Is the speed limit of 60 on rural (I presume this means B rated roads not in the city) acceptable.

I'm asking because I heard a story on the news earlier, the results of which say that 2/3rds of drivers think it's too high, I find that difficult to believe.

It's a limit, not a target. The problem is that most drivers are too thick to think for themselves any more (mirror, signal, switch off brain and we're away!), so we end up with this 'nanny' scenario whereby limits are reduced and further reduced. Please God I hope it stops one day, it's not and never will be the answer to improving road safety. :(

If people read the road & drove at an appropriate speed for the conditions, treating speed limits as LIMITS then there would be nothing to discuss.

Unfortunately this won't happen as Britian's drivers have, IMHO, simply become too thick. :roll:

I think a minimum limit should be introduced on some roads.

This reminds of the story about the guy driving on the motorway in fog.
The advisory limit signs had been set at 50.
The the fog became much thicker.
Before they had a chance to lower the advisory limit, they recieved a call from an irate driver 'You cant see anything up here, how do you expect me to do 50 in this lot' :D
As you say for some people its engage gear, disengage brain.

Not actually many people voted, but so far it would appear that sheffielders don't agree with whoever the news report had surveyed earlier.

A survey published today by the insurer Direct Line found that three in four motorists thought the 60mph speed limit on rural roads was too high. More than a quarter admitted breaking the limit, mostly because they thought there was less traffic and fewer pedstrians on rural roads

This sounds like the vaguest collection of nonesense results to try to make a point that i've ever heard.
75% thought the limit was too high.
25% admitted breaking the existing limit.

So can we assume that they aren't the same people? Why would you suggest lowering the limit and also admit to currently breaking it.
In which case, apparently no one thinks the limit is about right. Which seems pretty unlikely to me.

The survey of 2,600 drivers by YouGov also found that: two in three drivers did not know the speed limit for rural roads;

So now 66% don't actually know what the limit is. This can't include the 25% who admit to breaking it (you have to know what it is to know you've broken it). So that means that of the 75% who said it should be lowered, 88% didn't actually know what it was. These people shouldn't be listened too, they should be locked up for their own safety.

more than half thought there should be more speed signs in the country; and more than 60 per cent said that learner drivers should have compulsory lessons in country driving.

Presumably the 50%+ here that want more signs are the same ones above that don't know the limit, but think it should be lowered. If more signs are needed they should be tatoo'd on the backs of their hands.

Compulsory lessons in the countryside... I suppose a few people might solely learn in a city, but to be honest, driving on road with few junctions, relatively few signs, only 1 lane in each direction and very few traffic lights and roundabouts is a damn sight easier for a learner than trying to tackle the city centre.

I'll give you an opinion being a natural born bumpkin. ;)

If the roads are narrow or have houses, the speed limit should be lowered, just as in towns as there are still hazards. On open and wide roads, a higher limit is OK just as it is in towns.

The hazards in rural areas are different - livestock and wildlife on roads, mud, sudden appearances of tractors, horses, cyclists, hikers, etc. Plus roads with ditches on either side, hidden hedges (those scary Cornish lanes!), bad road surfacing, no street lighting or pavements etc. Also less likelihood of gritting in winter. All in all, I'd say country roads can be just as hazardous.

I wouldn't argue. But a speed limit isn't supposed to replace the brain of the driver. Often a lower speed is appropriate, depending on conditions.

RE:housing, the limit always drops while a rural road passes housing, at least in yorkshire.

I wouldn't argue. But a speed limit isn't supposed to replace the brain of the driver. Often a lower speed is appropriate, depending on conditions.

RE:housing, the limit always drops while a rural road passes housing, at least in yorkshire.

Not past my parents' house - which is just one of several in a long line along one side of a lane, which ends in a tight double bend. It was also a 70 limit by my primary school.

