50mph limit on country roads

FSR_XC

There's a lot of talk about this at the moment, but how many actually want it?

I know many cyclists will see the advantage of it (hopefully) slowing people down.

Personally I would rather see the limit stay the same. Probably a little contraversial as all the interviews I have seen look like they are for it.

I would rather see us educate and restrict. The accident figures that have brought this argument forward are predominently involving young drivers.

Why not (similar to the motorcycle test) restrict drivers to a car no more powerful than 60bhp (or possibly 75bhp) for 2 years following their test. To then 'upgrade' their licence, they undertake a road safety test, where an instructor assesses their ability.
Additionally any drivers involved in accidents or 'pulled' for minor issues could be offered education in order to help avoid situations in the future. This education could include looking out for cyclists and motorcyclists.

My other issue is how they are going to choose which roads are classed as 'country roads'. Living in Cornwall, we only have one road that is dual carriageway, so all other roads could be 'country roads'.

The sooner the Government stop telling us that 'Speed kills' and start telling us that 'Inappropriate speed' and 'Lack of hazard awareness' are what really 'Kill' and people start learning awareness and how to 'read' the road, the better.

I guess I'm in the minority here . . . . . .

dylandog

I couldn't agree more.

I ride rural roads daily and have TTed on many an A road.

I'm going to be just as dead at 50 as at 60, if someone hits me.

The issue is about respect and awareness. If someone is aware, gives space and is in control of the vehicle it doesn't really matter to me if they go passed at 80. However, if there are going along at 30-40 gutterhugging and come up behind you and dodge out and back in front without leaving space that is when the accidents happen.

Lets take a leaf out of the French's book. Rural riders get respected, drivers give you space, stay behind if they cannot overtake, don't get impatient and often give a wave as they go passed. They probably don't know I'm British though!

Frank the tank

Speed don't kill people crap drivers do.

(In a Goldie lookin' chain stylie)

teagar

To play devil's advocate...

Going at 50 instead of 60 will allow the driver more time to spot you. I don't think it's an issue about the likelihood of death when involved in an accident.

Frank the tank

Fair point, but it's all about paying attention and being alert. But obviously the greater the speed the sharper your reactions have to be.

Basically though it's about being observant, drive/ride as if everyone else on the road is an idiot.

cougie

I think drivers do need to slow down - but I cant really see this being very effective. You often see cars on straight country roads doing stupid speeds - they wont stop as they know there wont be any speed traps or police down there.

Whilst I was out cycling on Sunday 5 people were killed in a car crash on a road with a 30mph limit - I'd just ridden down there an hour or two before - so all roads can be deadly.

Tom Butcher

I think 50 is plenty of most rural roads - there's still an option of having a higher limit on those roads that merit it so I'm in favour of the change.

pb21

There are a lot of stupid people who think that because the limit is 60 that means they can and should drive at 60, if not faster. I dont drive at a particular speed because of the law I drive at a pace which I think is safe for the conditions, 95% of the time at or below the speed limit, sometimes such as on a straight, clear, dual carriageway faster. Country roads are invariably more narrow, twisty and undulating than the main roads, so obviously you should go slower to maintain the same risk of an accident occurring. Problem is people dont realise this, or think that it doesnt apply to them.

Also I ride quite often on some small narrow lanes and I get cars coming up behind me sticking right on my tail, pass really close accelerating as if they dont get up to 60 in 5 seconds they will be big trouble. Its crazy people need to generally take it easier on the roads and if lowering the speed limit helps then this is a good thing.

nasahapley

I agree with the first post, and the one after that, and the one after that. Since it seems to be generally accepted that many people regard speed limits as optional, I don't really see how knocking the limit down 10mph will make a whole lot of difference. It may be true that by driving slower you have more time to spot a cyclist/pedestrian/horse-rider (assuming you're paying proper attention in the first place), and in a tiny percentage of cases this may mean the difference between an accident occuring or not, but follow that to its logical conclusion and you're back to requiring that a bloke with a flag walks in front of cars at all times. There has to be a trade off somewhere; if there's compelling evidence that a blanket speed limit of 50 on country roads will reduce accidents by a reasonable amount, then I'm all for it. I do think, though, that if it's mostly 17-25 year olds that are the crappy drivers then the OP's idea of a power restriction for those drivers may be more effective.

thiscocks

Frank the tank wrote:

Basically though it's about being observant, drive/ride as if everyone else on the road is an idiot.

-not hard, because it's true!

Red Rock

I'd like to see speed limits lowered. Roads would be a lot safer if there was a 20 mph limit on residential estates, 30 mph on general urban roads and 50 mph national speed limit. Around Wigan a lot of roads have had the limit reduced from 60 to 40 and it's a hell of a lot safer.

Oh, and this is from someone who enjoys driving and riding motorbikes too.

