Wharncliffe Side speed limits

[Cyclone 10]

Given that it's physically impossible to cause an accident by going slowly, I'm amazed that people still try to insist that most accidents are caused by people going slowly.

 

Do stationary objects get blamed for people driving into them? Because if you can't avoid an object moving at 20mph you have even less chance of avoiding one moving at zero.

 

We've established that you can alter the behaviour of others by driving slowly and increase the risk of an accident.

By your logic it's impossible for a stationary object to contribute to an accident, like say a tree fallen across the road.

[Cyclone 10]

To get back to the original post, I was thinking exactly the same last week when I took that route. I used to live at Wharncliffe Side and I remember when there were signs saying 'slow' as you approached the bends and a 35mph speed limit. Considering the number of accidents and fatalities on these bends over the years, the 50mph sign gives the wrong impression in my opinion.

 

Presumably you and the OP would like every road with a tight bend on it to have a reduced speed limit imposed then?

Would it not be easier to just slow down anyway when you see the bend?

I don't understand the problem the OP has. If the limit said 150mph, would they feel obliged to drive at that speed?

As another example, the S bends at Todwick on the A57 are on an NSL A road (60 mph for cars). They quite often have accidents there, should the entire road be made a 40 limit then? I don't think so, my car will go around the bends at 60 in the dry, in the wet I wouldn't dream of trying it, just drive competently and in theory you shouldn't even need to refer to the speed limit because you'll be driving within the speed that you, the car and the conditions dictate.

[Annoni_mouse 10]

We've established that you can alter the behaviour of others by driving slowly and increase the risk of an accident.

By your logic it's impossible for a stationary object to contribute to an accident, like say a tree fallen across the road.

 

The difference being that a static object is not going anywhere - you have to deal with the obstruction or park up and not move. A slow moving vehicle will still be moving and you will still get to your destination, all be it a little later than you had planned. How you respond to the slow moving vehicle is entirely up to you, if you get frustrated and attempt a dangerous manouver then that decicision is yours - you shouldnt blame the slow vehicle for your own impatiance.

 

But you and I have had this same discussion before and I already know we will never agree.

[Cyclone 10]

You're probably correct, we won't agree, although we don't entirely disagree. The responsibility for the dangerous manoeuvre is still on the overtaker, but the situation couldn't exist without the slow mover.

[Annoni_mouse 10]

You're probably correct, we won't agree, although we don't entirely disagree. The responsibility for the dangerous manoeuvre is still on the overtaker, but the situation couldn't exist without the slow mover.

 

Can't really disagree with any of that

[Cyclone 10]

Can't really disagree with any of that

 

But through creating the situation I attribute some of the responsibility to the slow mover, which is where we disagree I believe.

[Annoni_mouse 10]

But through creating the situation I attribute some of the responsibility to the slow mover, which is where we disagree I believe.

 

Well, in the sitution you describe, there certainly wouldn't be a situation without a slow moving vehicle however, as a driver you have to be prepared to handle any situation including slow moving vehicles which may have no choice but to travel slowly.

 

I find the proportioning of whole of the blame to the slow driver simply because the driver of the following car is 'frustrated' to be laughable, if I'm honest. As a pro driver I can tell you without hesitation that if I were involved in an accident attempting to overtake a slow moving vehicle and I gave the excuse that I had become frustrated by the slow speed of the vehicle in front, I would lose my job, no question.

 

That there is some responsibility to be attributed to the slow moving driver, if they are driving slowly through lack of confidence or ignorance of the speed limit, I would agree with although for me the bulk of the reponsibility lies with the overtaker.

 

If that long winded explanation makes sense

[Cyclone 10]

I think you've just described the opinion that I've always held.

 

Back to the OP though, a road shouldn't be zoned based on the maximum safe speed of the most difficult bit of the road, drivers are expected to slow down appropriately for corners, junctions and other hazards. It's the kind of thinking the OP demonstrates that has seen the snake pass reduced to a 50 limit.

[Penistone999 10]

Nor would they have passed a test driving like that,yet some posters here would like us to think that this sub standard driving is ok and more to the point safe,its not!

 

Indeed. Ok, its going back 30 years ,but i remember on my lessons my driving instructor telling me that i would pick up minor faults on my test if i drove too slow . .

[serelle 10]

Presumably you and the OP would like every road with a tight bend on it to have a reduced speed limit imposed then?

Would it not be easier to just slow down anyway when you see the bend?

I don't understand the problem the OP has. If the limit said 150mph, would they feel obliged to drive at that speed?

As another example, the S bends at Todwick on the A57 are on an NSL A road (60 mph for cars). They quite often have accidents there, should the entire road be made a 40 limit then? I don't think so, my car will go around the bends at 60 in the dry, in the wet I wouldn't dream of trying it, just drive competently and in theory you shouldn't even need to refer to the speed limit because you'll be driving within the speed that you, the car and the conditions dictate.

 

No of course not, but to raise the speed limit to 50 at the beginning of the bend does not make sense, I think it would be more appropriate to raise it AFTER the bend. It IS a double bend and this is what has caused most of the accidents there.

[metalman 21]

No of course not, but to raise the speed limit to 50 at the beginning of the bend does not make sense, I think it would be more appropriate to raise it AFTER the bend. It IS a double bend and this is what has caused most of the accidents there.

 

All what accidents? Nobody has yet provided any evidence that there have been any serious accidents on this stretch of road, unless I've missed it.

[sccsux 10]

You don't remember the National Speed Limit signs then or the 30mph limit being much closer to the village (Oughti) than it is now?

 

Used to be a much more interesting route when it was a 60, plus dealing with all the heavy goods vehicles the bypass now accomodates instead.

 

Aah, happy days:).