I believe there is a move afoot to change all the speed limits.
I think it used to be based on the road class and area (built up, rural etc).
Round here they seem to have started already.
The country lanes are still deristricted, but on most of those you cant do above about 20 anyway.
On the main deristricted roads they have come down to 50 and the 40 limit seems to have dissappeared with all those at 30 now.
In areas with large ethnic populations the limit is 20 for some reason, this does not apply anywhere else, except outside certain schools.
Even on three lane dual carriage ways the limit is 50.
All this is backed up more cameras than you can shake a stick at.
These limits were imposed without public consultation, to my knowledge anyway.
Wether this area is being used as a testing ground I do not know.
It is nuisance as when you are used to doing 60, and then find your self restricted to 30, on a long straight stretch of country trunk road it is maddening. All it does is cause queues to form and encourages dangerous driving by people overtaking them.
I think the people who come up with plans have never driven in their lives.

Not past my parents' house - which is just one of several in a long line along one side of a lane, which ends in a tight double bend. It was also a 70 limit by my primary school.

a 70 limit. Oh dear, are you adding yourself to the group who don't know what the national speed limit is? Or was that a dual carriageway passing your primary school :hihi:

where's 'around here' artisan?

a 70 limit. Oh dear, are you adding yourself to the group who don't know what the national speed limit is? Or was that a dual carriageway passing your primary school :hihi:

Heh! Hey, that's what it felt like as a small child waiting for the lollipop lady at the side of that scary road anyway. ;)

where's 'around here' artisan?
Sorry forgot to say, Huddersfield/Halifax area. It has all the mixture of roads from motorways and high speed trunk roads to small narrow country lanes.
I was just wondering if the were using it as test bed before imposing these on the rest of the country

I think I know the area you mean, i've driven from sheffield to halifax (well, onto keithley actually) a few times via huddersfield, and there are several dual carriageways with 50 limits for no apparent reason.

Once you get back out of the built up areas though the normal 60 limit applies doesn't it?

I think a minimum limit should be introduced on some roads.
It has,
don't you know what the sign is for a minimum speed limit?
and
Are you aware of the regulations for motorway driving?

If not I suggest you get a new version of the Highway code.

unlike the usa though, the minimum limit is extremely rarely used in the uk.
I don't think it actually achieves very much though, as specifying a minimum of 40 and max of 60 still leaves room for the dawdler on a perfectly good day and straight road, and the idiot on a wet or icy day when light is bad and the road is twisty.

I may be wrong, but I think that the only instances of the 'minimum' being used are at the Mersey and Dartford Tunnels.

I'm fine with a 60 mph Rural Limit. People do need to be aware of the different risks and dangers but a reduction will only make criminals out of people on stretches where 60 may be an appropriate, safe, speed.

The rural speed limit is often too high for the conditions.
Many actually think the national speed limit on single carraigeways is 70MPH, not 60MPH.
This isn't helped by poorley place signage. On one particuarl rural road that I sometimes drive on the National Speed limit sign is displayed after coming out of a 40MPH zone. If you weren't familiar with this round you would speed up
only to be confronted by a round about yards away.
It would make better sense to put the National speed limit beyond the roundabout in this case.
Rural roads also tend to be badly light at night so reducing the speed limit on twisty narrow roads wouldn't be a bad idea.

I disagree, what would be a good idea would be people reducing the speed they drive at when conditions are bad, ie low visibility or driving on an unfamiliar road.
Why reduce the limit to cater for the worst conditions, when the majority of the time the conditions are fine.

People shouldn't even have passed their driving test if they don't know what the national limits are on all types of roads for all the vehicles that they drive.

In the example you give above, if you can't look yards ahead and see a roundabout approaching, then there's something wrong with your driving anyway.

The rural speed limit is often too high for the conditions.
Many actually think the national speed limit on single carraigeways is 70MPH, not 60MPH.
This isn't helped by poorley place signage. On one particuarl rural road that I sometimes drive on the National Speed limit sign is displayed after coming out of a 40MPH zone. If you weren't familiar with this round you would speed up
only to be confronted by a round about yards away.
It would make better sense to put the National speed limit beyond the roundabout in this case.
Rural roads also tend to be badly light at night so reducing the speed limit on twisty narrow roads wouldn't be a bad idea.

