Since 2006 there has been a very costly and totally unscientific speed limit review set up by the last government and is still ongoing until 2011?
I have been surveying these and they are not based on any rationale or accident history at all. For example: 50 limits on dual carriageways, will inevitably mean that overtaking where it would be safe becomes illegal so crashes will inevitably be created by this policy on two way roads and single carriageways with opposing traffic.
Most of the unscientific limits of this review has cost the country billions to install and in the unnecessary slowing and criminalisation of a major infrastructure, about £3 billion per annum for every 1 MPH reduction.
Has this nonsensical speed limit review been considered for immediate abandonment within the financial cuts not withstanding the highly dangerous elements as outlined?
50 limits of dual carriageways will be reviewed with the rest of the speed limits. If those limits are seen to be too low they may well be increased where that is deemed to be the most suitable option.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be saying that it is inevitable that 50 limits on dual carriageways (your example) will either stay the same or be adjusted downwards. A speed limit review is being done to assess the most suitable option for the speed limit NOT the lowest option where it can be got away with.
Now let's see; why would you take that stance?
What would be the justification for that stance?
Could it be that you are of the opinion that the government are looking to minimise the speed limit where they can so the maximum gain can be made from speed enforcement activity? That's it, yes. It's all a plot to persecute the motorist.
These conspiracy theories only work in the USA where the mass intellect appears to be more responsive to that sort of thing. Even repetitive use of the idea over here by those not accepting of speed limits and enforcement of them are ridiculed by safety organisations.
Looks like you need a rethink on this one Keith.
Regards
Bobby.
There is no 'conspiracy theory' Bob and I have never suggested there is. What there is is a combination of a non philanthropic multi billion pound industry actually killing people from the false economics and as in this example, by the tunnel vision local focussing of policy and dangerously creating accidents elsewhere. It's not rocket science Bob. If you cannot legally pass an HGV on a dual then the attempts must be made on single carriageways with opposing traffic instead. Why create that scenario whilst selling speed cameras and prosecuting on the duals? Oh dear Bob you really must think things through more. ;-)
ReplyDelete"If you cannot legally pass an HGV on a dual then the attempts must be made on single carriageways with opposing traffic instead."
ReplyDeleteMUST they?
If you can' pass then don't; there is no MUST.
Yes wrong choice of words FRC. Perhaps 'will be' would be more what I mean. However you must realise that it is absolutely criminal for planners to set scenarios that are crazy and to invite or create these likely-hoods. I am not excusing bad overtakes but the simple statement, 'reduce the need to overtake, reduces the attempts and thus reduces the overtake crashes' I take it you understand that simple fact?
ReplyDelete