Sense at last!
Comments
-
What you're claiming is that our roads can't be used at 80, because there are slipways that are not deemed safe at that speed. Then you go on to explain how there are sliproads that aren't deemed safe even with a 70 limit. But we are fine with that. Apparently.
Do you really not see the contradiction there?0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:What you're claiming is that our roads can't be used at 80, because there are slipways that are not deemed safe at that speed. Then you go on to explain how there are sliproads that aren't deemed safe even with a 70 limit. But we are fine with that. Apparently.
Do you really not see the contradiction there?
like i said im not very good at explaining it
70mph road with some 40mph slips
each slip that doesnt meet standards has to be accompanied by a formal Road Safety Audit, RSA
the RSA will say 40mph does not meet standards and make reccomendations to solve problem, whether its physically possible or not
if the problem can be overcome a designers response to the RSA is produced
if the problem cant be overcome an exception report by the Chief Engineer or responsible officer ie Network Manager is submitted as a response to the RSA. The exception report details the problem, the mitigation supplied to minimise the risk and demonstrates that the risk was investigated and the responsible officer has taken an informed decision even if it is based on their own opinion.
Changing the upper speed limit would require all of these RSA's to be updated as an RSA would need to be carried out for each route.
From my office window i can see two junctions which would require exception reports, if i got to the other end of the office i can just about see a third. There are just under 10,000 miles of trunk road and motorway and approximately 2-3000 miles of primary route in local authority hands. The scale of the study required is vast.
The principle of the 80mph may well be sound in a lot of cases, same principle as allowing 70mph when the slip cant meet standards. However, its the background work that makes it impossible. the subject is raised every few years as it gets lots of cheap headlines, cheif exec of Highways Agency will quote a cost to hammond, then he will hush up, cycle will continue with a change of government or a new secretry of state.
I cant see any contradiction0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:
(sigh) I give up. You're still nto making sense.mak3m wrote:I cant see any contradiction
i did say earlier we would have to agree to disagree
in retrospect i should have said in my first post
WOO WOO go hammond, great original idea0 -
Can you explain why a road isn't designed to be 70mph? Are you talking the quality of the tarmac? And why slip roads are designed to be 40mph?mak3m wrote:like i said im not very good at explaining it
70mph road with some 40mph slips
The only design I know in slip roads, is that entrances to motorways go short and steep downhill, and off ramps are long and not so steep uphills. Now this doesn't apply to all sliproads, but it's slowly being changed and is the reason Britain won't turn driving onto the wrong side of the road.It takes as much courage to have tried and failed as it does to have tried and succeeded.
Join us on UK-MTB we won't bite, but bring cake!
Blender Cube AMS Pro0 -
multitude of reasons for it happening, landownership, cost, topography etc etc not all slip roads are designed for 40mph just some, in an ideal world where land and money wasnt an option all roads would be designed to a high standard
in the example im using its forward visibility, the main carriageway is designed for 70mph forward vis, ie 295m and due to the nature of the road the forward vis from the inside lane to the slip is limited to about 140m which is somewhere between 40 and 50mph design speed.
this is acceptable as mentioned above because of a safety audit, mitigation and common sense etc etc
change the speed limit and the whole process has to start again
Its the process of auditing all the slips etc that would kill off the process of introducing an 80mph limit
im just repeating myself now
with regards to driving on the left we do it because in feudal times knights soldiers etc would always move to the left so the predominantly right handed swordsman could whip out the old sword should a stranger cause trouble, this slowly overtime evolved into driving on the left. Al lot of former british colonies still drive on the left. The americans wanted to disassociate themselves from everything british so decided to drive on the right, strong american car industry of right hand drive cars most of the world followed suit. the british being british said bollocks we are sticking to our system.
it would cost hundreds of billions to switch to the right, the list of things needing to be changed is also immense0 -
For a civil engineer working on highways, you seem really bad at explaining the parts related to your job.
Seems like someone else would be suited in your position, especially with the contradictions you keep making.0 -
MountainMonster wrote:For a civil engineer working on highways, you seem really bad at explaining the parts related to your job.