Just because the road is deristricted does not mean that you have to do 60 along it.
If you go putting signs up everywhere the countryside will be littered with them.
People have to use some sense.
I rememder a traffic cop talking about this a while ago, he said
'If some one was driving through the town centre at 30 on a busy Saturday afternoon, I would consider that too fast. If they were driving on a quiet motorway at 30 I would consider that too slow.'
If everyone drove correctly there would be no need for speed limits.
If they took into account road conditions, the area they are in and the vehicle they are driving there would be no problem.
The major problem any way is motorway driving, but that is not the theme of this thread.

it is?
Having looked up the origin of this report the statistics have motorways as being the safest roads in the country (as everyone already knew probably) and rural roads being the most dangerous.
But changing the speed limit isn't the right way to improve safety on rural roads.

KingMaker - Over the winter there was an unexpected snowfall one evening (there's probably a thread about it). The parkway turned into a sheet of slush. The safe speed was about 10 mph. Using the argument about limits and conditions we should impose a 10 mph limit on the parkway as in the worst conditions anything faster wouldn't be safe.

I may be wrong, but I think that the only instances of the 'minimum' being used are at the Mersey and Dartford Tunnels

These are the only places ive ever seen them

it is?
Having looked up the origin of this report the statistics have motorways as being the safest roads in the country (as everyone already knew probably)

Yes I think it is, the max limit should be at least 100mph. Modern cars brakes and tyres are more than adequate.
The problem is that people dont know how to use them
I know a bloke who has only just passed his test at 40 years old, who somehow thinks that the right hand lane is the 'fast' lane
He gave me a lift a while ago, and was driving in the right hand lane at 80 while the other two lanes were completely clear.
Someone came up behind, and he hogged the lane until the bloke had to pass on the inside.
He then said look at that idiot passing on the inside.
Ipointed out to him that he should be in the left hand lane, so faster traffic can pass. He replied that that was the slow lane and he liked to go fast on the M'way.
This is from someone who has just passed their test dont forget.
I thought these days they had a theory test where all these erronious ideas were put to rest.
IMO unless people have passed a seperate 'add-on' for fast roads they should not be allowed to used the M'way network.

fair enough, i'd like to see variable limits on motorways that go up and down depending on conditions and congestion.
I know that my car is perfectly capable of safely doing 100 mph, but it doesn't mean that I should be able to try it in rush hour traffic.

You have to wonder where people get ideas like that. Surely when you are learning to drive you at least read through the highway code once. I know I read it quite a few times. So how you end up with a stupid idea like your aquaintance above I can't imagine.

[/QUOTE]


Presumably the 50%+ here that want more signs are the same ones above that don't know the limit, but think it should be lowered. If more signs are needed they should be tatoo'd on the backs of their hands.

[/QUOTE]

This also means 16% of drivers don't know the speed limit and don't want signs to tell them :loopy: The must just be happy in their ignornace. You could prgress this and remove other signs "don't you dare tell me where the junction is, i'll find out when i hit something" or "traffic lights, they're for wimps"

Speed limits are basically estimated at the average safe top speed for average conditions on the stretch of road, for the average car and average driver. I agree, it would be a whole lot better if people did not actually need them as this would suggest they all had the common sense to know when to go far slower - and on some stretches of motorway higher speeds than 70mph would be reasonably safe. But people don't have that common sense, so we have to have speed limits set for average conditions. Hopefully one too many spins and near misses on icy mornings make people realise that the speed limit is indeed not a target!

They're based on the 85% percentile, not the average. Same basic principle however.

Speed limits are basically estimated at the average safe top speed for average conditions on the stretch of road, for the average car and average driver. I agree, it would be a whole lot better if people did not actually need them as this would suggest they all had the common sense to know when to go far slower - and on some stretches of motorway higher speeds than 70mph would be reasonably safe. But people don't have that common sense, so we have to have speed limits set for average conditions. Hopefully one too many spins and near misses on icy mornings make people realise that the speed limit is indeed not a target!

