 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / UK Car Forums / Driving (UK group) / April 2006Silly speed limits
I recently had to go to Stansted airport. Traffic was very quite, as I took the exit from the M25 (from the west) to the M11 North. As I took the sliproad at the junction, I continued at an apparently slow 80, onto a very long curve onto the M11. It seemed quite obvious that the design of the road at the time was such that motorway speeds could be maintained. But there is a speed limit sign for the bend of 40 MPH! Not wanting the possibility of being caught for speeding at more than 30 above the limit, I slowed to about 60, but it was embarrassingly slow, and I don't think I would have been able to do it if there was faster traffic approaching from behind, it would have been safer to continue faster. On the return journey, the bend is a little sharper, but the limit is 30! Wasn't able to do this at anything less than 60. Anyone else experienced this junction, and any thoughts about the limits? I know many limits are disputable, but these are probably the most ridiculous I've experienced. Is this a real enforcable limit, or just an advisory limit? How can it make any sense for a motorway class road (albeit with a slight bend) to have the same limit as a town center shopping high street? Given that the current policy seems to be to penalise motorists simply for driving a small amount above the limit, rather than to take into account any degree of common sense or what is actually dangerous speed, limits like this seem totally incorrect and should be changed? > I recently had to go to Stansted airport. Traffic was very quite, Quite what? > as I took the exit from the M25 (from the west) to the M11 North. As > I took the sliproad at the junction, I continued at an apparently > slow 80, 10mph more than the speed limit. > onto a very long curve onto the M11. It seemed quite obvious that the > design of the road at the time was such that motorway speeds could > be maintained. But there is a speed limit sign for the bend of 40 > MPH! Try taking that bend at 80. It's not possible unless you are driving something like a VX220. [snip] > Anyone else experienced this junction, and any thoughts about the limits? Yes, it's an accident blackspot with fuckwits regularly having a clos eencounter with the bridge supports that's why the limit has been dropped. Also a low limit is set in order to encourage a sensible merge with traffic on the M11, rather than the Essex fuckit approach of slinging out of the slip road at 85mph without bothering to look at traffic on the main carriageway. > I know many limits are disputable, but these are probably the most > ridiculous I've experienced. Is this a real enforcable limitw, or [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > dangerous speed, limits like this seem totally incorrect and should > be changed? No, I think you're an unobservant pillock and should hand in your licence tomorrow and tell the police that you're too stupid to own a car. >> I recently had to go to Stansted airport. Traffic was very quite, > > Quite what? Sorry, typo, I meant quiet >> as I took the exit from the M25 (from the west) to the M11 North. As >> I took the sliproad at the junction, I continued at an apparently >> slow 80, > > 10mph more than the speed limit. ..a perfectly safe speed for the road type and conditions >> onto a very long curve onto the M11. It seemed quite obvious that the >> design of the road at the time was such that motorway speeds could be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Try taking that bend at 80. It's not possible unless you are driving > something like a VX220. I don't think your thinking of the same bend I am, M25 east to M11 North. > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > of the slip road at 85mph without bothering to look at traffic on the main > carriageway. Joining a main carriageway without looking? Now there's something which is stupid and should be targetted. There aren't any bridge supports, (M25 to M11) this slip road is the outermost one at this junction >> I know many limits are disputable, but these are probably the most >> ridiculous I've experienced. Is this a real enforcable limitw, or [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > No, I think you're an unobservant pillock and should hand in your licence > tomorrow and tell the police that you're too stupid to own a car. No, I just like to travel efficiently, and not unnecessarily slowly, and believe that sensible speeds should not be penalised >> 10mph more than the speed limit. > > ..a perfectly safe speed for the road type and conditions It's 10mph more than the maximum speed-limit in this country. Also, if you do your calculations, you'll find that an extra 10mph wont have a huge impact on the time it will take you do to a journey. >>> 10mph more than the speed limit. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > do your calculations, you'll find that an extra 10mph wont have a huge > impact on the time it will take you do to a journey. Well that kind of depends how far you're going doesn't it? Can shave over an hour off some of my recent trips. [snip] >>> as I took the exit from the M25 (from the west) to the M11 North. [snip] > I don't think your thinking of the same bend I am, M25 east to M11 North. [snip] Well it's difficult to tell which bend you are on about. Are you starting from the clockwise or anti-clockwise carriageway of the M25. You said you were coming from the west i.e the anticlockwise carriageway. This passes back under the M25 which at that point is on an overbridge. It's a notorious black spot for accidents mostly caused by people taking the bend too fast. If you mean the other carriageway, it's not so tight, but I cannot recall any 30 mph limit at that point. >>>I recently had to go to Stansted airport. Traffic was very quite, >>>as I took the exit from the M25 (from the west) to the M11 North. As >>>I took the sliproad at the junction, I continued at an apparently >>>slow 80, onto a very long curve onto the M11. It seemed quite obvious that >>>the design of the road at the time was such that motorway speeds could be >>>maintained. But there is a speed limit sign for the bend of 40 MPH! > I don't think your thinking of the same bend I am, M25 east to M11 North. >>>Anyone else experienced this junction, and any thoughts about the limits? That's just an advisory limit, isn't it? The triangular sort that shows a bend (presumably to the left) and displays a suggested max speed for the bend, without being a legally-enforceable limit (lower than whatever limit the rest of the stretch is subject to)? Like the fourth along the second row shown at http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/signs05.htm? Or has the limit been actually dropped and is the sign therefore a proper disc-shaped speed limit sign like the forth one along the top row at http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/signs04.htm? > I recently had to go to Stansted airport. Traffic was very quite, as I took [snip] > sharper, but the limit is 30! Wasn't able to do this at anything less than > 60. If you are incapable of driving within the speed limits you should stop driving. > Anyone else experienced this junction, and any thoughts about the limits? I > know many limits are disputable, but these are probably the most ridiculous > I've experienced. Is this a real enforcable limit, or just an advisory > limit? How can it make any sense for a motorway class road (albeit with a > slight bend) to have the same limit as a town center shopping high street? There are no advisory speed limitson motorways. The only ones i know of are private car parks and some 20mphs sign on residental streets. > Given that the current policy seems to be to penalise motorists simply for > driving a small amount above the limit, rather than to take into account any > degree of common sense or what is actually dangerous speed, limits like this > seem totally incorrect and should be changed? How do you know the limit wasn't placed there because its an accident blackspot? Fod >> I recently had to go to Stansted airport. Traffic was very quite, as I >> took [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If you are incapable of driving within the speed limits you should stop > driving. Like 90% of drivers who never have accidents? I think it's the speed limits which are wrong >> Anyone else experienced this junction, and any thoughts about the limits? >> I [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > How do you know the limit wasn't placed there because its an accident > blackspot? Probably where 90% of the accidents are caused by lack of observation, driving too fast for the conditions, loads falling off lorries, people driving into the back of eachother, etc etc etc. Maintaining a smooth safe speed on a wide straight road with no other vehicles doesn't cause accidents. > >> I recently had to go to Stansted airport. Traffic was very quite, as I > >> took [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Like 90% of drivers who never have accidents? I think it's the speed limits > which are wrong most of that 90% are capable but chose not to. You are saying you are incapable of doing so... Sounds like you are heading for that 10% if thats the case. > >> seem totally incorrect and should be changed? > > How do you know the limit wasn't placed there because its an accident [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > speed on a wide straight road with no other vehicles doesn't cause > accidents. Safe speed is a relative term. In the descriptions you describe maybe you are safe. I've seen people doing high speeds on motorways with lanes covered with 2-3 inches of snow, probably doing less than 70 but not safe... Saying you were driving at a speed safe for the conditions isn't likely to get you out of points if pulled over by the police or if you are snapped by a camera. Problem is that everyone things they are a good driver and can handle their car like a F1 driver However speed is, by the governments own biased figures, not to blame for 2/3 of accidents and road safety should be more than a speed kills slogan. Fod > Like 90% of drivers who never have accidents? Proof? It's alot less than that.  SignatureConor, Same sh.t, different day. >There are no advisory speed limitson motorways. The only ones i know >of are private car parks and some 20mphs sign on residental streets. There sure are... M5 between J1 and J2 has advisory 50mph signs. Certainly not necessary for cars in this case, unless it's some old jalopy, but maybe a slight reduction in speed would make a difference for trucks or coaches. HVB > There are no advisory speed limitson motorways. The only ones i know > of are private car parks and some 20mphs sign on residental streets. Rubbish. There are plenty on motorways and dual carriageways. Flashing signs on gantrys (with no red border) -- advisory. Signs on bends "MAX SPEED XXmph" -- advisory. Most 20 signs (with red borders) _are_ mandatory. SignatureDavid Taylor >> There are no advisory speed limitson motorways. The only ones i know >> of are private car parks and some 20mphs sign on residental streets. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Signs on bends "MAX SPEED XXmph" -- advisory. Ah, so the signs I'm talking about ARE advisory, the actual limit still being 70? Then that would be entirely reasonable, but how do you know when a limit is advisory? It is certainly not clear that these are. This in itself is dangerous as the differential speeds between the vehicles will increase, between those baffled by the low limit but attempting to follow it, and those who just ignore it or know that it is advisory. Thanks >>> There are no advisory speed limitson motorways. The only ones i know >>> of are private car parks and some 20mphs sign on residental streets. >> Rubbish. There are plenty on motorways and dual carriageways. >> Flashing signs on gantrys (with no red border) -- advisory. >> Signs on bends "MAX SPEED XXmph" -- advisory. >Ah, so the signs I'm talking about ARE advisory, the actual limit still >being 70? Then that would be entirely reasonable, but how do you know when a >limit is advisory? It is certainly not clear that these are. This in itself >is dangerous as the differential speeds between the vehicles will increase, >between those baffled by the low limit but attempting to follow it, and >those who just ignore it or know that it is advisory. http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0115526609 http://www.theory-tests.co.uk/home/ http://www.passyourtheory.co.uk/?gclid=CL2ovZywxYQCFT1tEgodLTVPNQ I don't mean to be rude, but you really should not be on the road if you do not understand really basic stuff like this. SignatureSteve Walker >>>> There are no advisory speed limitson motorways. The only ones i know >>>> of are private car parks and some 20mphs sign on residental streets. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I don't mean to be rude, but you really should not be on the road if you > do not understand really basic stuff like this. It is a bit contradictory, a big number with the words MAX SPEED by it, if it is advisory. Perhaps the words MAX SPEED should be replaced with the word ADVISED, then we wouldn't have to look up what signs actually mean in books. >>>>> There are no advisory speed limitson motorways. The only ones i >>>>> know of are private car parks and some 20mphs sign on residental [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > with the word ADVISED, then we wouldn't have to look up what signs > actually mean in books. Wassup too lazy to look it up on the internet even? Or is that you can't be botherrd to make some effort learning to doing the job properly? ib (ib@o2.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying : > It is a bit contradictory, No, it really ISN'T contradictory. > a big number with the words MAX SPEED by it, if it is advisory. Perhaps > the words MAX SPEED should be replaced with the word ADVISED, then we > wouldn't have to look up what signs actually mean in books. <speechless> You shouldn't HAVE to "look it up in books", you clueless arsegrape. You should KNOW the f.cking highway code BACKWARDS. That's why they test you on it on your driving test. BECAUSE YOU NEED TO KNOW WHAT IT SAYS. <boggle> > ib (ib@o2.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying : > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > it on your driving test. BECAUSE YOU NEED TO KNOW WHAT IT SAYS. > <boggle> You don't know much about ergonomics. With a little thought, all misinterpretation can be avoided with the correct design of a device, which is the way it should be, this is all I am saying. Actually the 40 limit took me by so much surprise that I can't now remember exactly what the sign looked like, only the number, which was the reason for my question to the group. ib (ib@o2.