Speed Limits

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:06:53 +0100, Jim Price <[email protected]> wrote:

> He must be thinking of tunnels. I can't think of any other public A
> roads where there isn't pedestrian or cycle access.

Dartford Bridge?

There are a few A-roads that ban bicycles (Twyford Down?), but I don't
know of any that ban bikes and are 40mph limit other than things like
tunnels.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Alan J. Wylie wrote:
> In this article on the review of speed limits
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5254926.stm> there is a quote from
> Edmund King, of the RAC Foundation
>
> | who said consistency was needed: "We do have some limits on A-roads,
> | where there isn't pedestrian or cycle access, where the limit is
> | 40mph, whereas in other cases they would be 60mph."
>
> Does anybody have any idea whether he is making a valid point, or is
> he just another member of the Mr. Toad lobby who believe that cyclists
> are second class road users who have no right to share the tarmac with
> motorists.
>
He must be thinking of tunnels. I can't think of any other public A
roads where there isn't pedestrian or cycle access.

--

JimP

Knee dye same ore.

On 08/08/2006 19:08, Alan J. Wylie said,

> Does anybody have any idea whether he is making a valid point,

Not sure, but there is a wide, open dual carriageway near me that has a
50mph limit on it (not 40mph) with no footpaths. Turn left at the next
roundabout onto a single carriageway B-road, with mini-roundabouts, ped
crossings, junctions, works exits etc, and you can legally go up to
60mph. Now that doesn't make sense - both roads obviously have cycle
access (because they're roads!)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

"Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:06:53 +0100, Jim Price <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> He must be thinking of tunnels. I can't think of any other public A
>> roads where there isn't pedestrian or cycle access.
>
> Dartford Bridge?
>
> There are a few A-roads that ban bicycles (Twyford Down?), but I don't
> know of any that ban bikes and are 40mph limit other than things like
> tunnels.

According to multimap, twyford down is an "M" road.

Alan J. Wylie wrote:
> In this article on the review of speed limits
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5254926.stm> there is a quote from
> Edmund King, of the RAC Foundation
> | who said consistency was needed: "We do have some limits on A-roads,
> | where there isn't pedestrian or cycle access, where the limit is
> | 40mph, whereas in other cases they would be 60mph."
>
> Does anybody have any idea whether he is making a valid point, or is
> he just another member of the Mr. Toad lobby who believe that cyclists
> are second class road users who have no right to share the tarmac with
> motorists.

I think he probably meant no footpath or cyclepath. I too was
unimpressed with the phrasing, but what I think he meant is on the
right lines.

He should have said something like "The limit should be low enough so
that drivers can stop before they reach any pedestrian or cyclist they
encounter, on roads where it is not possible to pass without crossing
the centre-line."

On a straight, flat road, this could still be 60. With corners, brows
or dips, 40 or 30 would be needed. Too many drivers go round corners
at a speed that relies on them being able to pass anything they
discover on the other side.

The suggestion of a blanket, easy to remember rule was made. Here's
one: if there is no marked centre line, the default speed limit is 30.

This could allow authorities to set 30 limits simply by scrubbing out
the centreline.

Colin McKenzie

--
On average in Britain, you're more likely to get a head injury walking
a mile than cycling it.
So why aren't we all exhorted to wear walking helmets?

They exist in Scotland : A90 which has no alternative route other
than a very narrow pavement.
A720 Edinburgh Bypass, A1 which is Motorway Lite - almost but not
quite

Also the A5 bridges in Wales near Chirk.

Richard Webb

Alan J. Wylie wrote:
> In this article on the review of speed limits
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5254926.stm> there is a quote from
> Edmund King, of the RAC Foundation
>
> | who said consistency was needed: "We do have some limits on A-roads,
> | where there isn't pedestrian or cycle access, where the limit is
> | 40mph, whereas in other cases they would be 60mph."
>
> Does anybody have any idea whether he is making a valid point, or is
> he just another member of the Mr. Toad lobby who believe that cyclists
> are second class road users who have no right to share the tarmac with
> motorists.

Quotes like that need context: it could just be a reasonable but
badly-worded pronouncement. There is a valid case that 60mph traffic
poses a neglible threat to cyclists on many (sufficiently wide) roads.

--
not me guv

Jim Price wrote:

> He must be thinking of tunnels. I can't think of any other public A
> roads where there isn't pedestrian or cycle access.

I assume that what he means is that, along the stretch of road, there
are no access points for peds and cyclists to join the road - as that
is where they are at most danger. In other words, there are no
properties fronting onto the road; no footpaths, bridleways or cycle
tracks that meet the road.

In some counties, I regard speed limits in utter amazement that any
sane person could think they are realistic.

In the majority of cases, it is because they are set far too low.
Drivers expect to slow down for bends, junctions and other hazards, so
setting the speed limit to match the slowest point on an otherwise
much faster road is totally counterproductive.

With my cyclist's hat on, I would much rather that drivers were
educated about leaving a safe gap when overtaking, and not squeezing
past at pinch-points (which, IMX, most of them are pretty good at, but
that may be helped by the way I ride), rather than being conned into
thinking that 40mph is a magic "safe speed" and not giving cyclists
due regard.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

Colin McKenzie wrote:

>
> The suggestion of a blanket, easy to remember rule was made. Here's one:
> if there is no marked centre line, the default speed limit is 30.
>
> This could allow authorities to set 30 limits simply by scrubbing out
> the centreline.
>

Here's another: a speed limit is a limit not a target.

