50 because we can't drive

[StuartFZR400 0]

This is purely a bit of subjective rant and may well belong in the Venting Spleen thread, but I thought it to be a bit car related.

 

A bit of food for thought and not in any way meant to get up hackles; if you're of a techy position, then look away now;

 

It may well be just Warwickshire that has this issue. I’ve driven about other counties and actually admired the standard of driving, as it feels the Warwickshire crowd are a cut below the rest. For over a year now they have been introducing the 50mph zones in place of the national limits. At first it was a bit of a joke that they were being done on duel-carriage ways, but then I started to take note when it was also going on down the lovely sweeping A roads too. It leaves you wondering if it’s worth owning a C, something nippy, or even a bike.

 

Somebody may be able to enlighten me as to why we are getting these imposed zones. I think I recall somebody telling me it’s to do with them getting ahead of them selves, before a blanket gov purge across the country – not sure how true that is. But I also wonder who on earth is on these west midland highways boards of decision. Are they part of the majority who drive like complete morons?

 

It feels like the majority vote is winning; that is the majority bad drivers are the cause of the limits being dropped. I know a lot of you will say how well you drive etc, but I have to say you’re in a minority. A good 98 percent or so of people here drive totally incompetent – you can witness a serious lack of forethought and thus danger.

 

Have these people considered the ramifications of introducing a 50 limit on what was a 60? If you were to analyse the highwaycode you’d probably come up with many reasons against this idea.

 

First off, where are they imposing the limits? So far it’s been the busy roads (national); that’s a combination of duel-carriage and well used single A roads. This leads onto maybe it’s presumed statement that roads with higher volumes of traffic are more likely to have accidents. If this is the case, should we not be dropping the 40’s and 30’s too, as these are even more busy?

 

(Inconsistency of hazard perception) That leads nicely onto the next point, that we see these main roads drop, but you drive past many side roads, that twist and turn more often than your medley of intestine; they are more narrow and have worse line of sight – basically far more dangerous - so where is the logic. And as much as many of us would drive these sensibly, you’ll still get farmer Giles wopping down the lane quicker than normal, because he never normally sees anyone coming as the place is normally so quiet, and the Disco has never altered course in the last 50 years.

 

But more to the point is: should the main A road that leads into a town, should that 40 now be dropped to a 30? I mean, if average Joe cannot manage to drive the National limit properly – which most often they cannot – surely these large numbers of drivers are also not taking too much notice in the 40’s too? And where are you more likely to get pedestrians?

 

I now live in the country and it’s a 40. I can full well understand people speed along part of it because it’s so straight; yet they seem to forget that there are houses all along it, and a good chance that Billy might be having a Dare Devil moment going a bit wrong and require a bit of run off into the road. So I frown a tiny bit; but worse than this are the people who speed in the cul-de-sac 30’s. Nearly everyone is doing it.

 

Do the logic here; a huge majority speed in the 30, but a huge majority also plunder along between 40 and 50 in the National limits. Are these people not just ignorant to the varying hazards? Are they not aware that trying to stop at 40, in the cul-de-sac is going to be a combination of skill, fast reactions, good grip and ABS and touch of luck to miss some situations; and yet out in the National you could nearly fall asleep in if you’re only doing 50; the car will get nowhere near to engaging the abs etc. This leads onto driver awareness and should they be re-tested and a whole Pandora box of issues.

 

So what good does the new limit bring?

 

Ahh yes, we’ll all drive slower, more sensibly and thus avoid those fast speed accidents – remember ‘speed kills’. Only today I witnessed a TT tailgating a little car coming the other way to me. I was exiting the long sweeping bend and looking to the other end of the straight and preparing to back off slightly, and wondering why on earth the TT was not making an overtake, but instead choosing to tailgate. We pass each other – still no overtake. I watch for a bit in the mirror and look back to the road, thinking maybe the TT was a tad cold and being well looked after. When next in the corner of my eye I notice TT pops out for the pass on the little car. I’m not kidding when I say he’s less than 50ft to the bend and I can see something coming the other way (ie following me) at a slow pace; the car may not have had to slow much ,as it was already going slow-ish, but that’s beside the point, it could’ve been within-his-rights-Carradolover doing 60. I’m sorry, but this is not speed that kills – this is stupidity, or as many of you guys on here rightly point out: inappropriate speed. You could reduce that road to a 40 or 50, and that same TT is still going to be stuck behind the small car going 35, and he’s still going to leave his overtake late, and he’s still going to be met by the on-coming car doing 40 or so and its still dangerous.

 

One of the fast A roads near me is a properly quick and a very smooth bit of tarmac. I’ve seen quite a few Corsas stuffed in the hedge and wonder how on earth they’ve managed it; ok it gets tight in places, but dab the brakes and turn the wheel and off we go – well no, actually round the bend we go – not “off”. So reducing the limit is going to save these lads? I highly doubt it; I’d bet my car on it that these lads who were up at midnight seeing if the Corsa can nudge the sound barrier (or 100), that they will still do this same test when the road is dropped to a 50. The death still happens. What – the penalty and fine will be bigger if plod catches you? Yeh, that means a huge amount when the lad or passenger is dead anyway.