Seems like someone else would be suited in your position, especially with the contradictions you keep making.
show me the contradiction0 -
EEC legislation introduced in the 80s specifies the standards that roads have to meet in order for them to have a specific speed limit. Surface, visibility, junctions, everything.
Making a road meet the requirements involves throwing money at it, which simply isn't going to happen so the only option is to lower the speed limit.
Nothing to do with saving lives or saving the planet or any of that crap, it's all about saving money and public liability.0 -
Ok, one last time.mak3m wrote:show me the contradiction
YOU say that the current state of our roads means that a lot of sliproads are not suitable for 70MPH limits, even though we already have 70MPH limits.
YOU then go on to say that we cannot ever have 80MPH limits, because our sliproads are not suitable for 80MPH.
If they're ALREADY not suitable, but we get along fine, then where's the problem.
THAT is the contradiction, that you say they're not suitable for 80, but they're already not suitable for 70.0 -
The problem is that euro legislation says they're not suitable. You and I and millions of other people get along just fine on roads that were built before WWII but the government cannot ignore legislation that says otherwise.yeehaamcgee wrote:If they're ALREADY not suitable, but we get along fine, then where's the problem.0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:
Ok, one last time.mak3m wrote:show me the contradiction
YOU say that the current state of our roads means that a lot of sliproads are not suitable for 70MPH limits, even though we already have 70MPH limits.
YOU then go on to say that we cannot ever have 80MPH limits, because our sliproads are not suitable for 80MPH.
If they're ALREADY not suitable, but we get along fine, then where's the problem.
THAT is the contradiction, that you say they're not suitable for 80, but they're already not suitable for 70.
seriously one last time
I actually say is a lot of roads DONT MEET STANDARDS, and are covered by SAFETY AUDITS and EXCEPTION REPORTS, which makes them acceptable via certain minor mitigation works.
Introducing a new higher speed limit would REQUIRE THESE AUDITS TO BE CARRIED OUT AGAIN, this is a huge taks and would take a number of years and millions of pounds AND THE PUBLIC SECTOR CANNOT AFFORD TO CARRYOUT THE PROCEDURE TO INTRODUCE AN 80MPH SPEED LIMIT, even before the current climate of cutbacks.
please dont misquote me or take me out of context THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION
i could draw pictures if it would help0 -
Bollocks. You're contradicting yourself. I give up on you, I really do.
Can you not get a PR from your firm to explain it or something, because you sure as hell aren't doing anywhere near a decent job of it.0 -
Makes perfect sense to me? I assume you're a bit slow in the head or attempting trolling?0
-
The only thing I read there is that work would have to be carried out which is already carried out. Furthermore, most of the work that even needs to be carried out SHOULD have already been done.
And besides, the work achieves NOTHING. a review that it is unsafe means.... what? that it's still ok for a 70MPH limit? It's just bullshite red tape job creation.0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:
No, being red tape doesn't make it contradictory, it being contradictory makes it contradictory.mak3m wrote:i have never endorsed the bullshit just reported it, because its red tape bullshit doesnt make my statements a contradiction???
let it go agree to disagree
there is no contradiction there, when you tried to show it too me you misquoted me
i did a reality check with my 10 year old daughter and she understood the principle go figure0 -
Christ, if I was your child I'm pretty sure I'd just agree with you as well, saves the hassle.0
-
yeehaamcgee wrote:Christ, if I was your child I'm pretty sure I'd just agree with you as well, saves the hassle.
+
Formally known as Coatbridgeguy0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:Christ, if I was your child I'm pretty sure I'd just agree with you as well, saves the hassle.
lol i thought i was easy going
i live with two strongwilled wimmin who rule my life :roll: mayby im overcompensating in cyberspace0 -
mak3m wrote:yeehaamcgee wrote:Christ, if I was your child I'm pretty sure I'd just agree with you as well, saves the hassle.
lol i thought i was easy going
i live with two strongwilled wimmin who rule my life :roll: mayby im overcompensating in cyberspace
I understand it...don't worry
Formally known as Coatbridgeguy0 -
I'll admit I tend to hover around 80 in the car but nearer 90 when on the bike - traffic permitting of course.
Now lots of people regard 80 as the defacto speed limit anyway so it will be interesting to see if 80 remains so, or if we get creep upwards towards 90.You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.0
