Evidence based ?
The DoT and local authorities are working from volumes of evidence that reducing speed limits leads to a reduction in the number and severity of RTAs. People need to take it up with them, if they feel aggrieved.
(Personally I agree with the reductions. But I have a low moron threshold).
Maybe just a drafting error in the traffic order(s)? I would assume the streets would include the roundabout but I would add something like 'and all junctions and connections thereto'.
No.
I could understand if the "30" sign was a hangover from before the 20mph roads were changed. But previously it had *no* speed limit sign (nor needed one, as being in a built up area ....)
These signs are *new*.
I guess I could ask the council. But Birmingham City Council are currently on form to win the "most fuckwitted council in the world*" awards for the 18th year running. So I doubt they're going to let anything useful for a council taxpayer spoil that party.
There was a case (apparently true) in Scotland where a driver was charged with careless driving 'in that you did fall asleep and cause said vehicle to collide with and damage a sign bearing the words 'Tiredness kills, take a break'.
Find yourself a nice roadside cafe etc on a reasonably busy road and observe the percentage of drivers who really do react to circumstances by setting their speed accordingly.
For a start, you can rule out the majority of two wheeled vehicles - be they pedalled or powered. Then many delivery vehicles paid by each delivery. Taxis with a fare on board.
The recommendation is that 20mph limits without traffic calming should only be used where the free traffic speed is already 24mph or less. The DfT knows that they don't work otherwise, but they don't set local limits.
Far more likely to happen in a 20mph limit than in a 30mph limit. According to government figures, in a 30mph limit, 53% of cars exceed the limit and 19% exceed it by more than 5mph, while in a 20mph limit,
81% exceed the limit and 44% by 5mph or more.
Possible I guess. Coupled with a complete common-sense failure that required a metal sign (full size) to be fitted.
AFAIK these are local roads (residential) and have been set by BCC. There's quite a few - possibly hundreds - being introduced over the next few months.
Well, as long as they are happy to pay the fine(s) and then lose their licenses ...
Do you know if TS takes the same view?
I have recently noticed - by comparing the satnav speed with the speedometer - that the speedometer over-reads by about 10%. I believe this is common practice. Can one conclude that more than 19%
*intend* to exceed the 30 mph limit by more than 5 mph?
There are no rules for Taxi drivers! A common practice around my way is for a taxi driver to block a narrow busy road waiting for their fare to get finished dressing in order to go out.
Which only works with good drivers and all drivers are stupid. Some are stupid occasionally some are always stupid. No driver is never stupid.
So put in better speed traps and get them off the road, it will make it much better for the ones still driving.
Who?
Exceeding the speed limit is less of a problem than driving too fast for the conditions. The former is a factor in 5% of RTCs, while the second is a factor in 9%. OTOH, driving failing to look properly is a factor in
44% of RTCs. Aside from the fact that 34mph in a 30mph is within the ACPO guidelines and thus very unlikely to result in any action, speed is much less of a problem than bad driving. We need bad driver traps, not speed traps.
Transport Scotland.
Who/what is DfT anyway :-)
Am I correct in understanding vehicle defects feature pretty low?
The road department of the council have a budget, and if they don't spent it by the end of the year it will be reduced next year?
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required