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying : >>> a big number with the words MAX SPEED by it, if it is advisory. >>> Perhaps the words MAX SPEED should be replaced with the word >>> ADVISED, then we wouldn't have to look up what signs actually mean >>> in books. >> <speechless> >> You shouldn't HAVE to "look it up in books", you clueless arsegrape. >> You should KNOW the f.cking highway code BACKWARDS. That's why they >> test you on it on your driving test. BECAUSE YOU NEED TO KNOW WHAT IT >> SAYS. >> <boggle> > You don't know much about ergonomics. What the f.ck have ergonomics to do with the basic fact that if it's in a red circle it's mandatory, if it isn't it's advisory? > With a little thought, all > misinterpretation can be avoided with the correct design of a device, > which is the way it should be, this is all I am saying. Indeed. With a little thought. Odd how it works perfectly for the vast majority of road users, isn't it? Perhaps they apply that "little thought"? > You don't know much about ergonomics. With a little thought, all > misinterpretation can be avoided with the correct design of a device, which > is the way it should be, this is all I am saying. The f.cking rules for signs are laid out in the book you read as a learner. > Actually the 40 limit took me by so much surprise <walks off shaking head thinking that I don't get paid enough to share the road with such incompetents> SignatureConor, Same sh.t, different day. > <walks off shaking head thinking that I don't get paid enough to share > the road with such incompetents> At least you get paid for it... >> You don't know much about ergonomics. With a little thought, all >> misinterpretation can be avoided with the correct design of a device, which >> is the way it should be, this is all I am saying. The signs are completely different. Mandatory speed signals are round and have a red border. Rectangular signs are informative. This is spelled out in the highway code. Ergonomically it is excellent design, completely different shapes and borders for different meanings and mandatory signs have the simplest form, larger size and a clear highlight colour (red). > The f.cking rules for signs are laid out in the book you read as a > learner. And they are bloody obvious even if one doesn't read the HC. >> Actually the 40 limit took me by so much surprise > > <walks off shaking head thinking that I don't get paid enough to share > the road with such incompetents> Astounding how it's never *their* fault, and the signs must be all wrong. And the design of the slip roads is all wrong, and it's never their fault when the inevitable accident occurs. >"David Taylor" wrote: >> Signs on bends "MAX SPEED XXmph" -- advisory. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >between those baffled by the low limit but attempting to follow it, and >those who just ignore it or know that it is advisory. Mandatory ones have a red circle. No red circle = advisory. Those signs David mentioned are rectangular with no red circle. I agree with you, many people don't seem to realise what the advisory signs mean and the wording wouldn't exactly lead someone into thinking 'advisory'. Of course, if more people took a glance at the Highway Code from time to time, they might learn something. HVB > >> Signs on bends "MAX SPEED XXmph" -- advisory. > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Mandatory ones have a red circle. No red circle = advisory. Those > signs David mentioned are rectangular with no red circle. There are also blue mandatory signs ( one way street for example). Blue are generally positive while red circle ones are prohibitive. > Of course, if more people took a glance at the Highway Code from time > to time, they might learn something. I just had a look at the online code and it doesn't seem to mention the electronic motorway signs. Fod > I just had a look at the online code and it doesn't seem to mention > the electronic motorway signs. These ones? http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/signs01.htm > > I just had a look at the online code and it doesn't seem to mention > > the electronic motorway signs. > > These ones? > http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/signs01.htm cheers, misread that as just being traffic lights... whoopsi :) Fod > Ah, so the signs I'm talking about ARE advisory, the actual limit still > being 70? Then that would be entirely reasonable, but how do you know when a > limit is advisory? It is certainly not clear that these are. This in itself > is dangerous as the differential speeds between the vehicles will increase, > between those baffled by the low limit but attempting to follow it, and > those who just ignore it or know that it is advisory. Jesus f.cking Christ. Did you actually take a driving test? SignatureConor, Same sh.t, different day. >> Ah, so the signs I'm talking about ARE advisory, the actual limit >> still being 70? Then that would be entirely reasonable, but how do [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> > Jesus f.cking Christ. Did you actually take a driving test? Probably, but did he pass it? > >> Ah, so the signs I'm talking about ARE advisory, the actual limit > >> still being 70? Then that would be entirely reasonable, but how do [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Probably, but did he pass it? It appears that some people can pass what is generally held to be an *advanced* driving test, and still they seem to keep reporting various difficulties when driving. Best wishes all, Dave - mystified again. >>>> Ah, so the signs I'm talking about ARE advisory, the actual limit >>>> still being 70? Then that would be entirely reasonable, but how do [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > *advanced* driving test, and still they seem to keep reporting various > difficulties when driving. Quite, lack of use of the mirror perhaps? >>> Ah, so the signs I'm talking about ARE advisory, the actual limit >>> still being 70? Then that would be entirely reasonable, but how do [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Probably, but did he pass it? Actually I survived many years on big bikes and have 20 years of accident free car driving, and I've always driven fast. I'm not complacent, I'm always looking for where that accident could come from, but I think it's unlikely to come from 3 lane roads with safety barriers, when there are no other vehicles around, even if they are slightly curved. >>>> Ah, so the signs I'm talking about ARE advisory, the actual limit >>>> still being 70? Then that would be entirely reasonable, but how do [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > barriers, when there are no other vehicles around, even if they are > slightly curved. How long and what you've been driving is irrelevant if you haven't taken the trouble to learn to do it properky. >> Actually I survived many years on big bikes and have 20 years of >> accident free car driving, and I've always driven fast. I'm not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > How long and what you've been driving is irrelevant if you haven't > taken the trouble to learn to do it properky. Oh I think 20 years without an accident is quite good, what's the UK average, an accident every 7 years or something? By that fact alone, I think he's learned to do it just as "properly" as the rest of us. >>> Actually I survived many years on big bikes and have 20 years of >>> accident free