Dozy motorists ignorant of speed limit laws.

[Simon Mason]

From the front page of our local newspaper, comes this story
of how dozens of car drivers have been cruelly "tricked" by
driving down a road with no speed limit signs. When was the
last time they read the HC?

Rule 103 - You MUST NOT exceed the maximum speed limits for
the road and for your vehicle (see the table below). Street
lights usually mean that there is a 30 mph speed limit
unless there are signs showing another limit.

What's staggering is that the woman challenging her ticket
was an ex special trained in traffic duties!

http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zspeed.htm

--
Simon Mason Anlaby East Yorkshire. 53°44'N 0°26'W
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net

 

[Howard]

Hi Simon,

You haven't mentioned the best bit. The editorial comment
contains the most stupid bit of 'road safety' thinking I
have ever heard this side of the dribblings of PS/the ABD.
It says a sign is needed as the police will 'alienate'
drivers if they expect them to know the content of the
'Highway Code'!

 

[Simon Mason]

"Howard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hi Simon,
>
> You haven't mentioned the best bit. The editorial comment
> contains the most stupid bit of 'road safety' thinking I
> have ever heard this side of the dribblings of PS/the ABD.
> It says a sign is needed as the police will 'alienate'
> drivers if they expect them to know the content of the
> 'Highway Code'!

Hello Howard, I remembered that during last night's ride out
to Walkington; here it is ->
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zspeed1.htm

Still, what do you expect from an editor who thinks "not one
of the players were injured is correct grammar" ;-) I might
get a letter in the paper about that bloke moaning that he
got a parking ticket outside a church on a Sunday, as if the
law only operates 6 days a week.

Simon M.

 

[Peter Connolly]

Simon Mason wrote:
> I might get a letter in the paper about that bloke moaning
> that he got a parking ticket outside a church on a Sunday,
> as if the law only operates 6 days a week.

In his defence, of course..... Most Traffic Wardens think
that they are God, and even God only worked a six day week!

Regards,

Pete.

 

[Richard Bates]

On 23 Mar 2004 16:51:34 -0800, in
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Howard) wrote:

>Hi Simon,
>
>You haven't mentioned the best bit. The editorial comment
>contains the most stupid bit of 'road safety' thinking I
>have ever heard this side of the dribblings of PS/the ABD.
>It says a sign is needed as the police will 'alienate'
>drivers if they expect them to know the content of the
>'Highway Code'!

FFS, that's pathetic! Ignorance of the law is not an excuse:
even if one is ignorant of the law that states ignorance of
the law is not an excuse!

How long before I need a sign on my front door saying "do
not steal my property", or need to wear a sign around my
neck saying "do not punch me in the face"?

--
DISCLAIMER: My email box is private property.Email which
appears in my inbox is mine to do what I like with. Anything
which is sent to me (whether intended or not) may, if I so
desire, form a legal and binding contract.

 

[Ian G Batten]

In article <[email protected]>,
Simon Mason <[email protected]> wrote:
> From the front page of our local newspaper, comes this
> story of how dozens of car drivers have been cruelly
> "tricked" by driving down a road with no speed limit
> signs. When was the last time they read the HC?
>
> Rule 103 - You MUST NOT exceed the maximum speed limits
> for the road and for your vehicle (see the table below).
> Street lights usually mean that there is a 30 mph speed
> limit unless there are signs showing another limit.

Although there's a bizarre article in the Times this
morning, claiming that it's ``illegal'' to have 30 repeater
signs mounted on streetlamps where the poles are less than
185 feet apart. It's one thing to say that in that scenario
the limit is 30 even in the absence of signs, and like you I
would have no sympathy with someone claiming not to realise
that. But it's much stronger to claim that because that is
the law, it's illegal to post a reminder.