Red Rock

Flambes

General dumbing down of the speed limits is not the answer. A blanket 50mph won't make a difference on a narrow country lane where 20mph is too fast. It's also not appropriate for fast roads, with few turnoffs and good visibility.
Too much of this and people won't believe the limits where they ARE appropriate, i.e the important ones, 30mph in a town, 20 mph next to a school.
Near me, blanket reductions have taken place and I have written to the council asking why, there were no speed related crashes, it was just "policy". In this instance these limits are to be disregarded. IMHO of course.

This from an 80% cyclist, 20% motorist.

teagar

Flambes wrote:

General dumbing down of the speed limits is not the answer..

:roll:

markos1963

A lot of councils are very keen on 50 mph limits and I wondered why, so i asked a mate who works for the highways department and he found out for me. It seems(and this is not official by the way) that by reducing a speed limit of a road the roads maintanance schedule is reduced as well, cutting cost for the council. So far from being concerned about our welfare it seems money is at the heart of the matter.

I think that reducing the rural speed limit is pointless, a car at 50 mph is still going to kill a pedestrian or cyclist just as much as at 60, the only way to cut deaths is to reduce to 20 mph(the threashhold for survivability) but that is clearly unacceptable and unenforcable.

The solution is education/enforcement and training. Until drivers change their mind set and stop looking to Top Gear for their motoring lead we will still be reading threads on here about our friends being mown down.

STEFANOS4784

Alot of the people who would drive down rural lanes at 60mph would not be likely to pay any attention to speed limits anyway, i've got a few mates who seem to think they're invincible. No matter what you say they seem to think it wont happen to them, might sound harsh but i sometimes hope one will get into an accident to teach them before they kill someone because there's no way they can see what's around some of the bends :shock: Quite scary :x

Headhuunter

STEFANOS4784 wrote:

Alot of the people who would drive down rural lanes at 60mph would not be likely to pay any attention to speed limits anyway, i've got a few mates who seem to think they're invincible. No matter what you say they seem to think it wont happen to them, might sound harsh but i sometimes hope one will get into an accident to teach them before they kill someone because there's no way they can see what's around some of the bends :shock: Quite scary :x

Exactly, people would simply ignore the limits anyway. In Lewisham Borough (London) where I live, they have recently deisgnated some residential streets as 20mph speed limited, they have even installed big, bright LED signs saying "SLOW DOWN 20 LIMIT" that light up if drivers go past at over 20mph, however it makes not a jot of difference, barely anyone actually obeys the new limits and the police are too busy to be around to enforce them. It was all justa complete waste of taxpayers money.

galaxyboy

I can't choose either - I blieve in the education/risk awareness but don't think you could prove they were/were not using it if there was a crash. I think all country roads should be 40mph max. They have done this on some roads near to me and it is a lot better, fewer people are now driving straight through the dikes!

Bassjunkieuk

Having been out on a lovely (if rather wet and windy) ride with some friends over the weekend, mostly on country roads I can pretty much say that changing the speed limit probably won't help.
Lowering it by 10mph isn't going to automatically mean all those drivers who will happily drive along at inappropriate speeds will slow down. On the way to the ride I was heading along some country roads that I didn't know, with both mine and my friends bike on a rack on the rear. I wasn't going to gun it for fear of losing the bikes or crashing. Behind me was a van who seemed quite happy to go along at the 40-45mph I was doing. This didn't stop 2 cars overtaking the van and me in the space of about 10 minutes.

Whilst out on our bikes I'd say about 95% of the cars we encountered where fantastic, we had some that hung back behind the group (6 riders in total) whilst we reformed into single file and waited to pass, giving us plenty of space. We did encounter some idiots as well including a Focus driver who practically wheelspun out of the road we where also leaving, having stopped to wait for our last rider and a trio of drivers who only saw fit to leave about 4 inches gap when passing me and another rider on a straight road that didn't have anything coming the other way!

Don't get me wrong I love to have a blast down country lanes, be it in my car or on my bike, but it's all about doing it responsibly and in a safe manor.

beverick

Red Rock wrote:

I'd like to see speed limits lowered. Roads would be a lot safer if there was a 20 mph limit on residential estates, 30 mph on general urban roads and 50 mph national speed limit.

The speed limit does not make roads safer it just reduces the likelihood of road users failing to deal with the hazards presented to them and potentially reduces the level of damage resulting from an impact.

Reducing the speed limit on any given road may reduce the likelihood of a crash but it will not remove the risk.

The only way to make roads safer is to alter specific hazards. ie improving sight lines, renegineering bends and junctions, using tactile surfaces, removing areas of conflict between road users (ie installing pedestrian crossings where people will actually use them) etc.

Bob

Elganesh

Honestly, I don't see that there is going to be much difference. There are roads by me where I am regularly overtaken by speeding drivers and reducing the limit to 50 won't make any difference to the boy racer at 11pm on a back road. These are the guys you need to educate as these are the guys who cause most of the accidents.

I can't see the government installing speed cameras on every road to prevent speeding so I just make sure I'm extremely visible.