car driving, and I've always driven fast. I'm not [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > average, an accident every 7 years or something? By that fact alone, I > think he's learned to do it just as "properly" as the rest of us. If he's been driving 20 years and can't tell which speed restrictions are advisory and which are mandatory, then he must have been driving with his eyes shut. Holding a licence for 20 years doesn't make anyone a good or even competent driver. >>>> Actually I survived many years on big bikes and have 20 years of >>>> accident free car driving, and I've always driven fast. I'm not [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > advisory and which are mandatory, then he must have been driving with his > eyes shut. I don't think it would be possible to drive for 20 seconds with your eyes shut, let alone 20 years. My suggestion that it might have been advisory only comes from the fact that it couldn't possibly have been an actual maximum limit, although (even though I can't now remember exactly what the sign looked like and hence my question to the group), I think it probably was. > Holding a licence for 20 years doesn't make anyone a good or even > competent > driver. Agree with you totally on this one, although I'm always happy to learn and improve my driving skills and efficiency, however limiting my speed to 40 for no reason on a motorway does not play a part in this. > I don't think it would be possible to drive for 20 seconds with your eyes > shut, let alone 20 years. It is. A bloke on Top Gear did it. SignatureConor, Same sh.t, different day. > Oh I think 20 years without an accident is quite good, what's the UK > average, an accident every 7 years or something? By that fact alone, I > think he's learned to do it just as "properly" as the rest of us. The time without an accident is nowhere near reliable as an indicator. He could just drive on weekends or do a 2 mile commute 5 days a week. Hell, I've bought cars that've not even averaged 6000 miles a year. Going by that, I could knock up a years worth of mileage every 3 weeks. OTOH, I've had over 1.5 million miles accident free in the last 13 years. Slightly more of a better indicator. SignatureConor, Same sh.t, different day. > Actually I survived many years on big bikes and have 20 years of accident > free car driving, and I've always driven fast. I'm not complacent, I'm > always looking for where that accident could come from, Yet in post: Message-ID: <wjk3g.286$pL4.141@newsfe7-win.ntli.net> You state: "Actually the 40 limit took me by so much surprise that I can't now remember exactly what the sign looked like," Care to rephrase that statement about your observation? SignatureConor, Same sh.t, different day. > > Actually I survived many years on big bikes and have 20 years of accident > > free car driving, and I've always driven fast. I'm not complacent, I'm [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Care to rephrase that statement about your observation? Maybe he meant that he was surprised to find a 40 limit being signed in that situation, rather than meaning that he was late seeing it at all ? Best wishes all, Dave. >> > Actually I survived many years on big bikes and have 20 years of > accident [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Best wishes all, > Dave. Yes, that's what I meant >>> There are no advisory speed limitson motorways. The only ones i know >>> of are private car parks and some 20mphs sign on residental streets. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > being 70? Then that would be entirely reasonable, but how do you know when a > limit is advisory? FFS he just told you how to recognise a mandatory sign. Mandatory signs have a red ring around them. > It is certainly not clear that these are. This in itself > is dangerous as the differential speeds between the vehicles will increase, > between those baffled by the low limit but attempting to follow it, and > those who just ignore it or know that it is advisory. It will be damned obvious to everyone other than the clueless which signs are mandatory and which are advisory. Here's another clue, 80mph is faster than the NSL for motorways so the question of whether the signs were mandatory or not is irrelevant. >>>> There are no advisory speed limitson motorways. The only ones i know >>>> of are private car parks and some 20mphs sign on residental streets. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > FFS he just told you how to recognise a mandatory sign. Mandatory signs > have a red ring around them. No, he said: Signs on bends "MAX SPEED XXmph" -- advisory. >> It is certainly not clear that these are. This in itself is dangerous as >> the differential speeds between the vehicles will increase, between those [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Here's another clue, 80mph is faster than the NSL for motorways so the > question of whether the signs were mandatory or not is irrelevant. 80 is a perfectly good speed for most motorways. The NSL is wrong >>>>> There are no advisory speed limitson motorways. The only ones i know >>>>> of are private car parks and some 20mphs sign on residental streets. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > No, he said: Signs on bends "MAX SPEED XXmph" -- advisory. Try reading what he wrote, he told you signs with a red ring are mandatory. >>> It is certainly not clear that these are. This in itself is dangerous as >>> the differential speeds between the vehicles will increase, between those [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > 80 is a perfectly good speed for most motorways. The NSL is wrong And 80 mph is illegal, it doesn't matter how you dress it up. Neither is leaving a motorway and maintaining 80 on a slip road safe, sane or indicative of decent driving ability. What's happened to this group in the last year or two? It's gone all anal. Hi all btw <snip> > >> It will be damned obvious to everyone other than the clueless which signs > >> are mandatory and which are advisory. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > And 80 mph is illegal, it doesn't matter how you dress it up. Ok, so 80mph is illegal. Chances are you drove to work at 35mph. That too is illegal. Did you give a sh.t? Why do you complain about 10 mph on the best roads in the country when you do 5mph on the shittiest ones? And really, no grannies or kids are crossing the motorway either. > Neither is > leaving a motorway and maintaining 80 on a slip road safe, sane or > indicative of decent driving ability. Well, surely that depends? Such overwhelmingly stereotypical comments suggest you don't really have much road experience. And yes, there are slip roads you can easily take at 80mph, because they are straight lines, separated from the carriageway and long. Lawtears (sorry, stupid ideas on speed limits really piss me off) > What's happened to this group in the last year or two? It's gone all > anal. Hi all btw [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Ok, so 80mph is illegal. Chances are you drove to work at 35mph. That > too is illegal. Well, guess what? You're wrong. I didn't. In fact me driving to work would be bloody stupid most days of the week. However if I were to break the speed limit, yes I would realise that what I was doing was illegal. Further than that, I also recognise where it's safe and sensible to exceed the speed limit and where it's damn stupid to even be going as fast as the speed