A61 Speed Limit

[Cyclone]

Perhaps you should use your ample free time and vigorous rhetorical skills to better effect by becoming a councillor? This would surely be of more use than pathological disputatiousness on an internet forum. You would also get all the access to the evidence that your heart could desire.

 

It's funny how there needs be two sides to have a dispute, but it's only me you've accused of being some made up word which I assume means that I like to dispute things.... Would that be because in this case you happen to agree with the other side of the argument?

 

I have a full time job and no interest in being on the council thanks.

[barleycorn]

Do you think they speed by only a self imposed amount above the speed limit?

 

Lots of drivers do, yes.

 

jb

[anywebsite]

People often do use that argument for human activity; they ask you "how much inconvenience is worth a human life? Are you prepared to discuss your answer the family of the deceased?"

 

When you point out that the logical consequence of that line of argument is to forbid any human being from ever doing anything, they argue that you're being stupid - and never realise that it's their own standpoint which leads to such a ridiculous conclusion.

 

Unless you are, indeed, willing to support the position that no human being ever be allowed to do anything, or go anywhere, or drive at more than zero miles per hour - then you must, in consequence, accept a certain number of deaths in exchange for people having the freedom to do things and go places. The discussion can only be about how much inconvenience is worth one human life.

 

OK, I've worked out how much a life is worth in minutes... Average life expectancy in the UK is about 80.1 years...

 

80.1 × 365.25 × 24 × 60 = 42,129,396 minutes.

 

So if it causes more than 42m minutes of delays per life saved then it's certainly not worth it. Most people killed on the roads aren't newborn babies, so we could probably halve that.

Edited March 26, 2012 by anywebsite

[BarryRiley]

An exemple of a discussion about inconvenience vs. safety, is irrelevant to a discussion about inconvenience vs. safety?

 

How?

 

The fact that a stiff-upper lip attitude caused problems with the passing of the seatbelt law is irrelevant to this specific discussion on the A61 I would say. We're not discussing driving law in general, we're discussing the 50mph limit imposed on that road.

[HeadingNorth]

The fact that a stiff-upper lip attitude caused problems with the passing of the seatbelt law is irrelevant to this specific discussion on the A61 I would say. We're not discussing driving law in general, we're discussing the 50mph limit imposed on that road.

 

And how do you propose to have any kind of sensible discussion about it, without consideration of general driving rules and what is and is not a reasonable inconvenience for the sake of saving lives?

[Captain_Scarlet]

If there's a blind bend where people turn right, then 60 is not a sensible limit.

The 60 limit is, the turning right isn't

[Planner1]

15 slight and serious injuries in a 5 year period on a road leading on to one of the biggest motorways in the country? Surely that's not in any way excessive

5 in five years would usually be sufficient to raise concerns on any relatively short stretch of road, so 15, even on a fairly busy road, would indicate that it probably needs investigation.

[Eater Sundae]

5 in five years would usually be sufficient to raise concerns on any relatively short stretch of road, so 15, even on a fairly busy road, would indicate that it probably needs investigation.

 

It surprised me how many there were on that stretch. Thankfully they all seemed to be "slight". I wonder if most were actually minor nose to tail bumps in queueing traffic, as at quieter times speeds would be higher, with more risk of injury

[Planner1]

It surprised me how many there were on that stretch. Thankfully they all seemed to be "slight". I wonder if most were actually minor nose to tail bumps in queueing traffic, as at quieter times speeds would be higher, with more risk of injury

There were a couple of serious ones (which means broken bones, hospitalisation etc). Crashmap only covers 2005-10, from recollection, I believe there may have been fatals on that stretch more recently.

[Doom]

I'm not sure how people can equate the reduced speed limit to time on this road.

 

Obviously if you make the assumption that the average speed drops down from 60mph to 50mph and then calculate that against the full length of this road you can make a calculation, but it's not that simple.

 

There are only a 3 stretches I ever manage to get up to 60 mph and from experience if I did reach that speed, all it usually meant was that I'd get to Miss Dolly Daydream who was travelling at 40mph a bit quicker.

 

So from experience i'd say that reducing it to 50 mph will generally get me from High Green to Grenoside in the same time because I can only go as quick as the slowest motorist at the front of the queue.

 

The only time I will reach my destination quicker is when the roads are quiet first thing Sunday Morning and late in the Evenings, but those are the times the road gets used the least, hence why they're quiet.

 

I really think people are making a mountain out of a molehill with this and the overall time impact in reality is very little.

 

Now if someone was to question why the speed limit from Morrisons to Netherthorpe is only 30 mph I'd agree with that. To this day I do not undertsand how they could come up with that on a dual carriageway with very little in the way of pedestrians. It feels so painfully slow at 30 mph that very few people actually stick to that limit.....I guess that's why I've never seen the police with a speed gun down there, because they also know it's the wrong speed limit for the road.

 

Regards

 

Doom

Edited March 27, 2012 by Doom