 

On a very flimsy side note; I've spoken to a variety of people, some I consider very capable and some I hve zero respect for their driving - but quite believable, yet shame, is many of them say the new 50's make them switch off; its boring and they're less interested in driving the road and paying attention. I know its thier fault, but I can fully understand.

 

There is a small chance it does have a good effect. I’ve noticed on my main run, whereby a 40 is imposed in a previously-60, that when we hit the 30, that people are actually backing off to 35, whereas before they were travelling at 45, and only dropped to 40 once inside the 30. But I take that with a big pinch of salt, as there are still cars tailgating me in the 30, and those same cars are still going to hit 45 in the previously-national ; they still have the same mentality. Before the limit change they drove at 40-45 everywhere and now they can do it a touch closer to the legal limits – ie not be:: failing to make progress.

 

There is no possible way the powers that be are going to intorduce re-testing and loose masses in taxes.

[dukest 0]

Bike Magazine have been running a campaign to get their readers to keep track of which roads are under thread of reductions from the national speed limit and then object to the reductions as and when they are proposed. Its not a straight forward thing that someone can do in 5 minutes though so i imagine its not being pursued to any great degree.

 

It is a nightmare though, people are, as you say, massively lazy and just drive with the minimum of effort, including not changing gear if they can help it, hence driving at constant speed despite the limit.

 

I agree that they wont introduce retesting despite how valuable it would be. So behaviour on the roads comes down to common sense, courtesy and a bit of thought, all of which is largely absent. For example, have you ever seen how close people drive to each other on European motorways in order to make progress? I dont see that they have massively larger accident rates, people just actually concentrate on what they're doing..

[StuartFZR400 0]

Bike Magazine ...

 

It is a nightmare though, people are, as you say, massively lazy and just drive with the minimum of effort, including not changing gear if they can help it, hence driving at constant speed despite the limit.

 

I agree that they wont introduce retesting despite how valuable it would be. So behaviour on the roads comes down to common sense, courtesy and a bit of thought, all of which is largely absent. For example, have you ever seen how close people drive to each other on European motorways in order to make progress? I dont see that they have massively larger accident rates, people just actually concentrate on what they're doing..

 

Thanks for heads up on Mag. I had given up buying the likes of MCN etc for some time now.

 

The lazy not chaing gear, I actually try this. There were morning I had given up on making good progress and thought'd I'd make less speed and see if I could get much better mpg. Rolling along in 5th or so (clear road I'd do well on mpg), but I found my self still catching traffic; this would then result in following thier habbits, ie sling it in to a corner and come out very slowly due to lack of constant-throttle through the corner; the following dab of accelerator results in consumption increasing again. I'd try and drop well off them in anticipation but you find you have to drop to about 30 or less to as to avoid catching them up everytime.

 

You may well be right about the getting close on Euro motorways; but my gripe is that in this country they are not aware, not looking for danger and always reactive to the lights in front. Also driving like this on A roads, means people like me who want to progress, cannot do so without chopping into a small gap - something i refuse to do in the car.

[Jim 2]

I guess it always comes under the 'umbrella' of saving lives but where exactly do you draw the line. I'm sure if they dropped the speed limit from 50MPH down to 15MPH they'd save even MORE lives! Why not drop it to 5MPH - then it's unlikely anyone would ever get hurt.

 

I have to say though, the only time I'm pleased with lower speed limits is when I'm out on my bike (as in bicycle, not motorbike) - I've had motorbikers come out of no-where and blast past me at ridiculous speeds and you're not aware of them until they're alongside you because of wind noise. The sheer shock of something coming along side you at that speed, and the freaking DIN coming from those exhaust pipes has nearly made me veer off the road more than once with the shock. Anything that helps slow them down a bit gets my vote I'm afraid Stuart!

[StuartFZR400 0]

Jim , not sure if you're being emotive of exagerating with words, but you give the impression these bikes were speeding; thus no matter what limit you impose, it wont help they're still going to blast-past. If they're doing the limit, they just need to give good space. How many bikes have clipped you? None for me, whereas I've had a few car mirrors clip. It must be those Leamington Moped-Hells-Rudes, lol. As for the din - hmm, some of those are illegal, but not nearly as bad as say a westfield for legality.

 

I might be all for saving lives, but in a totally different way. As per thread title infers, I dont think Speed is the killer.

[Guest]

this is something ive been thinking about for a while now, roads near us keep gettin dropped in speed, and as i dont wana see people gettin killed the facts that what happened never come to light, they just say they where going to fast! thing is how many crashes happen because of drunk or drugs, or due to a failure in the car or due to people not knowin the roads that there driving on and just putting in a field!