limit. > Did you give a sh.t? Why do you complain about 10 mph on the best roads > in the country when you do 5mph on the shittiest ones? And really, no > grannies or kids are crossing the motorway either. You appear to be ranting about something I didn't say. BTW, if you try to do 10mph on the motorway without good reason, you will be arrested. >> Neither is leaving a motorway and maintaining 80 on a slip road safe, >> sane or indicative of decent driving ability. > > Well, surely that depends? No, it doesn't depend. > Such overwhelmingly stereotypical comments suggest you don't really have > much road experience. And yes, there are slip roads you can easily take > at 80mph, because they are straight lines, separated from the > carriageway and long. And the purpose of slip roads is? > Lawtears > (sorry, stupid ideas on speed limits really piss me off) Stop making them then. > > What's happened to this group in the last year or two? It's gone all > > anal. Hi all btw [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Well, guess what? You're wrong. I didn't. Then do acknowledge that you are one of the 10%ish who don't. Pardon me for making the assumption, but hey, I was 90% certain you did. I did use the word 'chances.' > In fact me driving to work would > be bloody stupid most days of the week. However if I were to break the > speed limit, yes I would realise that what I was doing was illegal. And many people really couldn't give a damnation when they do it, it seems. Or they don't notice at all. > Further > than that, I also recognise where it's safe and sensible to exceed the > speed limit and where it's damn stupid to even be going as fast as the > speed limit. But presumably recognition goes out the window on long slip roads. > > Did you give a sh.t? Why do you complain about 10 mph on the best roads > > in the country when you do 5mph on the shittiest ones? And really, no > > grannies or kids are crossing the motorway either. > > You appear to be ranting about something I didn't say. If you were like almost everyone else, then your statement could have been construed as 'Your evil to do 80mph, but I'm within my rights to do 35mph' which would appear to be the opinion of a surprising number of people. > BTW, if you try to > do 10mph on the motorway without good reason, you will be arrested. I was meaning difference of +10mph, not 10mph (ie 80mph). > >> Neither is leaving a motorway and maintaining 80 on a slip road safe, > >> sane or indicative of decent driving ability. > > > > Well, surely that depends? > > No, it doesn't depend. Er, yes, it does! It depends on conditions, weather, traffic and shape of the road, all of which should be easily determinable from some distance away. Or is your behaviour on the road not subject to those variables? > > Such overwhelmingly stereotypical comments suggest you don't really have > > much road experience. And yes, there are slip roads you can easily take > > at 80mph, because they are straight lines, separated from the > > carriageway and long. > > And the purpose of slip roads is? To deilver you from one M class road to another road. Missing your point though. If you mean the junction/merge at the end, then yes, you need to worry about that. But the word 'long' kinda implied some distance between yourself and it! > > Lawtears > > (sorry, stupid ideas on speed limits really piss me off) > > Stop making them then. It's the 'It's Illegal' bandwagon is so irritating though. When you were a kid, did your dad say 'that's illegal' when you copied a tape? No. Why? Because it's irrelevant. Ditto with this situation. As such I got the impression you were in some way offended by driving at 80mph on a slip road (which may or may not be safe, depending on circumstances described elsewhere). That offends me (assuming you're part of the 90% crowd.) Also, imo, yes, the speed limit on Mways should be raised. And for crying out loud, would someone devise a serious driving test, as opposed to the farce we have atm? Lawtears (I'm assuming you're old enough to have copied tapes!) > > And the purpose of slip roads is? > > To deilver you from one M class road to another road. Actually they're a deceleration lane. SignatureConor, Same sh.t, different day. > > > And the purpose of slip roads is? > > > > To deilver you from one M class road to another road. > > Actually they're a deceleration lane. ..or an acceleration lane. Best wishes all, Dave. >>>> And the purpose of slip roads is? >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > ..or an acceleration lane. Either way does actually imply that at one end of it you are legitimately doing the faster speed... ...and I've seen L1 doing 80mph many times. > >>>> And the purpose of slip roads is? > >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > ...and I've seen L1 doing 80mph many times. Me too. M18 to M1 southbound can be rather more than that if I join at the right time. :-) Best wishes all, Dave. >>>And the purpose of slip roads is? >>To deilver you from one M class road to another road. > Actually they're a deceleration lane. Both right, both wrong. It depends on the type and layout of the junction. I regularly use a sliproad which is an acceleration lane; deceleration there simply isn't an issue. >>>> It is certainly not clear that these are. This in itself is dangerous >>>> as the differential speeds between the vehicles will increase, between [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > leaving a motorway and maintaining 80 on a slip road safe, sane or > indicative of decent driving ability. You seem to be missing the point - the point I am making is that it is wrong for people to be targeted for driving safely. It is more likely these days that soemone driving over the limit is indicative of a limit which is too low, not driving which is too fast. The junction I am commenting on can be seen clearly here: http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?client=public&X=547000&Y=200000&width=700 &height=400&gride=&gridn=&srec=0&coordsys=gb&db=&addr1=&addr2=&addr3=&pc=&advanc ed=&local=&localinfosel=&kw=&inmap=&table=&ovtype=&keepicon=&zm=0&scale=25000&mu ltimap.x=343&multimap.y=194 It is the topmost connection. As you can see, it changes direction by about 45 degrees in about 500 yards. The turning force is not detectable at 60, and probably insignificant at up to 100. To set a 40 MPH max limit along this section is insane. It only destroys the credibility of speed limits (which is dangerous) and provides opportunities for "safety" partnerships to justify their existence and generate income, when they choose, without any connection whatsoever with safety. >>>>> It is certainly not clear that these are. This in itself is dangerous >>>>> as the differential speeds between the vehicles will increase, between [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > 45 degrees in about 500 yards. The turning force is not detectable at 60, > and probably insignificant at up to 100. OK... that's a junction from the westbound M25 to the northbound M11. You actually said "I took the exit from the M25 (from the west) to the M11 North." which would have been on the opposite side of the motorway (bottom right of the above view). I can see some reasons for an advisory low limits on that slip road. One is that the slip itself forks to both north and south. Drivers have a bad habit of being in the wrong lane on slips and frequently swerve when they realise they are about to head in the