"New 30mph limit on the A40 Westway is dangerously slow" blog discussion

camaj

I think calling it "dangerous" is a bit extreme! Other cars may be driving dangerously but that just means they're the ones who are dangerous, not the law.

I've only driven on the A40 a few times (I'm assuming it's the road that meets Hangar Lane?). Both those roads have bad tailbacks when you approach the gyratory system. A 30mph limit has the potential to reduce congestion and save fuel. A major cause of congestion is caused by traffic moving too fast, counter-intuitive I know. A variable speed limit would be fine however I'd imagine that it'd be at 30mph for most of the day so I'm not sure what difference it makes.

George30

In my area they moved the 30 MPH signs another 100yards outside the towns and made afortune with speeding fines, I know I was one of them caught at 34 mph before I realised the signs had moved

Jayedee

Martin
Have you seen the piece in the Fulham Chronicle - you are quoted but it looks like they've lifted sections from your blog- so doubt if they actually spoke to you!

Just tried posting a link to the story but it didn't seem to work. If it appears, apologies for repeating myself.

Basically the story is they are doing strengthening work on the supports under the elevated section and the decrease in speed limit is deemed necessary. The 30's are painted on the road because that stretch of road is unlit at night (another strange and unexplained decision!). It is supposed to be 'temporary", but I guess it depends on their definition of "temporary".

djawol

George30 wrote: »

In my area they moved the 30 MPH signs another 100yards outside the towns and made afortune with speeding fines, I know I was one of them caught at 34 mph before I realised the signs had moved

Supposedly this is done because people won't brake in advance of the signs, so get to the 30 sign at the limit they're in (60/50/40) and then lift off so entering the 30 zone above the limit. The extra 100yds gives adequate deceleration time.

Stupid I know.

My personal beef as a motorcyclist is the areas of National Speed Limit country roads that are wide, relatively bend free etc that are getting dropped to 50 for no apparent reason.

Oh...and it seems that lots of people drive at 50 within N.S.L areas even though it's dry as I honestly think because people never see a sign with 60/70 written on it with a red circle they don't realise that this is the limit. Although don't get me started on people who drive at 45mph whether it's a 30/40/50 or N.S.L area.

exup

what you may percieve as dangerous and what is actually dangerous may be two different things. People have used this excuse for mopeds Vs motorbikes for years saying that the big bikes are safer because they can keep up with traffic. I haven't seen any proof of this however, and have actually seen statistics to show the opposite. that the people on the mopeds aren't having loads and loads of accidents due to people crashing into them from behind.
maybe you will have to get used to the 30mph limit, it may feel slow, and you may feel that people are queueing up behind you, but another thing which would help is a good positive road position, rather than being forced over towards the kerb, Once you move over that way on a motorbike, regardless of its physical size, you will find people will drive up your back end anyway, and it doesn't matter what speed you are doing either.
Unfortunately the knee jerk lower speed limits will keep popping up all over the place. They seem to be there to try to discourage everyone from driving. (Want people on public transport, but don't want to invest to make it more attractive? Simply reduce the enjoyment of personal motorised transport to the level that most people can't stand it anymore)

derglyn

I used to use this road regularly until I retired last year, and I wholeheartedly agree that 30mph is ludicrous for a road of ths size with uncluttered vision.
I also agree with those who suggest that it is yet another revenue gatherer from this increasingly desperate, incompetent government.

Lum

djawol wrote: »

Supposedly this is done because people won't brake in advance of the signs, so get to the 30 sign at the limit they're in (60/50/40) and then lift off so entering the 30 zone above the limit. The extra 100yds gives adequate deceleration time.

Stupid I know.

This is called a "buffer zone" and it used to be recommended practice in the days before speed cameras, and in the days where speed enforcement was discretionary. Back then no copper would pull you for using it to slow down providing you were doing 30 by the time you reached the village limits.

Problem is, since the introduction of cameras, particularly mobile ones. They love to enforce this buffer zone strictly, thus destroying the purpose it was put there for.

Some have been replaced with correctly positioned signs and 100 yard countdown signs, but far too many still exist.

f1millerman

Lum wrote: »

According to the DFT report in 2008. 4.7% of accidents involved exceeding the speed limit as a primary or contributory factor. Which means that at least 95.3% of accidents were NOT caused by exceeding the limit.

The original 33% figure has been widely discredited as they basically added up all factors that had "speed" in the title, such as "Excessive speed for the conditions", which could be 30mph in a 50 limit in thick fog, and "Failure to judge other vehicle's speed or direction", which is a failure in observation. Add them all together to get the "33% of accidents are speed related" claim used to justify cameras.

Most Safety Camera Partnerships have stopped citing this figure, though it still crops up from time to time in literature from ill-informed local councils and campaigns.


The vast majority of accidents are caused by failures of observation.

Observation that might be improved if everyone wasn't staring at that damn speedo dial out of fear of getting a ticket!

I say bring back the 85th percentile rule.

Spot on, Ive been hit by a few cars in my 30 odd years driving,( not yet hit one but sure the odds are coming down ;-) ) And on every occasion its been below the speed limit, on 2 occasions at less than 20 mph. Speed does not kill, it never has, its the pillock behind the wheel thats the problem, either admiring the scenery ( old uns ) looking at a smart bit of kit ( young/middle aged uns ) or talking on their damn mobiles ( everyone) :think:

Lum

Been hit three times.

#1 I was on a 3 lane motorway roundabout (A404M/M4 J8/9) in the middle lane. L1 and L2 were both exits onto the M4 westbound, L3 was to go to the A404. Person in L1 decided they didn't want the M4 and turned right across my pass. I braked hard and avoided them. The guy behind me was arguing with is kids who were complaining they were late for a football match and was still doing 50 in a 70 when he ploughed into the back of my stationary car.

#2 Stopped at a give way line at a junction with near zero visibility due to buildings and a van parked on the corner, guy behind me didn't as he was checking to see if his mates were still following, he was doing about 15 mph in a 30.

#3 Went to enter a very large roundabout, only for a very fast moving car straddling both lanes to appear from behind the trees obscuring a good view of said roundabout. Stopped in order to avoid a collision with the fast moving car. Guy behind just assumed that as I'd crossed the line I would be carrying on, and went straight into the back of me at 10 mph in a 70.

Observation, every single time.

SD52

This featured on the show and the reason given was regarding work being carried out below the carriageway. It does seem a low speed, but presumeably if there are people working nearby, asking drivers to slow down to keep them safe doesn't seem alot to ask. The issue, as is often the case, is why don't they tell people this with signs.