 

im all up for saving lifes but like whats already been said when do you stop putting the speed down because 5mph has gota be safer than 10mph, then 1mph is safer than 5mph so when do you stop, when will they relise, its not realy how fast you drive its how you drive doin 150mph on straight road where you can see and theres no1 around whats the problem? but if you guna drive flat out round corners when you carnt see or your cars not up to it then the bad things are guna happen, no matter how well or what ever the speed is you should never drive faster than you can see infront and stop thats just commen sense

 

i think if you had to do a commen sence test 50% wouldnt pass, its easy to drive but hard to drive well and judge situations well, its like people over takin and thinking there car is fast and in fact it aint and then they relise they havnt got the room to over take but instead of just backing out they for some reason think they have the right to risk hittin on coming traffic and the person there trying to over take because they dont wana look stupid to there friends :cuckoo:

 

it just seem like people are in such a rush now days they dont think there in a 2 ton killing machine if things go wrong

 

bit of topic, but what i think of bikes on the road

ive rode bmx bikes since i was 12 and now im 25 i dont ride to far anymore but before i had my car/van i rode loads on the road and you know what if there isnt a bike lane then the law should let riders on the curb at busy road times or if a road is busy for some reason and as long as there isnt any walkers on the pavement, for a bikers saftey and so cars dont get stuck behind which irates some drives which is far more dangerous, and its not moto bikes that are the problem its buses and lorrys who rule the roads have nearly killed me on more than 1 occasion, i know people are guna say bikes shouldnt be on pavements, but 90% of pavements out of city centres dont have any1 on, and town centres should have bike lanes, and down hills its not even an issue as bikes are more than fast enough to not coarse any problems on the road, but as for up hills where some people feel the need to throw there bike from side to side like a idiot thats safer on the pavement

 

ill stop there as i could be here all night :lol:

[StuartFZR400 0]

Why are they imposing these lower limits?

 

Is it becuase the roads are busier - then in that case surely they should drop the lmits everywhere where its becomes more busy - basically in towns mostly; thus drop 30 to 20, and 40 to 30 etc. Its fair logic.

 

If its because they've re-examined the road risks and think those country roads are more at risk, then that kinda throws the rule book out the window. I'd love to have a lesson on how these Previously-nationals are actually more dangerous today than they were before. And I'd like to see how the advanced testing centres are advising thier candidates about hazard perception - surely now these roads are a 50, then they've a whole load more hazards to spot. Good luck, because that notion falls flat on its face.

[neuon2003 0]

I believe this has little to do with safety, but is more about the Government meeting its CO2 emission reduction obligations. The 'safety' issue is just window-dressing.

[Kevin Bacon 5]

It may well be just Warwickshire that has this issue. I’ve driven about other counties and actually admired the standard of driving, as it feels the Warwickshire crowd are a cut below the rest.

 

You'd be tearing your hair out if you came down to Suffolk & Essex mate.

 

It's the land of the vacant morons. Seriously, people here are genuinely thick. It was proven a few years ago during those "Test the Nation" intelligence tests. East Anglians were almost at the bottom! So, it goes without saying that driving at 20-30mph under the speed limit is a growing habit around these parts.

 

More and more people drive in a fashion that suits them and to hell with everyone else. "It's my road, if I want to drive at 45mph on the dual carriageway, I will". These kind of selfish idiots should have their licenses taken away.

 

To hold a license means you are expected to drive at a certain standard and drive responsibly, safely and with DUE CARE AND ATTENTION. Causing a bottle neck because they just fancy driving at a pace that suits them is not driving with due care and attention. They think they are safe because they are driving slowly, completely oblivious to 50 tonne HGVs swerving out in front of people to get past them.

 

It's quite simple really. Keep up with the flow of traffic or leave the f'ckin keys at home and take a bus.

[Guest]

Why are they imposing these lower limits?

i think its more to do with people dieing on bends than how many are on the roads, people who are from south yorkshire might know the road that goes from chap to hoyland, theres a corner that a few people go of on and theres a tree which they hit, the council could chop the tree down or put up a barrier which would help save lives but instead they drop it to 50, which tbh isnt guna solve jack as the people who are crashing arnt doin the limit anyway, tbh im not sure how you would solve the problem, well i do nanny state with big brother watching you, and if that happened i would deffo leave this country as i dont wana live like that, its not a life, next they would be telling us what time to go to bed and when to get up, what to eat, drink, smoke o wait :help:

 

 

It's quite simple really. Keep up with the flow of traffic or leave the f'ckin keys at home and take a bus

 

haha thats so true, thing is if buses where 50p a journey then i think more people would use the bus and then there would be less people on the road in turn less people to crash, but sayin that maybe it wouldnt do owt as people are to lazy to walk for a bus when they could step out the door into there car