still you ignore.

What does it take - do you want me to see if I can arrange a visit to one of the regional control centres for you to see first hand the idiocy that drivers do, daily, that makes them put the limits on ?

Or would you prefer to close your eyes and put your fingers in your ears and pretend there is only one version of the truth, yours.


There's more than just you on the road.

Actually i couldn't count the amount of times when ive seen stupid speed limits displayed and been the ONLY person on the road.Maybe they fell asleep on all them occasions and i say all because there are many but i know......Im delusional!

[Mr Meldrew]

Actually i couldn't count the amount of times when ive seen stupid speed limits displayed and been the ONLY person on the road.Maybe they fell asleep on all them occasions and i say all because there are many but i know......Im delusional!

Me too. In the related cases, it’s not obvious what was the likely reasoning behind maintaining, overnight, an extreme 20mph speed restriction on the short stretch of carriageway between two higher limits (I’m assuming there was no fault)? A car on its roof or some prat joining the motorway the wrong way is easily understood. So, was it that the authorities considered that there was an ongoing potentially dangerous situation requiring these measures? Perhaps the authorities considered the possibility of standing traffic at J16, which was set at 40mph. Apparently though, the motorway was quiet at 8.30pm, and even quieter almost 5 hours later at 1.15am as would be expected. Was the likely reasoning behind putting such limits on rartiger and the other motorists following the diversion at 8.30pm, that if it was raised overnight to 40mph like the majority of the diversion, rartiger, and Redtech, and others couldn’t be trusted not to become idiotic drivers and run over someone behind the cones? Well, I’ve checked rartiger’s video and no one was there, and I doubt that at 1.15am when Redtech came through, it was any different. Even if people were about earlier when the extreme limit may have been more readily understood, why not raise the limit when they were safely in bed?

[superSmiffy]

Actually i couldn't count the amount of times when ive seen stupid speed limits displayed and been the ONLY person on the road.Maybe they fell asleep on all them occasions and i say all because there are many but i know......Im delusional!

Me too. In the related cases, it’s not obvious what was the likely reasoning behind maintaining, overnight, an extreme 20mph speed restriction on the short stretch of carriageway between two higher limits (I’m assuming there was no fault)? A car on its roof or some prat joining the motorway the wrong way is easily understood. So, was it that the authorities considered that there was an ongoing potentially dangerous situation requiring these measures? Perhaps the authorities considered the possibility of standing traffic at J16, which was set at 40mph. Apparently though, the motorway was quiet at 8.30pm, and even quieter almost 5 hours later at 1.15am as would be expected. Was the likely reasoning behind putting such limits on rartiger and the other motorists following the diversion at 8.30pm, that if it was raised overnight to 40mph like the majority of the diversion, rartiger, and Redtech, and others couldn’t be trusted not to become idiotic drivers and run over someone behind the cones? Well, I’ve checked rartiger’s video and no one was there, and I doubt that at 1.15am when Redtech came through, it was any different. Even if people were about earlier when the extreme limit may have been more readily understood, why not raise the limit when they were safely in bed?

I would think that the speed policy for that job was decided upon and it was put into action. Part of the policy was that there would be no continuous monitoring by RCC staff over night so that a few drivers wouldn't be inconvenienced by a few seconds because the RCC staff available in the night shift were busy doing something far more important elsewhere.
There is no reason why additional staff should be put on to monitor the traffic flow 24/7 to constantly change the speed limits to appease a few drivers who think that simple traffic regulation doesn't apply to them.
At least one of the drivers you mention accepts that the ticket has served a useful purpose and convinced him/her that they should have slowed before the sign and not after it and also that when signs are seen in future simply do what they say. You know it makes sense so why not learn from their mistakes and why apply your own conditions?

[fedup2]

Actually i couldn't count the amount of times when ive seen stupid speed limits displayed and been the ONLY person on the road.Maybe they fell asleep on all them occasions and i say all because there are many but i know......Im delusional!

Me too. In the related cases, it’s not obvious what was the likely reasoning behind maintaining, overnight, an extreme 20mph speed restriction on the short stretch of carriageway between two higher limits (I’m assuming there was no fault)? A car on its roof or some prat joining the motorway the wrong way is easily understood. So, was it that the authorities considered that there was an ongoing potentially dangerous situation requiring these measures? Perhaps the authorities considered the possibility of standing traffic at J16, which was set at 40mph. Apparently though, the motorway was quiet at 8.30pm, and even quieter almost 5 hours later at 1.15am as would be expected. Was the likely reasoning behind putting such limits on rartiger and the other motorists following the diversion at 8.30pm, that if it was raised overnight to 40mph like the majority of the diversion, rartiger, and Redtech, and others couldn’t be trusted not to become idiotic drivers and run over someone behind the cones? Well, I’ve checked rartiger’s video and no one was there, and I doubt that at 1.15am when Redtech came through, it was any different. Even if people were about earlier when the extreme limit may have been more readily understood, why not raise the limit when they were safely in bed?

