Jump to content
Fancy running a forum? Sheffield Forum is for sale! Learn more

Beighton Bypass A57 speed limit

Recommended Posts

I

After one force suggested fining people on the M1 at 71mph in their stretch, simply to raise funds and with no pretence at safety benefits, maybe SCC have decided to expand their revenue streams by lowering speeds unnecessarily, and then reaping the fines... Someone needs to pay for the next town hall white elephant project, whatever they dream up next!

 

Have a read of stuff that goes against the easy (facile) "Councils bag speeding fines cash" reasoning:

 

Income from speeding fines goes into what is known as the Treasury's consolidated fund, which is a bit of jargon that really means the Government's own bank account I.e. There is no strong financial incentive, locally, for a speed limit reduction. Think again rather than regurgitate what the Sun-reading man in the pub told you. (Was he the politicking Police Commissioner from Beds.?)

 

And scroll down through this for an answer as to where speeding fines go:

http://www.ukmotorists.com/speeding%20fines.asp. I hold no brief for this site (it could do with updating its stats a little) but it's one that is returned on a Google search.

 

And before anyone suggests, quite correctly, that safety is "not guaranteed by a number on a stick" and that drivers can "drive to the conditions" you need to know that's rot.

Typically, yesterday, I met four drivers who were, for starters, very flaky on what NSL was on different types of road, for different vehicles. I stress that yesterday's delegates were not unusual in their flaky ignorance (keeps me in work!)

 

Two of them, my two (one early 20's, the other 40-ish both male) had no idea about tyre pressures (one had never checked his), neither knew what the legal tread was and its function was a revelation to both of them. Neither had any idea that how the tread's function stops working effectively at a level well before the legal limit.

As we enter Winter, any suggestion that "drivers should be allowed to drive to the conditions" is met with some scepticism from me, you'll understand. How many of you can identify with these two delegates of mine? How many of you have any understanding of what I'm talking about? Unlike my face-to-face contact with my delegates you will be able to hide behind your keyboard. If you don't know, get down to Quikfit et al and ask since you only have 4 points of contact with the road. (You can imagine what happens to a table if you cut one of the four legs off?)

Edited by DT Ralge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
After one force suggested fining people on the M1 at 71mph in their stretch, simply to raise funds and with no pretence at safety benefits, maybe SCC have decided to expand their revenue streams by lowering speeds unnecessarily, and then reaping the fines... Someone needs to pay for the next town hall white elephant project, whatever they dream up next!

 

This was Bedfordshire, and it wasn't the force itself it was their Police and Crime Commissioner.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11975971/Motorists-face-zero-tolerance-approach-to-speeding-on-the-motorways.html

 

This strikes me as political kite flying, and unlikely to actually happen. But I might be wrong, in which case everyone will have to slow down.

 

See: http://www.bedfordshire.pcc.police.uk/News-and-Events/Archived-News/2015/PR-247.aspx, which is his press release.

 

“In addition to the speed cameras option – I am also prepared to examine selling sponsorship of our police uniforms and vehicles. To those who say this is not the way they want things to go I say sign our petition calling on the Government to adequate funding for Bedfordshire Police. We have to make them listen.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are getting tetchy. Stay cool, admit when you are wrong, and you may gain my respect. :)

 

End of chat.

 

How can I be wrong? I'm asking a question... Had you not even grasped that it's a question?

 

Do you accept now that there is evidence that more cyclists increases road safety?

 

---------- Post added 10-11-2015 at 09:05 ----------

 

I

 

Have a read of stuff that goes against the easy (facile) "Councils bag speeding fines cash" reasoning:

 

Income from speeding fines goes into what is known as the Treasury's consolidated fund, which is a bit of jargon that really means the Government's own bank account I.e. There is no strong financial incentive, locally, for a speed limit reduction. Think again rather than regurgitate what the Sun-reading man in the pub told you. (Was he the politicking Police Commissioner from Beds.?)

