Beighton Bypass A57 speed limit

[Cyclone 10]

Perhaps it should be. But when the council keep lowering perfectly good NSL limits to 50 mph I'm not surprised that some people choose to ignore them when the conditions are appropriate.

[maggidee 10]

they still race down normanton hill at silly speeds i wish the camera was there a lot more

[the fonz 10]

when the conditions are appropriate.

 

Who decides that then, the boy racer in his corsa who has just passed his test, mr aggro in his audi, or maybe even someones grandma driving at 30?

 

You think you are a good driver? most people do, most people aren't.

Edited November 18, 2015 by the fonz

[Cyclone 10]

Most people think they are better than average (not the same as good), but 50% of people (by definition) can't be better than average.

 

Of course what defines 'good' is a very important question. It's not the same as 'fast' nor is it the same as 'slow'. It could be defined as 'safe' perhaps, but you'd probably say that Jenson Button is a pretty good driver, yet he crashes sometimes!

 

If someone is incapable of assessing conditions, then they shouldn't be allowed to drive when it's foggy, or wet or snowy or cold...

Edited November 18, 2015 by Cyclone

[the fonz 10]

Most people think they are better than average (not the same as good), but 50% of people (by definition) can't be better than average.

 

Of course what defines 'good' is a very important question. It's not the same as 'fast' nor is it the same as 'slow'. It could be defined as 'safe' perhaps, but you'd probably say that Jenson Button is a pretty good driver, yet he crashes sometimes!

 

Exactly, its subjective, as is the use of the word appropriate.

[Cyclone 10]

I'm not sure what your point is though... I started the thread to ask why the limit had been reduced, and there doesn't appear to be an answer.

The council seem to have adopted a policy of reducing all NSL limits that they can.

[the fonz 10]

I'm not sure what your point is though... I started the thread to ask why the limit had been reduced, and there doesn't appear to be an answer.

The council seem to have adopted a policy of reducing all NSL limits that they can.

 

The answer is that someone thought there were driving at an appropriate speed and had a crash.

 

I do agree that the council seem to be taking every opportunity they can to make roads slower in an effort to increase safety.

Edited November 18, 2015 by the fonz

[Cyclone 10]

No it isn't. Not unless you have some evidence that nobody else has access to.

 

And supposing for a minute that you were correct. What difference would altering the speed limit make to someone who's ignoring the speed limit?

 

If 60 is safe and someone crashed at 75 (for example), how does that justify making the limit 50?

 

The council probably think exactly like you do though.

 

---------- Post added 18-11-2015 at 16:45 ----------

 

I do agree that the council seem to be taking every opportunity they can to make roads slower in an effort to increase safety.

 

This simply isn't the case.

 

They lowered the limit on the A57 from Rivelin to Ladybower, AGAINST the advice of the report they commissioned, which said that there was no case for it and it wouldn't improve safety!

Edited November 18, 2015 by Cyclone

[the fonz 10]

No it isn't. Not unless you have some evidence that nobody else has access to.

 

More of the 'Worst Road First' safety schemes Planner1 has referred to elsewhere.

 

http://sheffielddemocracy.moderngov.co.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=1331

 

'The introduction of a 50mph speed limit along with additional signing and lining improvements will bring about a reduction in the number and severity of road traffic collisions.'

 

---------- Post added 18-11-2015 at 16:49 ----------

 

The council probably think exactly like you do though.

 

I think we are all lucky they don't think like you.

 

But officer, I was driving at an appropriate speed when I ploughed into the back of that broken down car.

 

---------- Post added 18-11-2015 at 16:55 ----------

 

If 60 is safe and someone crashed at 75 (for example), how does that justify making the limit 50?

 

Conversely if the limit is 60 and someone crashed at 55 does that justify the limit reduction?

 

Granted I don't know the exact details of the accidents but do you?

 

---------- Post added 18-11-2015 at 16:57 ----------

 

They lowered the limit on the A57 from Rivelin to Ladybower, AGAINST the advice of the report they commissioned, which said that there was no case for it and it wouldn't improve safety!

 

I stand corrected, politics was obviously allowed to take precedence over common sense in that case.

Edited November 18, 2015 by the fonz

[Planner1 437]

More of the 'Worst Road First' safety schemes Planner1 has referred to elsewhere.

 

http://sheffielddemocracy.moderngov.co.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=1331

 

'The introduction of a 50mph speed limit along with additional signing and lining improvements will bring about a reduction in the number and severity of road traffic collisions.'

 

---------- Post added 18-11-2015 at 16:49 ----------

 

The report which is viewable on this link gives you the injury accident statistics:

 

In a five year period there have been 39 collisions on Mosborough Parkway (from the roundabout with Sheffield Parkway to the RMBC boundary) of which 4 were serious and 35 were classed as slight. Car occupants account for 92% of the casualties on the route.

[Cyclone 10]

 

Conversely if the limit is 60 and someone crashed at 55 does that justify the limit reduction?

 

Granted I don't know the exact details of the accidents but do you?

 

No I don't. Which is why I asked the question.

 

The council have form for reducing the limit without a shred of evidence that it will achieve anything though. So I'm entirely cynical about this reduction.

 

Unfortunately they won't publish new stats in the next couple of years to either prove or disprove its effectiveness, and they certainly won't change it back, even if its somehow made the road more dangerous.

 

---------- Post added 19-11-2015 at 22:46 ----------

 

I wonder how exactly they justify changing so much road from NSL to 50 using accident statistics. It surely wasn't an accident black spot from the M1 Jnc 31, all the way to Coisley Hill (I've driven that route tonight).

[DT Ralge 10]

No I don't. Which is why I asked the question.

 

The council have form for reducing the limit without a shred of evidence that it will achieve anything though. So I'm entirely cynical about this reduction.

 

Unfortunately they won't publish new stats in the next couple of years to either prove or disprove its effectiveness, and they certainly won't change it back, even if its somehow made the road more dangerous.

 

---------- Post added 19-11-2015 at 22:46 ----------

 

I wonder how exactly they justify changing so much road from NSL to 50 using accident statistics. It surely wasn't an accident black spot from the M1 Jnc 31, all the way to Coisley Hill (I've driven that route tonight).

 

It's not always the limit that is changed.

Where there have been collisions at junctions they look at the junctions and act accordingly.

So, you are no longer allowed to turn right onto the A57 (with the Aston fire station behind you). Further down the road beyond the roundabout, the next right turn towards Aston received some treatment after a fatal crash involving a pal's son and his girlfriend (she died).

So your knowledge of that road and its history (and others' history) is patchy, maybe. I'd advise lower levels of cynicism. Maybe I'm too trusting.