I would think that the speed policy for that job was decided upon and it was put into action. Part of the policy was that there would be no continuous monitoring by RCC staff over night so that a few drivers wouldn't be inconvenienced by a few seconds because the RCC staff available in the night shift were busy doing something far more important elsewhere.
There is no reason why additional staff should be put on to monitor the traffic flow 24/7 to constantly change the speed limits to appease a few drivers who think that simple traffic regulation doesn't apply to them.
At least one of the drivers you mention accepts that the ticket has served a useful purpose and convinced him/her that they should have slowed before the sign and not after it and also that when signs are seen in future simply do what they say. You know it makes sense so why not learn from their mistakes and why apply your own conditions?

They might be simple Traffic regulations to you,to haulage company's it costs massive amounts of money.Maybe if the idiots in the ivory towers had to pay the extra expenses this stupidity costs us all,they may just keep someone awake!

[The Rookie]

So a reduced speed limit is better than either the extra congestion or the accidents they are designed to prevent as that would be better for hauliers?

[Mr Meldrew]

Actually i couldn't count the amount of times when ive seen stupid speed limits displayed and been the ONLY person on the road.Maybe they fell asleep on all them occasions and i say all because there are many but i know......Im delusional!

Me too. In the related cases, it’s not obvious what was the likely reasoning behind maintaining, overnight, an extreme 20mph speed restriction on the short stretch of carriageway between two higher limits (I’m assuming there was no fault)? A car on its roof or some prat joining the motorway the wrong way is easily understood. So, was it that the authorities considered that there was an ongoing potentially dangerous situation requiring these measures? Perhaps the authorities considered the possibility of standing traffic at J16, which was set at 40mph. Apparently though, the motorway was quiet at 8.30pm, and even quieter almost 5 hours later at 1.15am as would be expected. Was the likely reasoning behind putting such limits on rartiger and the other motorists following the diversion at 8.30pm, that if it was raised overnight to 40mph like the majority of the diversion, rartiger, and Redtech, and others couldn’t be trusted not to become idiotic drivers and run over someone behind the cones? Well, I’ve checked rartiger’s video and no one was there, and I doubt that at 1.15am when Redtech came through, it was any different. Even if people were about earlier when the extreme limit may have been more readily understood, why not raise the limit when they were safely in bed?

I would think that the speed policy for that job was decided upon and it was put into action. Part of the policy was that there would be no continuous monitoring by RCC staff over night so that a few drivers wouldn't be inconvenienced by a few seconds because the RCC staff available in the night shift were busy doing something far more important elsewhere.
There is no reason why additional staff should be put on to monitor the traffic flow 24/7 to constantly change the speed limits to appease a few drivers who think that simple traffic regulation doesn't apply to them.
At least one of the drivers you mention accepts that the ticket has served a useful purpose and convinced him/her that they should have slowed before the sign and not after it and also that when signs are seen in future simply do what they say. You know it makes sense so why not learn from their mistakes and why apply your own conditions?

I couldn’t say what was the likely reasoning either, and had in mind that it might be policy.

[seank]

So a reduced speed limit is better than either the extra congestion or the accidents they are designed to prevent as that would be better for hauliers?

Of course.
Let's make the national speed limit 4mph and insist that a man (must be a man, not a boy, not a woman, and must be aged between 18 and 19 years old, for health and safety reasons) walks in front of every vehicle, on every road.
Accidents are nasty and not everyone on the road is skilled.
Not all vehicles are capable of speeds above 4mph. We need to adopt standards that every type of vehicle can manage. Everywhere. A cyclist may be riding the wrong way towards you.
A pedestrian may be walking, half intoxicated, towards you in the middle of your lane on the motorway. The vehicle must be able to respond.
Your gas cooker at home could burn you. We need to ban them from all houses.
Electricity is dangerous and has killed people. Must be banned.
Your bed needs a guard around it. Can't have you falling out and breaking your bones.
Ladders. You what?
Water is lethal if you fall into it. Don't bother training people to swim and then testing that they can swim safely by issuing them with a licence. Let's just restrict their swimming to what a Womble thinks is OK.
There used to be a good Forum that advised swimmers who ran up against the Wombles. It must be shut down forthwith. Can't be having swimmers getting advice. We know best, don't we?

[The Rookie]

So taking a lower limit set for a reason and extending that to a childish arbitrary low limit, do try and grow up at the back.

[seank]

So taking a lower limit set for a reason and extending that to a childish arbitrary low limit, do try and grow up at the back.

Taking an arbitrary limit.
Why is 20mph safe on a motorway and 21mph is not?
A risk assessment should be made on the basis of reality, not worst possible case. Can't you see that point or did I spell it out too clearly?