wrong direction. Slowing down helps to give some room to the confused and the stupid. Secondly as stated previously you are about to merge with traffic on the M11 which can be incredibly busy at times, slowing down on the approach, merging at a sensible speed is preferable to caning it down the slip road so that you are committed to pulling out regardless of traffic. Thirdly there are two slips at that point, one from the westbound, the other from the eastbound it makes merging slightly more hazardous than a normal trunk road to motorway junction, hence a recommended lower speed limit. Fourthly the limit is set for all vehicles up to and including articulated trucks, is it safe for them to take that slip road at 56mph? And if it isn't is it safe or sane for you to do 80 down that slip road? Finally, that area is an accident black spot. > To set a 40 MPH max limit along this section is insane. There isn't a 40mph max speed limit along that section. > It only destroys the credibility of speed limits (which is dangerous) and > provides opportunities for "safety" partnerships to justify their existence > and generate income, when they choose, without any connection whatsoever > with safety. All of your anger comes from a deficiency in your driving ability. >> The junction I am commenting on can be seen clearly here: >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > direction. Slowing down helps to give some room to the confused and the > stupid. As I mentioned, I was the only vehicle in sight at the time. If there had been truck and confused drivers everywhere (as there frequently are on straight motorway sections) I would have been more than happy to do 40 or less. Maybe all motorway speed limits should be reduced to 40? Secondly as stated previously you are about to merge with traffic > on the M11 which can be incredibly busy at times, slowing down on the > approach, merging at a sensible speed is preferable to caning it down the > slip road so that you are committed to pulling out regardless of traffic. There was none > Thirdly there are two slips at that point, one from the westbound, the > other from the eastbound it makes merging slightly more hazardous than a > normal trunk road to motorway junction, hence a recommended lower speed > limit. Fourthly the limit is set for all vehicles up to and including > articulated trucks, is it safe for them to take that slip road at 56mph? Probably vehicles occasionally take this road which would not be safe above 20. So, maybe there should be a blanket 24/7 20 MPH limit on this sliproad? > And if it isn't is it safe or sane for you to do 80 down that slip road? > Finally, that area is an accident black spot. Then do something about the real cause of accidents. >> To set a 40 MPH max limit along this section is insane. > > There isn't a 40mph max speed limit along that section. Now your confusing me even more. There's a big number 40 with maximum speed written by it. Maybe this means busses with more than 40 people on them have to drive at maximum speed? >> It only destroys the credibility of speed limits (which is dangerous) and >> provides opportunities for "safety" partnerships to justify their [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > All of your anger comes from a deficiency in your driving ability. I have no anger and my driving ability is fine, thank you >>> To set a 40 MPH max limit along this section is insane. >> >> There isn't a 40mph max speed limit along that section. > >Now your confusing me even more. There's a big number 40 with maximum speed >written by it. Which as has been explained many times, is an advisory limit only. Given that you had already understood (I thought anyway, from reading the thread) that red circle signs are mandatory and the others aren't, why are you confused all over again? There isn't a 40mph max speed limit along that section. There is only an advisory sign, gently suggesting that 40mph shouldn't be exceeded. HTH >>>> To set a 40 MPH max limit along this section is insane. >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > an advisory sign, gently suggesting that 40mph shouldn't be exceeded. > HTH Maybe we're taking this too far too quickly. Perhaps he simply doesn't understand the words, "mandatory" and "advisory"? > It is the topmost connection. As you can see, it changes direction by about > 45 degrees in about 500 yards. The turning force is not detectable at 60, > and probably insignificant at up to 100. > > To set a 40 MPH max limit along this section is insane. Only to those incapable of thinking. For a loaded lorry, 40MPH is a reasonable speed to take that sliproad. What having a 40 limit on that stretch means is that it reduces the chances of a tosser coming caning up behind said lorry, to suddenly realise it's doing 30-40MPH slower, and panicking - most likely resulting in a crash. I suppose you think the speed limit on the Eastbound M25 to Northbound M11 sliproad is equally as stupid? SignatureConor, Same sh.t, different day. > ib says... >>It is the topmost connection. As you can see, it changes direction by about >>45 degrees in about 500 yards. The turning force is not detectable at 60, >>and probably insignificant at up to 100. >>To set a 40 MPH max limit along this section is insane. > Only to those incapable of thinking. > For a loaded lorry, 40MPH is a reasonable speed to take that sliproad. > What having a 40 limit on that stretch means is that it reduces the > chances of a tosser coming caning up behind said lorry, to suddenly > realise it's doing 30-40MPH slower, and panicking - most likely > resulting in a crash. So should all roads be speed-limited to what is safe in a loaded lorry, or just motorway slip roads? > I suppose you think the speed limit on the Eastbound M25 to Northbound > M11 sliproad is equally as stupid? Is there a speed limit (lower than motorway NSL) on that slip road? There wasn't the last time I was on it (which admittedly, is about a year ago). > So should all roads be speed-limited to what is safe in a loaded lorry, or just > motorway slip roads? Motorways are roads where the speed differential is likely to be the highest. > Is there a speed limit (lower than motorway NSL) on that slip road? Not that I recall. SignatureConor, Same sh.t, different day. > JNugent says... >>So should all roads be speed-limited to what is safe in a loaded lorry, or just >>motorway slip roads? > Motorways are roads where the speed differential is likely to be the > highest ...which is exactly why the drivers of large, slow vehicles should not block the overtaking lane. :-) Fair enough. But what has it to do with whether or not all roads should be subject to a speed limit equal to the maximum safe speed for a lorry goping round a bend? >>Is there a speed limit (lower than motorway NSL) on that slip road? > Not that I recall. I didn't think so either. What's more, I think the OP knows it too... ;-) > But what has it to do with whether or not all roads should be subject > to a speed limit equal to the maximum safe speed for a lorry goping > round a bend? And that, children, is why it's an *ADVISORY* limit. "WARNING - Although you may not be able to see quite what, this bend has something up it's sleeve, and it's not wise for you to hoon it that hard" > > JNugent says... > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > But what has it to do with whether or not all roads should be subject to a speed > limit equal to the maximum safe speed for a lorry