The whole ``streetlamps == 30'' thing has been diluted by
the widespread illumination of dual carriageways and even
motorways. Mounting reminders of the limit is reinforcement,
and if the objective is to reduce speed and reduce
casualties, rather than score points, I don't see how anyone
could object to them.

ian

 

[Dave Larrington]

Ian G Batten wrote:

> The whole ``streetlamps == 30'' thing has been diluted by
> the widespread illumination of dual carriageways and even
> motorways. Mounting reminders of the limit is
> reinforcement, and if the objective is to reduce speed and
> reduce casualties, rather than score points, I don't see
> how anyone could object to them.

I /think/ it's because having signs up will distract drivers
who would otherwise be looking out for Dangerous Things,
like those pesky cameras. We all know how difficult it is
to remain below the speed limit if one constantly being
startled by things one was startled by the previous day.

Or something.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================

 

[Dave Larrington]

Peter Connolly wrote:

> In his defence, of course..... Most Traffic Wardens
> think that they are God, and even God only worked a six
> day week!

The traffic wardens round our way don't, though. I've seen
one nicking a van for parking with a wheel on the pavement
on a Sunday...

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================

 

[Md]

Simon Mason wrote:
> From the front page of our local newspaper, comes this
> story of how dozens of car drivers have been cruelly
> "tricked" by driving down a road with no speed limit
> signs. When was the last time they read the HC?

First sentence says "....a dual carriageway targeted
by police."

I am unfamiliar with the area, but section 103 of the HC
also mentions that the speed limit on a dual carriageway for
a car is 70mph. As the OP states, it also states that the
default limit is 30mph for all roads if there are street
lights (so what is the limit on lit sections of M-way?). Is
this a dual carriageway or simply a road with two lanes in
each direction?

How many people know that a road with street lights and no
signage is a 30mph limit? None of my three cow-orkers knew
the answer. I wouldn't regard any of them as being
especially stupid; they're just regular motorists. Their
confusion lay with not knowing what overides what - is it a
dual carriageway or an urban road foremost?

It is a fact of life that most people are unfamiliar with
the fine details of the semantics of the HC. Although it's a
requirement of having a driving license that one re-
familiarises oneself with the HC regularly, only a total
nerd does so. I think it _is_ unfair to create a dual
carriageway, that most people will then believe has a 70mph
limit, not sign it as having a lower limit, and rely on an
italicised footnote in the HC to denote the limit. Is Hull
CC so short of cash that they can't afford a few roadsigns.
I bet they can afford traffic calming measures and "Hull is
a Nuclear Free City" signs.

If the authorities were interested in compliance, they would
first emphasise what is to be complied with, and then
commence rigorous enforcement.

--

Regards,

Mark Davies

 

[Colin Blackburn]

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:30:39 -0000, MD <[email protected]> wrote:

> Simon Mason wrote:
>> From the front page of our local newspaper, comes this
>> story of how dozens of car drivers have been cruelly
>> "tricked" by driving down a road with no speed limit
>> signs. When was the last time they read the HC?
>
> First sentence says "....a dual carriageway targeted by
> police."
>
> I am unfamiliar with the area, but section 103 of the HC
> also mentions that the speed limit on a dual carriageway
> for a car is 70mph.

No it isn't. That's the national speed limit (NSL) for a car
on a dual carriageway where the NSL applies. I know of very
few urban dual carriageways where the NSL applies. I have
seen plenty of explicit 40mph and 50mph on urban and
suburban dual carriageways.

Colin
--

 

[Pk]

"Colin Blackburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:30:39 -0000, MD
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Simon Mason wrote:
> >> From the front page of our local newspaper, comes this
> >> story of how dozens of car drivers have been cruelly
> >> "tricked" by driving down a road with no speed limit
> >> signs. When was the last time they read the HC?
> >
> > First sentence says "....a dual carriageway targeted by
> > police."
> >
> > I am unfamiliar with the area, but section 103 of the HC
> > also mentions that the speed limit on a dual carriageway
> > for a car is 70mph.
>
> No it isn't. That's the national speed limit (NSL) for a
> car on a dual carriageway where the NSL applies. I know of
> very few urban dual carriageways where the NSL applies. I
> have seen plenty of explicit 40mph and 50mph on urban and
> suburban dual carriageways.