Colin McKenzie wrote:

> On a straight, flat road, this could still be 60. With corners, brows
> or dips, 40 or 30 would be needed.

But only at the corners or dips - where any half-way competent driver
will slow down regardless of whether there is a speed limit sign
telling him to.

> The suggestion of a blanket, easy to remember rule was made. Here's
> one: if there is no marked centre line, the default speed limit is 30.

Totally inappropriate.

Any blanket rule made like that will have as many instances where it
is farcically wrong as where it is close to being plausible.

I can think of lots of lanes that have centre line markings that are
not safe at more than 30-40mph along much of their length - likewise,
I can think of quite a few that don't have centre line markings but
are perfectly fine in places to drive at 50-60mph.

What we have to get beyond is the notion that the speed limit gives
any more than the vaguest of passing hints as to what speed may be
safe on that road, at that time, in those conditions. This could
easily vary by a factor of 2 - or more, in severe adverse weather.

Drivers need to be taught to drive responsibly, and with due regard
for the situation around them. This will include the presence of any
non-motorised road users. Blind obedience to a number stuck on top of
a pole just doesn't feature in this.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

"Jim Price" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Alan J. Wylie wrote:
>> In this article on the review of speed limits
>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5254926.stm> there is a quote from
>> Edmund King, of the RAC Foundation
>>
>> | who said consistency was needed: "We do have some limits on A-roads,
>> | where there isn't pedestrian or cycle access, where the limit is
>> | 40mph, whereas in other cases they would be 60mph."
>>
>> Does anybody have any idea whether he is making a valid point, or is
>> he just another member of the Mr. Toad lobby who believe that cyclists
>> are second class road users who have no right to share the tarmac with
>> motorists.
>>
> He must be thinking of tunnels. I can't think of any other public A roads
> where there isn't pedestrian or cycle access.
>
> JimP

Lodge Avenue Flyover on the A13. GR 546387,183669.

Paul.

In article <[email protected]>, Stevie D wrote:
>Colin McKenzie wrote:
>
>> On a straight, flat road, this could still be 60. With corners, brows
>> or dips, 40 or 30 would be needed.
>
>But only at the corners or dips - where any half-way competent driver
>will slow down regardless of whether there is a speed limit sign
>telling him to.

If enough drivers were half-way competent we would never have introduced
speed limits in the first place.

Alan Braggins wrote:

> If enough drivers were half-way competent we would never have introduced
> speed limits in the first place.

You obviously don't remember when or why speed limits were introduced.

--
Eiron

No good deed ever goes unpunished.

Ian Smith wrote:

> There are a few A-roads that ban bicycles (Twyford Down?), but I don't
> know of any that ban bikes and are 40mph limit other than things like
> tunnels.

The North Wales Expressway bans bikes in part, though none of the bits
outside the tunnels have a limit other than 70.

Notably, the 70 limits are, or certainly were, shown as 70 in a red
circle rather than national speed limit. I don't know the significance
of this - does it perhaps bring in the higher motorway limits for
certain classes of vehicle?

Neil

Ian Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:06:53 +0100, Jim Price <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> He must be thinking of tunnels. I can't think of any other public A
>> roads where there isn't pedestrian or cycle access.
>
> Dartford Bridge?

Just had a reply from the Highways agency who say it's 50mph. The reply
must have been from the night shift - timed at 04:15am.

> There are a few A-roads that ban bicycles (Twyford Down?), but I don't
> know of any that ban bikes and are 40mph limit other than things like
> tunnels.

I think the poor chap was having a bad on-air day when he said that. It
would help if there was a bit more correspondence between what he meant
and what he said.

--

JimP

" " - John Cage

Neil Williams wrote:

>Ian Smith wrote:
>
>> There are a few A-roads that ban bicycles (Twyford Down?), but I don't
>> know of any that ban bikes and are 40mph limit other than things like
>> tunnels.
>
>The North Wales Expressway bans bikes in part, though none of the bits
>outside the tunnels have a limit other than 70.

I don't think that is correct. There are sections of dual carriageway
A55 that have a lower limit. IIRC the section through Colwyn Bay has a
50 limit.

The sections that ban cycles also ban horsedrawn vehicles and again
IIRC those are the tunnel sections

>Notably, the 70 limits are, or certainly were, shown as 70 in a red
>circle rather than national speed limit. I don't know the significance
>of this - does it perhaps bring in the higher motorway limits for
>certain classes of vehicle?

I have noticed the 70 limit on motorways expressed like that in
Scotland, I thought it was peculiar to there.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

Alan J. Wylie wrote:
> Does anybody have any idea whether he is making a valid point

Valid point? No cycle access? I can only assume he is thinking of
A-roads that connect two stretches of Motorway and have no other point
of entry or exit. Do you know of any such roads? I don't.

d.

Ian Smith wrote:
> Dartford Bridge?

50mph limit, and it has non-Motorway access - no cycling on the bridge
itself, but you can ride to and from the bridge. Not sure about
pedestrian access.

d.

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006, Jim Price <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > On Tue, 08 Aug 2006, Jim Price <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> He must be thinking of tunnels. I can't think of any other public A
> >> roads where there isn't pedestrian or cycle access.
> >
> > Dartford Bridge?
>
> Just had a reply from the Highways agency who say it's 50mph. The reply
> must have been from the night shift - timed at 04:15am.

I know. I was citing it as an example of a public A road that isn't
in a tunnel and doesn't have pedestrian or cycle access. Though
actually, I'm not certain it's entirely public - I'm not sure how the
act granting the right to charge tolls affects the classification as a
right-of-way.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|