50mph speed limit - consultation

A while back, I started this thread on the proposed new 50mph limit for rural roads and 20mph for urban areas:

http://www.600riders.com/forum/uk/13404-uk-road-speed-limit-cut-50mph.html

Our wonderful Government has now started the inexorable process towards these limits with a 'consultation'. Here's more about it:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/roadsafetyconsultation/

You can respond here:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/roadsafetyconsultation/consultationresponse

We've got until 14th July.

Good night, and good luck.

wow i thought i read that wrong.. i thought "you" proposed a 50 mph limit.. i was thinking to myself that you must be one crazzy bloke

i read through some of the pdf.. basically the top section that described the whats and whys.. very interesting some of the proposals that they came up with..
i would have to vote no on the 20 mph zones.. im not familiar with your roads or the widths of them, but i'll "assume" that they are simmilar to the us style.. i would think that a little more "driver attention" would be needed in those areas as well as the peopel who are ridding bike (non-motor) or walking need to take a bit more responsibility to not get hit (dont walk in the middle of the road)...

im not really familiar with your laws and roads, but it seems liek this might be just a waste of money doing this study.. but hey, if it ends up making you all safer at the end without infringing on you motoring freedoms, go for it :thumbup:

Wouldn't compare UK roads to the ones in the US, they are nowhere near as wide as the ones in the US that I've used, or in the same condition. The proposed 20mph limit will make it so there's more pollution in those areas due to vehicles tripping around at slower speeds. Will do the kids attanding school the world of good, more pollution related illnesses - what better excuse could there be for adding more green taxes for car drivers/bikers than kids being made ill by vehicle pollution that was caused as a result?

As for th 50mph part on A roads, again it's to slow people down, but with the addition of putting up network average speed and ANPR cameras. That way they can just drop you the speeding ticket in the post much easier, won't need the police to catch you. Whether a 10 mile queue of cars all travelling along at 50mph during 'rush hour' will help is another thing.

The consultation is a pointless exercise, they have already made their minds up.

I can't help but think its another way to really screw money out of motorists with more speeding fines. As I recall, the use of speed cameras has had negligible effect on the number of road deaths, in fact, in North Wales, which is heavily policed, the deaths went up...

How much did those banks cost us?

On the plus side, there is no point owning anything bigger than a 125, so that should save me money.

i figured that it was a pointless thing.. they do pointless studies over here to that just end up wasting public money.. i hear ya on the streets not being as wide.. once again.. a few people end up ruining it for everyone.. and those camera's.. they are like radar detectors, take all the fun out of driving..

someday i will make it across the pond and see it for myself.. otherwise i have to rely on people to post up pictures...

Manx said:

On the plus side, there is no point owning anything bigger than a 125, so that should save me money.

Click to expand...

well when you boil it down.. im sure displacment will be displaced for lower speed bikes and cars.. i get the argument against speeding.. but hey, when the car or bike can do 150, your more apt to speed.. not to say i want a limiter at 65.. but i never really understood why make a car go faster than the national limit.. i mean really.. if the law says you can go past 65.. why sell a ride that can do 140 easy??? :thumbup:

oh and thats not an argument to give us cars that go no faster than 65.. just saying...

Worst thing now is that SPECS3 average speed camera is out. At one time average speed camera's only took a photo of the front of the vehicle, SPECS3 now takes a picture of the rear... really going to mess thing sup. The old ones used to have to be set up on the same road, the new ones can be networked and even calculate teh average speed from road to road at any point.

The money generated by such moves will pay for the banks...

I lived in Oxford until a couple of months ago, which had already introduced the 20mph limit in some areas that had experienced some pretty horrible accidents (like cyclists getting mangled under busses), and there are so many idiots around that will happily do 40mph in a 30mph zone and think they are safe - all it takes is one kid to run out in front of you. So for these reasons I think 20mph in some areas is good - but not for ALL urban areas. It should be done on a case by case basis. The 50mph limit proposal is silly and seems like complete overkill.

Another one of the reasons I am glad to have moved to France, where everyone drives like idiots anyway (you gotta watch out for the French cagers man, they are unbelievable!) but in general it is a much more motorbike friendly country and the culture of the 'moto' is way more accepted. :thumbup:

i wasnt alive and driving when they instituted a 55 mph national limit in the usa.. but where i live (connecticut) most of the highways are 55 mph anyways.. although most traffic flows at around 65-70 no matter whats posted...

OK, well imagine if you went more than 10% over the 55 mph speed limit (so at 61mph), you'd get a ticket through the post for speeding along with a £60 fine, and if you did it 4 times you'd lose your licence for between 4 weeks and a year. I guess that criminalising/taxing motists/bikers are a higher priority in the UK than security etc.

Remeber the UK has a population of 60 million people and 33 million motor vehicles in a country around the same square area as Florida.

"Deaths fell to 3,201 in 2005, a drop of 0.6%, with serious injuries down 7%.
There was also a fall in the number of drink-drive deaths, with 560 in 2005"

So around 1/6th of road related deaths can be avoided by having a 0 limit on any alcohol when driving, Of course that would mean revenues would be down from the taxation on alcohol sales, so the government would lose money by saving lives.

Not that I condone speeding etc, and certainly wouldn't want anyone to lose their life, but when more than 500 lives can be saved just by making it illegal to drink any alcohol and drive/ride then it's a no brainer.

As a father of 2 kids under 7yrs the 20mph rule is perfectly acceptable..nobody is in that much of a rush that they cant slow down past schools and through side streets.the rest of the stuff is beaurocratic bollocks,just more revenue generating to fund MP's "second homes"..lol

What I would like to see is politics separated from road safety. The government sets arbitrary targets and implements policies which the general public think are good; lower speeds...good, higher speeds....bad. Speed although a factor in accidents is not the biggest cause, human error is. Of course telling the people who elected you that you are bad drivers does not go down too well.