Flambes

teagar wrote:

Flambes wrote:

General dumbing down of the speed limits is not the answer..

:roll:

:roll:

FSR_XC

Now this is not in the news anymore, I wonder if we'll now just suddenly see speed limits change overnight?

BTW, I must say that I am pleasantly surprised at the results. I just wonder if the Governement actually listen to what people want?

Beeblebrox

If we're talking about the narrow, hedge row country lanes, 50mph is still double what is required.

For that reason, I don't think this would help at all.

grayo59

I would say that the black diagonal stripe should now be a 50mph national speed limit - but some of the wide well maintained trunk roads should still be 60mph in places where conditions allow even tho' they are single carriageway.

Dual carriage-ways should be 60mph as standard but be upgraded to 70 (as at present) where well constructed to modern standards. Urban ones - variable limits.

I would also have condition-variable electronic signed speed limits on motorways up to 80mph on 3-laners in light traffic conditions.

chuckcork

I can't personally see that education would make any difference.

After all, in the process of getting, lets face it, maintaining a licence you are supposed to be aware that you should drive for the conditions, know what speed limits are, how roundabouts work, how priority at junctions works, not to drink drive, not to drive using a mobile....there are a whole range of traffic laws that are completely ignored by a significant percentage of the motoring public for whom any form of education will just be dismissed as nanny stateism and ignored because it doesn't suit them to comply wit it.

After all, they would know best....until the worst happens and they have an accident, which will be entirely not THEIR fault of course.

nwallace

The change to a 50mph National Speed limit will do nothing for safety.

For a start on country roads there are 4 classes of drivers:

1) Crawl along at the speed they have determined to get them round all corners without touching the brakes, usually 40mph (See also 40mph brigade)

This group pisses everyone off, especially when you are on a wide Single carriageway, with excellent sweeping corners set up with the 60mph limit in mind, (See A9)


2) Hammer and tongs along the straights ignoring the 60mph limit, braking heavily for corners.

Usually fine until they get a corner wrong or misread something, there is a point at which the mind can't take in enough information to maintain control at the speed, on the railways this is around 140mph, above that signalling must be in cab. Due to the nature of roads it will be a bit lower than that.

3) The limit is 60 so I can do 60 everywhere brigade

Should find a hedge soon enough but never seem to, 50 won't make much of a difference to them. They will do 50 everywhere.

4) Driving within the limits of person, road conditions and car.

Do they actually exist?

---

Proper training will help, and repetitive training even more so. Rural roads are the worst for accidents not because people are doing 60 into corners, but because arseholes are doing 70, 80, 90, 100 or more into corers because they know they are not being watched, they know they can get away with unleashing, they believe they can judge a corner, and 99 times out of 100 when you know a road you can get round a corner at a certain speed that is beyond your visibility and braking distance you can, it's the time you hit that little bit of mud or oil or come across the tree in the road, or a car coming the other way or whatever and it goes wrong that cocks it up, and a 50mph speed limit will make no difference to that.

The "speed kills" lobby would have us crawling around at 10mph with a man in front carrying a red flag if they could, and guess what, even then there woudl be road fatalities.
Poor driving, poor judgement, poor decisions, and sometimes just plain lack of ability.
They all kill, the speed is just one factor of them.

chuckcork

nwallace wrote:

4) Driving within the limits of person, road conditions and car.

Do they actually exist?

---

Yup!

Ruari

This is an interesting topic

Ruari

This is an interesting topic

Ruari

This is an interesting topic, and there are several views which I'd like to add to.

I've recently completed my Cat C and C+E driving licenses, and I do believe that it is awareness that is the main player in this debate.
Driving in a 20 tonne truck, you suddenly realise that you have to be far more aware of what is going on around you, and that you have to plan ahead for any eventuality.
Awareness of what is going on on the road around you is the biggest factor in making a decision on the road.
That road bend a little tight? Slow down. That cyclist ahead? Slow down, observe, react.

One also becomes aware of how little attention other drivers pay to their surroundings. Many just 'drive'. Especially on country lanes - where, yes, the limit may be 50mph, but is it actually safe to do 50? Most of the time no, because if a car does suddenly appear from the other direction and you're half way across the road in your vehicle to 'smooth' the bends out...Where are you going to go?
I do think that a 40mph limit on country roads should be put in place, slower speeds will give drivers more time to react and more time to 'see' other road users, be they cyclists, motorbikes or other cars/trucks.
Yes, there'll always be the idiot who goes flying around the lanes at 70mph+, but then isn't there always one?

I firmly believe that all motorists should be required to spend at least 2 hours (over a week or a few days, not in a one go!) on a bicycle, and 2 hours in a truck cab as part of their driving training.
This will give motorists a far, far better understanding of what else is on the roads and how much space they need, why cyclists get teed off with drivers, and why trucks 'go so slow and take up all the road'.

nwallace

3 posts and you got the NSL for a Single Carriageway road wrong in them all!