There is one near here - nay two a mile or so apart - which
are dual carriage ways, barriered central reservation, grass
verges. 30mph limit without any signage to the effect.

pk

 

[Colin Blackburn]

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:53:46 +0000 (UTC), PK <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
> "Colin Blackburn" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:30:39 -0000, MD
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > First sentence says "....a dual carriageway targeted by
>> > police."
>> >
>> > I am unfamiliar with the area, but section 103 of the
>> > HC also mentions that the speed limit on a dual
>> > carriageway for a car is 70mph.
>>
>> No it isn't. That's the national speed limit (NSL) for a
>> car on a dual carriageway where the NSL applies. I know
>> of very few urban dual carriageways where the NSL
>> applies. I have seen plenty of explicit 40mph and 50mph
>> on urban and suburban dual carriageways.
>
>
> There is one near here - nay two a mile or so apart -
> which are dual carriage ways, barriered central
> reservation, grass verges. 30mph limit without any signage
> to the effect.

There doesn't need to be any signage to the effect, that was
the subject of this thread. If there's no signage and it
isn't an NSL then it's 30mph.

Colin
--

 

[Richard Bates]

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:30:39 -0000, in
<[email protected]>, "MD"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I am unfamiliar with the area, but section 103 of the HC
>also mentions that the speed limit on a dual carriageway
>for a car is 70mph. As the OP states, it also states that
>the default limit is 30mph for all roads if there are
>street lights (so what is the limit on lit sections of M-
>way?). Is this a dual carriageway or simply a road with two
>lanes in each direction?

I am very unsure what (un)familiarity with the area has
to do with anything. "Motorways" are in a separate column
to "Built-Up Areas", and I don't see how any confusion
can occur.

>How many people know that a road with street lights and no
>signage is a 30mph limit? None of my three cow-orkers knew
>the answer. I wouldn't regard any of them as being
>especially stupid; they're just regular motorists. Their
>confusion lay with not knowing what overides what - is it a
>dual carriageway or an urban road foremost?

Anybody who uses their right to hold a driving licence
SHOULD know this. Nothing overrides anything. If there are
street lights and no signposts then 30 applies regardless of
the width of the road.

>It is a fact of life that most people are unfamiliar with
>the fine details of the semantics of the HC. Although it's
>a requirement of having a driving license that one re-
>familiarises oneself with the HC regularly, only a total
>nerd does so.

What a sad attitude you have. In fact no - I think it's a
pathetic attitude. There is nothing nerdish about
refamiliarising oneself with matters of safety.

>I think it _is_ unfair to create a dual carriageway, that
>most people will then believe has a 70mph limit, not sign
>it as having a lower limit, and rely on an italicised
>footnote in the HC to denote the limit. Is Hull CC so
>short of cash

Is there a national speed limit sign on this road? Is there
a sign saying 70? No? Then don't assume 70.

>that they can't afford a few roadsigns. I bet they can
>afford traffic calming measures and "Hull is a Nuclear Free
>City" signs.
>
>If the authorities were interested in compliance, they
>would first emphasise what is to be complied with, and then
>commence rigorous

It is already emphasised in that book which only nerds read.

--
[email protected] Personal Site: www.artybee.net (same
****, different layout) Sutton Brass :
www.suttonbrass.org.uk

 

[Simon Mason]

"Dave Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ian G Batten wrote:
>
> > The whole ``streetlamps == 30'' thing has been diluted
> > by the widespread illumination of dual carriageways and
> > even motorways. Mounting reminders of the limit is
> > reinforcement, and if the objective is to reduce speed
> > and reduce casualties, rather than score points, I don't
> > see how anyone could object to them.
>
> I /think/ it's because having signs up will distract
> drivers who would otherwise be looking out for
> Dangerous Things, like those pesky cameras.
We
> all know how difficult it is to remain below the speed
> limit if one constantly being startled by things one was
> startled by the previous day.

