Speed limits: 40mph plan for country roads

[SleeperService]

Agree entirely, the default speed should be 40MPH on rural roads, with lower limits in high risk locations and higher speeds perhaps on wide straight roads.

Common sense there, you'll never make it in politics

[JavaScriptDonkey]

Agree entirely, the default speed should be 40MPH on rural roads, with lower limits in high risk locations and higher speeds perhaps on wide straight roads.

Common sense there, you'll never make it in politics

Not at all. You have assumed that cyclists and walkers should be treated as preferential users of roads.
Pedestrians are preferential users of footpaths whereas motorized vehicles should be preferential users of roads.

There are so many footpaths in my area that I am constantly amazed that any one chooses to wander down the potholed excuse for road.

So long as it's done properly overtaking a cyclist at 60 is little different from over taking one at 40 and vastly preferable to crawling past one at 15mph. Cyclists that are unable to maintain a steady course without violently swerving across the road into traffic simply shouldn't be on the road.

(yes i drive and i cycle and i walk)

[adam2]

Walkers should use the footpath, when one is provided, and cyclists should use the cycle track or path when available.
However a great many rural roads with a speed limit of 60MPH at present, have no footpath or cycle lane, it is largely these roads on which I and others believe that the default speed limit should be 40.
In certain cases higher higher or lower limits would be more suitable, but the normal or default limit if not advertised otherwise should be 40MPH.

The provision of a suitable footpath and cycle track should be a requirement before a higher speed limit of 60MPH should be considered.
If provision of such is not feasible, then 40MPH maximum.

[SleeperService]

I have assumed no such thing.

One of my driving jobs involved a big lorry full of building materials being taken up narrow roads, in towns and the countryside.

In towns there was no problem because speeds were low. In the country a certain type of driver did 60+ because the limit is 60. Imagine their surprise when they came round a corner and there I was. Or a tractor. Or a herd of cows.

Adam2 (I think) and myself are suggesting lower limits on small roads but allow higher limits on motorways. I've seen plenty of crashes on the motorway where everybody is Ok and too many being brought out of a car on country roads in a bag. If you've ever seen a car hit a parked tractor you'll understand, farmer was opening a field gate across the road. I could stop my lorry from 30mph OK. I've no idea how fast the car was going and there wasn't anybody alive to tell the tale.

[RogueMale]

Agree entirely, the default speed should be 40MPH on rural roads, with lower limits in high risk locations and higher speeds perhaps on wide straight roads.

Common sense there, you'll never make it in politics

Not at all. You have assumed that cyclists and walkers should be treated as preferential users of roads.
Pedestrians are preferential users of footpaths whereas motorized vehicles should be preferential users of roads.

There are so many footpaths in my area that I am constantly amazed that any one chooses to wander down the potholed excuse for road.

So long as it's done properly overtaking a cyclist at 60 is little different from over taking one at 40 and vastly preferable to crawling past one at 15mph. Cyclists that are unable to maintain a steady course without violently swerving across the road into traffic simply shouldn't be on the road.

(yes i drive and i cycle and i walk)

(Ahem!)

Cyclists: A High Court judge once ruled that a cyclist is entitled to wobble. Drivers should have more control over their vehicles than cyclists who are dependent upon physical strength and effort to pilot their machines. Always leave plenty of room when passing cyclists, look out for clues about their next move. For example, a cyclist who looks around over his or her right shoulder may be about to turn right; a puddle in the road will cause a cyclist to move out. Cyclists are not easy to see and they can easily get lost in the blind spots around your vehicle. Particularly out watch for then in slow moving traffic in built up areas – they may overtake you on either side when you least expect.

(from http://www.theorytestadvice.co.uk/hazar ... essons.php)

I can't find the original reference to this, but there are in any case perfectly good reasons why someone might wobble on a bicycle: to avoid a pothole, puddle or broken glass, when climbing a steep hill, and so on.

Regarding your point about overtaking speeds, overtaking properly (i.e. safely) at speed would mean giving the bicyclist at least two metres clearance.

And why should motorized vehicles be prefential users of roads (other than motorways)? Horse riders have been on roads for time immemorial, and bicyclists for decades longer than cars.

[DominicJ]

I can't find the original reference to this, but there are in any case perfectly good reasons why someone might wobble on a bicycle: to avoid a pothole, puddle or broken glass, when climbing a steep hill, and so on.

Are cars not allowed to avoid glass or pot holes?