 

And scroll down through this for an answer as to where speeding fines go:

http://www.ukmotorists.com/speeding%20fines.asp. I hold no brief for this site (it could do with updating its stats a little) but it's one that is returned on a Google search.

 

And before anyone suggests, quite correctly, that safety is "not guaranteed by a number on a stick" and that drivers can "drive to the conditions" you need to know that's rot.

Typically, yesterday, I met four drivers who were, for starters, very flaky on what NSL was on different types of road, for different vehicles. I stress that yesterday's delegates were not unusual in their flaky ignorance (keeps me in work!)

 

Two of them, my two (one early 20's, the other 40-ish both male) had no idea about tyre pressures (one had never checked his), neither knew what the legal tread was and its function was a revelation to both of them. Neither had any idea that how the tread's function stops working effectively at a level well before the legal limit.

As we enter Winter, any suggestion that "drivers should be allowed to drive to the conditions" is met with some scepticism from me, you'll understand. How many of you can identify with these two delegates of mine? How many of you have any understanding of what I'm talking about? Unlike my face-to-face contact with my delegates you will be able to hide behind your keyboard. If you don't know, get down to Quikfit et al and ask since you only have 4 points of contact with the road. (You can imagine what happens to a table if you cut one of the four legs off?)

 

Is it this?

 

https://secure.img1.wfrcdn.com/lf/47/hash/31439/13037368/1/Side%2BTable.jpg

 

(No, I don't own a Robin Reliant).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How can I be wrong? I'm asking a question... Had you not even grasped that it's a question?

 

Do you accept now that there is evidence that more cyclists increases road safety?

 

---------- Post added 10-11-2015 at 09:05 ----------

 

 

Is it this?

 

https://secure.img1.wfrcdn.com/lf/47/hash/31439/13037368/1/Side%2BTable.jpg

 

(No, I don't own a Robin Reliant).

 

Sorry, it's now end of chat, he can't reply. :hihi:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stick to the speed limit then its not a problem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I can't work out your shift from "why the reduction in limit, have there been crashes?" to "having a widow-maker lane is pretty dangerous".

Have i missed pages of posts on this thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't think so. Nobody has any actual information about why the limit was changed. I guess there's no readily available data on RTIs on the stretch, the council are never open about these things.

So assuming that there is a danger, the most obvious source would be that lane wouldn't it? In which case altering the speed limit is missing the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't think so. Nobody has any actual information about why the limit was changed. I guess there's no readily available data on RTIs on the stretch, the council are never open about these things.

So assuming that there is a danger, the most obvious source would be that lane wouldn't it? In which case altering the speed limit is missing the point.

 

I think you are wrong about the Council not being open about such things - and a FOI request would sort that out.

You may be right about getting rid of the widow-maker but that probably costs more money than changing the limit. I'm not well-enough informed or qualified to do the cost-benefit analysis.

Does changing the limit achieve anything? There's plenty of poor attitudes to limits etc etc in evidence in here and elsewhere to suggest that non-compliance (to whatever limit) is almost the norm (the Council's default position is incompetence, after all, and the sneaky Road Safety Partnership bods are after your money for their Xmas party, don't you know).

The Council have to look for cost-effective and effective solutions to perceived problems (they will NOT have changed anything on that road without a history that suggests they should change something). What I have always moaned about is their lack of engagement, their poor PR when they do change something (and it ISN'T always speed limit), so we agree on something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An FOI request forces them to answer. If they were open about it, then they would have published the information without a legal crowbar being applied.

 

The council have been demonstrated to not be interested in road safety when they lowered the limit on a road where the study they commissioned told them not to. I believe they have some sort of ideological basis for applying 50 limits to NSL roads as often as possible and without reference to whether it's warranted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are getting tetchy. Stay cool, admit when you are wrong, and you may gain my respect. :)

 

End of chat.

 

Who would want your respect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.