The limits were set however for the average driver in the average car in 1964.
So 70 mph might be the safe average limit for a ford anglia with drum brakes all around, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's the safe average for todays most common car (the focus isn't it?).

All I can say is that it's a good job that most cars are front wheel drive.
It's really surprised me how twitchy my new car is in the wet, and a couple of times the trick electronics have saved me. That was while I was still getting used to it, it's no problem now, I just have to give it a bit more respect if the roads are wet.

. Hopefully one too many spins and near misses on icy mornings make people realise that the speed limit is indeed not a target!

Sliding on ice is the wierdest feeling, no control at all.
One morning making a 6 am start I turned into the carpark, only doing about 10mph as it was an icy, dark morning, and the car just carried on going,... sideways!
No steering, no braking effect at all. It was a massive carpark and empty thank luck. When I eventually stopped, I saw the entire area was covered in black ice.
Before I could get the gritter organised other people were arriving, and it was like a ballet on ice, but with motor cars and motor bikes. :hihi:

I may be wrong, but I think that the only instances of the 'minimum' being used are at the Mersey and Dartford Tunnels.

The most important instance of minimum speed limit is on motorways.
at 30 I feel it is too low and should be 40mph

Assuming that everyone who's going to vote has done so. It would seem that sheffielders do not agree with the direct line survey.
Instead of 75% thinking that limits on rural roads should be reduced, we have only 20% thinking that. Whilst nearly as many think they should be increased and the rest are happy as they are.

More than completely the opposite of their results! Makes you wonder exactly what questions they asked and who they asked.

The most important instance of minimum speed limit is on motorways.
at 30 I feel it is too low and should be 40mph

There is no set minimum speed limit on motorways.
For those few bridges and tunnels where minimum limits apply, they are well -sign posted.

60 is fine really, half of the time you end up getting stuck behind someone going slower anyways so it wouldn't make a difference. Nothing like being able to open it up on a clear bendy B-road :)

Assuming that everyone who's going to vote has done so. It would seem that sheffielders do not agree with the direct line survey.
Instead of 75% thinking that limits on rural roads should be reduced, we have only 20% thinking that. Whilst nearly as many think they should be increased and the rest are happy as they are.

More than completely the opposite of their results! Makes you wonder exactly what questions they asked and who they asked.

Not really Cyclone, I've worked in the Market Research industry and the most likely cause of this discrepancy is likely to be sample size and demographic representation.
Your small sample of 30 people is unlikely to include all demographic groups,
whereas any serious survey always includes a quota of all demographic groups that qualify and certainly have a much bigger sample than 30.
What you have here is a "snapshot" of opinion amongst people who have
registered to the Sheffield forum and that isn't really representative of the
whole of Sheffield let alone the UK.

And if you are experienced in doing research then you'll also be well aware that they way you word the questions and the possible answers can be tailored to get the result you wished to see.

I deliberately made my question as neutral as possible, if not my first post, I seriously doubt that Direct Line did the same.

"On a dangerous narrow B road in poor conditions, do you agree that it would be wise to drive slower?"

Most people answer yes.

DirectLine interpret that as 'Most people agree that the speed limit on rural roads should be lowered'.

Without seeing the survey, the specific questions and who was asked it's impossible to verify it's accuracy. One thing can be said though, and that is that it doesn't match the results we are seeing here.

Alternatively maybe it was a fair survey and they mailed it to the families of road accident victims, or to road safety campaign mailing lists etc...

And if you are experienced in doing research then you'll also be well aware that they way you word the questions and the possible answers can be tailored to get the result you wished to see.

I deliberately made my question as neutral as possible, if not my first post, I seriously doubt that Direct Line did the same.