It would set a precedent. If that road had 30 mph repeaters
put up, then every similar road in the country would have
to as well. Anyone who uses that road has to join it from a
single carriageway and at no point is there a 40 mph sign
at its beginning, nor any 40 mph sign on any lamp post
along its route, so I can't see how anyone can be confused.

Being a dual carriageway means nothing. Single carriageways
are 60 mph limits for cars when derestricted but no one is
confused into thinking urban lit roads are not 30 mph. In
today's paper even the AA are now asking for 30 mph signs,
they should really know better.

--
Simon Mason Anlaby East Yorkshire. 53°44'N 0°26'W
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net

 

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 10:45:34 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be Ian G
Batten <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>The whole ``streetlamps == 30'' thing has been diluted by
>the widespread illumination of dual carriageways and even
>motorways. Mounting reminders of the limit is
>reinforcement, and if the objective is to reduce speed and
>reduce casualties, rather than score points, I don't see
>how anyone could object to them.

A hell of a lot of little "30" signs would be needed.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number
F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK
government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:30:39 -0000 someone who may be "MD"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>How many people know that a road with street lights and no
>signage is a 30mph limit? None of my three cow-orkers knew
>the answer. I wouldn't regard any of them as being
>especially stupid;

I couldn't comment.

>they're just regular motorists.

They are ignorant regular motorists. Ignorant of a very
simple and basic rule.

>It is a fact of life that most people are unfamiliar with
>the fine details of the semantics of the HC.

This rule is hardly a fine detail. It is also very clear.
Those who do not follow it have only themselves to blame.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number
F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK
government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[Ian G Batten]

In article <[email protected]>,
David Hansen <> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:30:39 -0000 someone who may be "MD"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
> >How many people know that a road with street lights and
> >no signage is a 30mph limit? None of my three cow-orkers
> >knew the answer. I wouldn't regard any of them as being
> >especially stupid;
>
> I couldn't comment.
>
> >they're just regular motorists.
>
> They are ignorant regular motorists. Ignorant of a very
> simple and basic rule.

Actually, it's not a simple rule. If the lampposts are 185
feet apart, it's 30mph. 186 feet apart and it's 60mph. Quite
what happens if the posts are space at irregular intervals,
I don't know.

ian

 

[Colin Blackburn]

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:54:45 +0000, David Hansen
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:30:39 -0000 someone who may be "MD"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>> How many people know that a road with street lights and
>> no signage is a 30mph limit? None of my three cow-orkers
>> knew the answer. I wouldn't regard any of them as being
>> especially stupid;
[...]
>> It is a fact of life that most people are unfamiliar with
>> the fine details of the semantics of the HC.
>
> This rule is hardly a fine detail.

And, if anything, it is the *default* status for roads.

Colin
--

 

[Ambrose Nankive]

In news:[email protected],
Ian G Batten <[email protected]> typed:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> David Hansen <> wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:30:39 -0000 someone who may be
>> "MD" <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>>
>>> How many people know that a road with street lights and
>>> no signage is a 30mph limit? None of my three cow-orkers
>>> knew the answer. I wouldn't regard any of them as being
>>> especially stupid;
>>
>> I couldn't comment.
>>
>>> they're just regular motorists.
>>
>> They are ignorant regular motorists. Ignorant of a very
>> simple and basic rule.
>
> Actually, it's not a simple rule. If the lampposts are 185
> feet apart, it's 30mph. 186 feet apart and it's 60mph.
> Quite what happens if the posts are space at irregular
> intervals, I don't know.

185 *metres*. Which is to say a very long way apart for
lampposts. I think a normal street has them about 30 m
apart. I imagine the highway engineers' rules will tell them
what to do with distantly spaced lampposts, but I don't
think it's a practical issue.

A

 

[Toby Barrett]

"Simon Mason" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Rule 103 - You MUST NOT exceed the maximum speed limits
> for the road and for your vehicle (see the table below).
> Street lights usually mean that there is a 30 mph speed
> limit unless there are signs showing another limit.

I, too, am amazed at the number of motorists who don't know
this. As I only got my driving licence at the third
attempt, I pretty much knew the Highway Code backwards when
I did pass.

Toby