goping round a bend? Who said all roads? Merely those where there's likely to be a large difference and that taking an emergency manouvre on said corner may lead to an accident. SignatureConor, Same sh.t, different day. >JNugent says... >>>JNugent says... >>>>So should all roads be speed-limited to what is safe in a loaded lorry, or just >>>>motorway slip roads? >>>Motorways are roads where the speed differential is likely to be the >>>highest >>...which is exactly why the drivers of large, slow vehicles should not block the >>overtaking lane. :-) >>Fair enough. >>But what has it to do with whether or not all roads should be subject to a speed >>limit equal to the maximum safe speed for a lorry goping round a bend? > Who said all roads? Merely those where there's likely to be a large > difference and that taking an emergency manouvre on said corner may > lead to an accident. What "corner" is that? > >JNugent says... > >>>JNugent says... [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > What "corner" is that? I can think of quite a few. M6 northbound onto the M62 Eastbound for a start. SignatureConor, Same sh.t, different day. >>>JNugent says... >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>>>...which is exactly why the drivers of large, slow vehicles should not block the >>>>overtaking lane. :-) >>>>Fair enough. >>>>But what has it to do with whether or not all roads should be subject to a speed >>>>limit equal to the maximum safe speed for a lorry goping round a bend? >>>Who said all roads? Merely those where there's likely to be a large >>>difference and that taking an emergency manouvre on said corner may >>>lead to an accident. >>What "corner" is that? > I can think of quite a few. M6 northbound onto the M62 Eastbound for a > start. A 270 degree left bend (semi-cloverleaf), IIRC. Not a corner. Not unless the word has acquired a new meaning. There is one junction I can easily think of that is (or used to be) a corner - that B road two-thirds of the way down the M50. Even that might have been improved now. But either way, the slip road from clockwise M25 to northbound M25 is certainly not a corner. >On the return journey, the bend is a little >sharper, but the limit is 30! Wasn't able to do this at anything less than >60. LMAO - wonderful!! That's cheered up my Monday morning. HVB > I recently had to go to Stansted airport. Traffic was very quite, as I took > the exit from the M25 (from the west) to the M11 North. As I took the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > sharper, but the limit is 30! Wasn't able to do this at anything less than > 60. So you were speeding, and unable to slow up for a bend? Has it never occurred to you that speed limits may have a purpose? Try driving within the speed limit, and then it wouldn't be as hard to slow down. Who's fault is it that you were driving too fast? > Anyone else experienced this junction, and any thoughts about the limits? I > know many limits are disputable, but these are probably the most ridiculous > I've experienced. Is this a real enforcable limit, or just an advisory > limit? How can it make any sense for a motorway class road (albeit with a > slight bend) to have the same limit as a town center shopping high street? I don't know the junction, and if I did go there I certainly wouldn't approach it at illegal speeds if I didn't know it. > Given that the current policy seems to be to penalise motorists simply for > driving a small amount above the limit, rather than to take into account any > degree of common sense or what is actually dangerous speed, limits like this > seem totally incorrect and should be changed? How about driving within the speed limit, then you won't get penalised, and you are a lot less likely to get this problem. Try driving correctly for a while, and then come back if you still think the roads are dangerous. > How about driving within the speed limit, then you won't get penalised, > and you are a lot less likely to get this problem. Try driving > correctly for a while, and then come back if you still think the roads > are dangerous. So you think that all speed limits are a safe maximum speed for the road? If motorway speed limits were reduced to 30, you wouldn't question it, and would just drive at 30? >> How about driving within the speed limit, then you won't get >> penalised, and you are a lot less likely to get this problem. Try [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > road? If motorway speed limits were reduced to 30, you wouldn't > question it, and would just drive at 30? And therein lies the nub of the problem. It's quite possible that for some bits of road there are elements of the layout or the environment which makes it more difficult to negotiate at a seemingly reasonable speed than others. It's quite reasonable for those stretches to have lower limits to make them safer. *IFF* speed limits were all set according to real world pragmatic issues like this then I'm sure people would have far less trouble accepting the limits and the punishment for breaking them. However... > > How about driving within the speed limit, then you won't get penalised, > > and you are a lot less likely to get this problem. Try driving > > correctly for a while, and then come back if you still think the roads > > are dangerous. > > So you think that all speed limits are a safe maximum speed for the road? No. Quite a few are far from safe. NSL on a 8ft wide country lane for example. SignatureConor, Same sh.t, different day. >> So you think that all speed limits are a safe maximum speed for the >> road? > No. Quite a few are far from safe. NSL on a 8ft wide country lane for > example Indeed. And the reverse is often true, too. 40mph s/c NSL for trucks, for example... >> How about driving within the speed limit, then you won't get penalised, >> and you are a lot less likely to get this problem. Try driving [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > motorway speed limits were reduced to 30, you wouldn't question it, and > would just drive at 30? Motorway speed limits are frequently reduced to 30, especially on the M25 (and now the M42). It's a good idea to obey those limits since they are then enforced by camera. >>> How about driving within the speed limit, then you won't get penalised, >>> and you are a lot less likely to get this problem. Try driving [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > (and now the M42). It's a good idea to obey those limits since they are > then enforced by camera. I'm sceptical that the cameras on the section between the M4 and M40 actually work. When the missus was having our first baby about 3 years ago, there were complications with labour and I was on a job down in Dover. I drove back round the M25 at 3 figure speeds all the way - very late at night, dry, clear. The Gantry signs were displaying 50mph. I wasn't that arsed about getting nicked so kept my foot down. Never got a ticket, never saw a flash.. CC >>>> How about driving within the speed limit, then you won't get penalised, >>>> and you are a lot less likely to get this problem. Try driving [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > that arsed about getting nicked so kept my foot down. Never got a ticket, > never saw a flash.. The cameras run out of film and also get moved around. It's a lottery whether you get a ticket or not. Up to you to take the risk, or not. >>>>> How about driving within the speed limit, then you won't get >>>>> penalised, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > The cameras run out of film and also get moved around. It's a lottery > whether you get a ticket or not. Up to you to take the risk, or not. Yes, I suspected that might be the case. I don't usually take the risk, but what with me driving on a foreign licence at the time, and more important things to worry about, that time I took the risk and got away with it... not that I'm condoning it or anything... CC > "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message >> The cameras run out of film and also get moved around. It's a lottery >> whether you get a ticket or not. Up to you to take the risk, or not. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > it... not that I'm condoning > it or anything... And as time goes by.. they go digital and get more numerous. It's only going to get worse :-( Why are penalty codes for driving offences done in big numbers (SP30 etc) when they only seem to use 3,6,9,12 and occasionally 2 or 4 points? Seems to show a possibility of expanding the variability of sentencing. If you had to tot up to 120 points where a typical speeding penalty was based on 30 but could go up or down based on circumstances (clear dry road, few mph over = 15points, or school dropping off time, rainy, few mph over=45 points) I think speed limit penalties would get a lot more respect. As it is if I'm in a hurry I'll get the same 3 points whether I do 69mph or 85... if they are following the ACPO guidelines. How daft is that? <http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/speed_enforcement_guidelines_web_v7_ foi.doc> > So you were speeding, and unable to slow up for a bend? Has it never > occurred to you that speed limits may have a purpose? Try driving > within the speed limit, and then it wouldn't be as hard to slow down. > Who's fault is it that you were driving too fast? No, apparently he was unable to keep up with the flow of traffic or drive and avoid causing an obstruction by driving at the posted limit. That is different to being unable to slow to the posted limit. SignatureCarl Robson Car PC Build starts again. http://smallr.com/rz Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com >On the return journey, the bend is a little sharper, but the limit is 30! >Wasn't able to do this at anything less than 60. It was dropped to 30mph many years ago because Essex Police got pissed off with having to scrap c.nts like you out of the armco. If you'd actually had any wits about you, you'd also have noticed what would have happened if you had lost the car and flipped over the said armco. Although by the sounds of it you'd be no great loss. >> On the return journey, the bend is a little sharper, but the >> limit is 30! Wasn't able to do this at anything less than 60. > > It was dropped to 30mph many years ago because Essex Police got > pissed off with having to scrap c.nts like you out of the armco. I estimate that bend can be taken at a maximum of about 90 mph in a normal car. These "c.nts" must have been going a lot faster than 60 to have ended up in the arm-co, and I very much doubt a 30 limit will stop them, especially when everyone else is doing 50-60 mph. Common sense indicates that 50-60 is a safe speed (assuming good conditions), as thousands of cars take it at that speed every day without incident. SHowing a 30 limit just stops people believing the signs and have even less faith in the speed limits. Give me the limits like they have in other countries (Spain, Germany) any day. When they say a bend is to be taken at no more than X km/hr, they really mean it and people pay attention. >>> On the return journey, the bend is a little sharper, but the >>> limit is 30! Wasn't able to do this at anything less than 60. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > day. When they say a bend is to be taken at no more than X km/hr, they > really mean it and people pay attention. Many thanks at last for the sensible response. >>> On the return journey, the bend is a little sharper, but the >>> limit is 30! Wasn't able to do this at anything less than 60. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I estimate that bend can be taken at a maximum of about 90 mph in a normal > car. I'd love to see you try and take the southbound M11 - M25 bend at 90mph - it'd be like scraping the scum off the top of the gene pool. It's pretty obvious you dont know the junction, therefore the rest of your post is worth squat >>>> On the return journey, the bend is a little sharper, but the >>>> limit is 30! Wasn't able to do this at anything less than 60. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > It's pretty obvious you dont know the junction, therefore the rest of your > post is worth squat Actually, in that direction you are right, 90 would be too much, although at 60 it was quite comfortable for me, but to go much faster would be starting to eat into the safety margin. But in the other direction (the 40 limit), you could quite easily do 100 without any problems > Actually, in that direction you are right, 90 would be too much, although at > 60 it was quite comfortable for me, but to go much faster would be starting > to eat into the safety margin. So you are driving fairly close to the safe limit of your ability/car. What happens when you come across a much slower moving lorry? SignatureConor, Same sh.t, different day. >> Actually, in that direction you are right, 90 would be too much, although >> at [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > So you are driving fairly close to the safe limit of your ability/car. > What happens when you come across a much slower moving lorry? You hit it or skid off the road if you react too late. But of course, you wouldn't combine pushing the limitations of the car with being 3 inches from the back of a lorry, or within the distance ahead of you in which you can adjust to a much lower speed under full control. It's probably very easy to crash into the back of things at this position even if you are doing less than 30, if you don't adjust to the situations. > > So you are driving fairly close to the safe limit of your ability/car. > > What happens when you come across a much slower moving lorry? > > You hit it or skid off the road if you react too late. But of course, you > wouldn't combine pushing the limitations of the car with being 3 inches from > the back of a lorry, You wouldn't be puching the limits driving 3" from a lorry. > or within the distance ahead of you in which you can > adjust to a much lower speed under full control. Yet 100,000's of drivers make that exact mistake every single year. SignatureConor, Same sh.t, different day. >>On the return journey, the bend is a little sharper, but the limit is 30! >>Wasn't able to do this at anything less than 60. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > would have happened if you had lost the car and flipped over the said > armco. Although by the sounds of it you'd be no great loss. It makes me laugh that anyone requires a number in a circle to avoid wiping themselves out on a bend. Surely then we must extend this so that every slight bend in every road has a 50 limit 1/2 mile before, and a 30 limit at the bend. In fact I can't work out why I don't keep crashing into car park walls, as there isn't a 0 MPH limit in front of the wall, which obviously becomes the max safe speed. For goodness sake let's have a bit of common sense. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message