Cyclone, I used to train staff on how we came up with the structure of scripts and wording of questions on surveys.
Whilst you have a point about the script playing a part it won't play as much of a part as getting a balanced demographic.
I cannot speak for this particular Direct line survey but many companies commission established Market Research companies to carry out their research for them.
I do recall though that Direct Line did use the services of the company I use to work for quite often.
We made sure that the questions were not leading or influencial in any way
so that the results recorded were unbiased and not slanted or skewed in anyway.

There is no set minimum speed limit on motorways.

If you were doing less that 50mph the police used to stop and ask why.

I'm a bit late to this thread but have voted 60 is okay. That's not cos I'm in favour of speed limits, quite the opposite, but there is just so much else wrong with road policy in this country I'm fairly ambivalent about NSL on rural roads. I do concede that if I am driving eg, the Fosse Way at 4.30 on a summers morning I may find an 80 limit more appropriate.

Sorry forgot to say, Huddersfield/Halifax area. It has all the mixture of roads from motorways and high speed trunk roads to small narrow country lanes.
I was just wondering if the were using it as test bed before imposing these on the rest of the country
I drove that route yesterday Keighley to Sheff (A629) at evening peak hour and the other half an I commented on the no of speed cameras. At one point we counted 3 pairs within about 500 yards. Madness. Did someone get a cheap job lot of those new small digi cams?

I've voted No, it should eb lower, but only because there wasn't an option for "lower it around housing". Our lass's parents live on a B road, and only in recent years did they successfully get it lowered from 60 to 30. Now the average speed of traffic going past their house is 50 instead of 80. A start, I guess.

Her mum wasn't best pleased one day when we were all in her car, sat stationary on the road waiting to turn right into her driveway, indicating right, when someone behind noticed us at the last second, slammed on the brakes (hell of a screech) and came to a halt not six inches from her rear bumper. A very lucky escape. But it shouldn't have even come so close to a collision - the idiot should have been doing 30, not 70.

Cyclone, I used to train staff on how we came up with the structure of scripts and wording of questions on surveys.
Whilst you have a point about the script playing a part it won't play as much of a part as getting a balanced demographic.
I cannot speak for this particular Direct line survey but many companies commission established Market Research companies to carry out their research for them.
I do recall though that Direct Line did use the services of the company I use to work for quite often.
We made sure that the questions were not leading or influencial in any way
so that the results recorded were unbiased and not slanted or skewed in anyway.

When it comes to market research there are two types of people,

Those that will tell you anything to please you
and
Those that will tell you anything to get away from you

It is the kind of modern job that creates itself
For instance-
Question:- What do you think about Market Research?

It is the IT version of perpetual motion :D

When it comes to market research there are two types of people,

Those that will tell you anything to please you
and
Those that will tell you anything to get away from you

It is the kind of modern job that creates itself
For instance-
Question:- What do you think about Market Research?

It is the IT version of perpetual motion :D

We have a name for those types and we factor that into end results.
We call it sample error!
Usually it's quite accurate apart from the 1992 General Election!

I've voted No, it should eb lower, but only because there wasn't an option for "lower it around housing". Our lass's parents live on a B road, and only in recent years did they successfully get it lowered from 60 to 30. Now the average speed of traffic going past their house is 50 instead of 80. A start, I guess.

Her mum wasn't best pleased one day when we were all in her car, sat stationary on the road waiting to turn right into her driveway, indicating right, when someone behind noticed us at the last second, slammed on the brakes (hell of a screech) and came to a halt not six inches from her rear bumper. A very lucky escape. But it shouldn't have even come so close to a collision - the idiot should have been doing 30, not 70.

Maybe I should have specifically said "rural roads that aren't in villages". If there's housing present then the road isn't the one I was talking about, I agree with the limit dropping whenever there's a significant risk factor like that.

Regarding surveys - I've seen the questioned asked in some youGov polls, and if they were any more biased they would be pre filled in and all they'd do is add your name to the top.
Companies that commission the polls are doing one of two things, proper research into a market or trying to justify an opinion.
Since direct line has nothing to do with setting speed limits and it won't affect their sales of insurance, i'd say that they have some other motive, and so the survey was commissioned to support that.