[SleeperService]

I can't find the original reference to this, but there are in any case perfectly good reasons why someone might wobble on a bicycle: to avoid a pothole, puddle or broken glass, when climbing a steep hill, and so on.

Are cars not allowed to avoid glass or pot holes?

Yes but if they cross to the other side of the carriageway and hit something they're in a bit of bother. If the road is narrow with no central marking they're both in bother.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

Horses have indeed been using roads since time immemorial but not metaled roads. Metaled roads are for motorised traffic.

I'm not defending idiots who drive too fast for the conditions they find themselves in or numpties that believe they can see round corners.

Through dint of experience I know what is a safe speed to be travelling at on country roads and it varies a lot depending on the road. As with the majority of drivers I drive as fast as I can see to stop in. Laying a blanket 40mph on roads that don't warrant it is just annoying.

A glance at a local map shows a veritable web of footpaths and bridleways that barely cross a metaled road and yet I still see people trudging along in the gutter of single track roads. Usually wearing black and walking on the wrong side.

I have never wobbled by 2 metres in my life. 2 metres is pulling out into traffic without indicating. 2 metres shows that you are not in control of your vehicle. 2 metres tells you that it is time to get off and push.

[JohnB]

Horses have indeed been using roads since time immemorial but not metaled roads. Metaled roads are for motorised traffic.

You mean the roads that horses used for centuries, and were metalled to take cars?

[JavaScriptDonkey]

Horses have indeed been using roads since time immemorial but not metaled roads. Metaled roads are for motorised traffic.

You mean the roads that horses used for centuries, and were metalled to take cars?

No I mean only the ones used as chariot tracks by the Pretanii

That lords and ladies bounced on horseback along on the route of the B3098 500 years ago while your ancestors plodded along behind the cows doesn't have much to do with modern speed limits.

[RogueMale]

Horses have indeed been using roads since time immemorial but not metaled roads. Metaled roads are for motorised traffic.

They were actually built for bicycles: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... -for-roads.

I have never wobbled by 2 metres in my life. 2 metres is pulling out into traffic without indicating. 2 metres shows that you are not in control of your vehicle. 2 metres tells you that it is time to get off and push.

You're disagreeing with the highway code: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ... /DG_070314 (Rule 163). If you drive a car you have to abide by the rules. If you don't, you shouldn't be driving. Of course, bicyclists should abide by the rules too.

It's not constructive to side with car drivers against bicyclists (or vice versa). We have to share the road. Many of us use both forms of transport, myself included. When a driver passes close to me on my bike I get worried. When I pass bicyclists in my car, I give them plenty of room.

[RogueMale]

I can't find the original reference to this, but there are in any case perfectly good reasons why someone might wobble on a bicycle: to avoid a pothole, puddle or broken glass, when climbing a steep hill, and so on.

Are cars not allowed to avoid glass or pot holes?

Yes, but it's less of an issue: most of the time you won't see glass, and even if you do drive over it, it's unlikely a car tyre will puncture. Cars have suspension so pot holes are less of an issue for them too. For someone a bicycle, a fast puncture or a pot hole might cause them to be thrown off the bike. Because of this, you should stay a safe distance behind and give plenty of room when overtaking.

[biffvernon]

Horses have indeed been using roads since time immemorial but not metaled roads. Metaled roads are for motorised traffic.

Confusion of terms? A metalled road is one whose surface is constructed by some imported material such as stone or gravel. The Romans did it for convenience of foot transport. John McAdam introduced a construction method in the 1820s that came to be known as macadam and is a form of metalling. It was for horse drawn transport.

Using tar as a binder was introduced in the early 20th century, primarily in response to the dust problem caused by motor cars. This 'tarmac' covered only a small mileage by the outbreak of the First World War, when further construction was postponed until the war ended. Most roads were not tarmaced till the late 20s or 30s.

[bigjim]

Walkers should use the footpath, when one is provided, and cyclists should use the cycle track or path when available.

Have you seen some cycle paths though? There's one near where I work, a wide dual use one, where I have to give way to traffic on side roads and then dumps me out at a small but occasionally busy roundabout where again I must wait for traffic to clear before crossing.

I'd much rather the road was widened to give more space for cars to pass. I prefer to use the road here since I can be part of the traffic flow instead of having to cross roads.

[JohnB]

I thought we were talking about country roads. Cycle paths are urban things, and are only found in "country" areas on the edge of urban ones where there is enough cycle traffic to justify them. Real country roads weren't designed for the infernal combustion engine.