They should focus on better road management/engineering not stupid headline policies to distract the public from the appalling mess that they have got us in.

GastonJ said:

OK, well imagine if you went more than 10% over the 55 mph speed limit (so at 61mph), you'd get a ticket through the post for speeding along with a £60 fine, and if you did it 4 times you'd lose your licence for between 4 weeks and a year. I guess that criminalising/taxing motists/bikers are a higher priority in the UK than security etc.

Remeber the UK has a population of 60 million people and 33 million motor vehicles in a country around the same square area as Florida.

"Deaths fell to 3,201 in 2005, a drop of 0.6%, with serious injuries down 7%.
There was also a fall in the number of drink-drive deaths, with 560 in 2005"

So around 1/6th of road related deaths can be avoided by having a 0 limit on any alcohol when driving, Of course that would mean revenues would be down from the taxation on alcohol sales, so the government would lose money by saving lives.

Not that I condone speeding etc, and certainly wouldn't want anyone to lose their life, but when more than 500 lives can be saved just by making it illegal to drink any alcohol and drive/ride then it's a no brainer.

Click to expand...

I agree totaly with you and i express my anger toward the technology... however, it is something we need to live with.. at the end of the day.. 10% over the limit is still "OVER"... I think it is rediculous, but honestly... before hand the technology wasnt there to monitor and enforce the law.. but the law is the law and hey.. we engoy computers and mp3 players and most of us are like.. la ti da to the recording industry... and it is easier than tapes due to "technology".. but when its the other way around.. :thumbup:

at the end of the day, if the speed limit is 65 or 55 or 50.. thats the law.. and we all have to follow the law.. i agree it blows about the cameras, but hopefully they pay off and no one dies and then they raise the limit due to safe drivers.. who knows.. if you want to speed, either go to the auto bahn or accept the concequences... sucks, but thats that

Warwickshire has already imposed 50mph on most major roads. It is lunacy! A clear indication that the people who are making the decisions do not understand road safety.


Some of the best biking roads in the district are now ridiculously limited. And I fear, worse is yet to come.

I agree with Grommit, politics and safety should be separated. However, whatever the law there will always be people who will go way beyond. The problem is at the moment, the majority of people getting hammered by the police are just normal safe drivers going slightly over the speed limit. Not that I condone speeding where their are vulnerable people. I am referring to clear, open dry roads.

In North Wales the police set up checkpoints to pull bikers to check their machines and documents are lawful, in the name of 'safety'. Pure discrimination.

Manx said:

In North Wales the police set up checkpoints to pull bikers to check their machines and documents are lawful, in the name of 'safety'. Pure discrimination.

Click to expand...

dont get me wrong, i certainly don't condon check points... thats just rediculous that they ever came up with check points.. but, are there a number of non-registered bikes up there?? i mean, cops or the police don't normally set up checkpoints without a pretty decent reason...

LERecords said:

dont get me wrong, i certainly don't condon check points... thats just rediculous that they ever came up with check points.. but, are there a number of non-registered bikes up there?? i mean, cops or the police don't normally set up checkpoints without a pretty decent reason...

Click to expand...

The reason is they want to get bikers off the road.

Manx said:

The reason is they want to get bikers off the road.

Click to expand...

bike bikes or motorycles.. i agree the bike/cyclists should either use the sidewalk or the brakedown lane.. or just buy a fz6 and ride

It isn't that they do it that bugs me as much as they way they're implementing it. Take my ride to work for instance, I ride through 2 counties to get there. Easy Yorkshire, have numerous camera vans, take a photo and say hello to 3 points through the post. You may not even be aware of it until the day the ticket arrives through the door.

North Yorkshire, they don't have camera vans, the police cars all have cameras, but in order to get ticket they check your speed and stop you. At that point, you get the chance to talk to the police officer who stops you, to impress on him that you were only slightly over the limit, don't do it often etc.

Two totally different approaches. North Yorjshire is about safety, I see more police officers about in cars, and yes it makes me think. I've been stopped a few times, or just flashed to cut the speed, but only once had a ticket and that was on a motorway, and even then he reduced the speed that he gave me the ticket at.

In East Yorks it's about giving out as many tickets as possible to generate an income, otherwise they'd take the same approach as North Yorkshire. This evening, on the way home, in East Yorks, long straight road, sunny day, no traffic, hidden in the bushes was a police car complete with camera (one of the lasers that record so they can send the ticket). Where's the safety message in that? There isn't. BTW I wasn't speeding, so bad luck on him.

I just hope that the police forces get some say in where the average speed camera's are placed. At the end of the day I'd rather they took North Yorks attitude and used it for safety, not as a tax.

LERecords said:

bike bikes or motorycles.. i agree the bike/cyclists should either use the sidewalk or the brakedown lane.. or just buy a fz6 and ride

Click to expand...

These checkpoints are purely to stop motorcyclists. Not cars. I was stopped last year. I was completely legal, going below the speed limit and was pulled over to have my bike and documents checked. The reason the police officer said when I asked him, was that dead motorcyclists cost too much money to clean up.

And if there is anything wrong, then of course you get a fine to swell the coffers of the government. And 3 points on your licence.

Now as I had nearly been hit by a lorry straddling the centre of the road coming in the opposite direction to me around a bend, I was not in the least bit impressed.

As a cyclist as well, I am also well aware of cars flying past at 60 mph giving you a few mere inches of clearance... Which on the bright side, means I don't suffer with constipation.