Speed Limit On Sheffield Parkway Set To Be Cut?

[Resident 1,185]

1 hour ago, Padders said:

Cyclone much as I value your opinions on most threads, I have to strongly disagree with you on this one.

70 is going very fast, so I call it speeding.

I have never said multiple times that I won"t and don"t drive above 50, I have simply stated rightly or wrongly that driving at 50 on a motorway is not incompetent driving.

Racing around at 30 I said on estates, a few yrs back very true, what have the authorities done since, introduced a 20mph limit on estates and outside schools, and yet some drivers still ignore it.

You've stated that you do drive at 50mph on the motorway in good conditions and even that you slow down when there's a HGV behind you. That is the epitome of incompetent driving.

 

The fact that you even state that you're so nervous to drive on particular roads at given times shows that you shouldn't be driving. Nervous/timid driving causes accidents just as over-confident driving does. I've already linked evidence to that fact. 

 

The revelation that you're a professional driver yet drive in a manner that falls well short of a basic driving test is astonishing.

[Padders 2,850]

1 hour ago, Cyclone said:

You know full well that "speeding" specifically means "exceeding the posted speed limit" though, so why use deliberately misleading language?

 

So do you or do you not drive at 50mph on the motorway?

 

You didn't mention "on estates", perhaps that's what you meant.

 

These days most of my driving is  99.9% purely for leisure, no need for me to rush about, on the motorway I"ve often drove at 70, but I prefer a more comfortable leisurely drive, quite happy at 50/60. just had a rummage round and found a couple of safe driving awards, see if I can get my daughter to post em on here. I have"nt a clue how to do it.

Few years ago my next door neighbour kindly took me to East Midlands airport, very intelligent guy I might add, on the motorway he swiftly reached 80mph, chatting away to me,  HOLDING THE STEERING WHEEL with his little finger, I will not tell you my reaction.

[Guest makapaka]

3 hours ago, Cyclone said:

 

You really do have to do what the speed limit is, or close to it, if conditions allow, otherwise you're driving badly.

Sorry, but that's you.

You sound like you shouldn't be allowed to drive.

Not a strawman, unless you can explain why 50 is correct and your argument can't then be extended to 30 or 10...  Obviously it can, 50 is entirely arbitrary, so is 30, 10, 8, 14, any number we care to dream up that is lower than the current limit is "safer" and so your argument applies.  So explain why 50 is correct and not 70 or 30.

This has been explained to you multiple times now.  We know you don't want to accept it, but you can't just pretend it's not the case.

What a strange argument. Yes then - 1mph.

 

Or maybe something sensible - like 50mph - which will not significantly alter journey times over relatively short distances and is by no means slow.

 

Also safer and also reduces air pollution.

[Padders 2,850]

4 minutes ago, makapaka said:

What a strange argument. Yes then - 1mph.

 

Or maybe something sensible - like 50mph - which will not significantly alter journey times over relatively short distances and is by no means slow.

 

Also safer and also reduces air pollution.

Yippee, about time  .

[Cyclone 10]

53 minutes ago, makapaka said:

What a strange argument. Yes then - 1mph.

 

Or maybe something sensible - like 50mph - which will not significantly alter journey times over relatively short distances and is by no means slow.

 

Also safer and also reduces air pollution.

You've entirely failed to explain why 50 is more appropriate than 70 in this or indeed any given instance.

The only effort you appear to have made is "reduces air pollution".  So then you'd advocate dropping speed limits everywhere to 50mph?  If not, then why in this instance should it be reduced?

1 hour ago, Padders said:

These days most of my driving is  99.9% purely for leisure, no need for me to rush about, on the motorway I"ve often drove at 70

So now that you personally have time to kill, you dawdle around, impede other traffic, and then call 70 speeding when you know full well that it isn't...

[Guest makapaka]

4 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

You've entirely failed to explain why 50 is more appropriate than 70 in this or indeed any given instance.

The only effort you appear to have made is "reduces air pollution".  So then you'd advocate dropping speed limits everywhere to 50mph?  If not, then why in this instance should it be reduced?

So now that you personally have time to kill, you dawdle around, impede other traffic, and then call 70 speeding when you know full well that it isn't...

And that it’s safer.

 

I wouldn’t have an issue with them dropping the speed limits everywhere if it made it safer to drive and more environmentally friendly to do so either - no.

 

why don’t you want that to happen?

[Cyclone 10]

You haven't shown that there is any safety problem on this stretch of road though.

 

See, you say nonsense like that without considering what you're saying (I assume), because 10 mph is safer than 50 or 30, so you've just said that you'd be happy with 10 mph limits everywhere if they were safer, which they are.  Or indeed 3 mph, walking speed.

 

I don't want that to happen because of the huge costs to society and to individuals.  Why do you want to create such a burden on society?  You know what's even safer, if everyone had to walk, everywhere.  Very safe walking, actively good for you in fact.  But not very efficient.

[willman 10]

They've by default reduced the speeds on the M1 smart motorway section between 31 and 28 - by using cameras and warnings. Not so many people drive at excessive speeds - until they get off on the A38 to Derby and make the time they think they've lost doing 80/90 on a dual darriageway with no cameras.  What has actually been achieved aprt from moving the problem 10 miles away.

[Cyclone 10]

Reduced it to approximately the speed limit though, not to 50.

[Guest makapaka]

45 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

You haven't shown that there is any safety problem on this stretch of road though.

 

See, you say nonsense like that without considering what you're saying (I assume), because 10 mph is safer than 50 or 30, so you've just said that you'd be happy with 10 mph limits everywhere if they were safer, which they are.  Or indeed 3 mph, walking speed.

 

I don't want that to happen because of the huge costs to society and to individuals.  Why do you want to create such a burden on society?  You know what's even safer, if everyone had to walk, everywhere.  Very safe walking, actively good for you in fact.  But not very efficient.

Which is why you have to approach it sensibly ie not by suggesting people drive on motorways at 10mph.

 

Reduced speeds of 50mph have been proven to be better for the environment and are already in place on some motorways.

 

it logical therefor that having say the parkway as all 50mph  would be better for the environment, safer due to the lower speeds and have little effect on journey times. 

 

Whats your problem with that. 

 

[willman 10]

27 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Reduced it to approximately the speed limit though, not to 50.

If you're replying to the M1 scenario - most days its 50 or 60 during rush hours. Hence my comparison with reducing the Parkway,you're just moving the speed issue elsewhere and therefore the environmental problem elsewhere.

[Cyclone 10]

1 hour ago, willman said:

If you're replying to the M1 scenario - most days its 50 or 60 during rush hours. Hence my comparison with reducing the Parkway,you're just moving the speed issue elsewhere and therefore the environmental problem elsewhere.

Rush hour (even though it lasts 2 hours twice a day) is only a fraction of the day and not at all at weekends.  When I use the M1 it's often got no temporary limit imposed, but the managed sections do still restrain peoples speed a little I feel, down to <80, rather than <90 for example.