|
This is very very dangerous. As far as I am aware if the sign says 40 and I go through it at 44+ I get a ticket even at 3am on an empty M25 (this has happened to me). So I stick to outside lane and slow to 40. Then inevitably some idiot zooms up behind me and hits the horn before overtaking in to the outside lanes. Someone WILL hit me one day and then what?
|
Thommo,
there has been pieces in the press just last week about your situation. the head of the Met was saying that if you get a ticket when the lowered speeds are being displayed in error then you have grounuds for appeal. Just hope you weren't doing 80+
|
|
|
So I stick to outside lane and slow to 40.
If you outside lane of the deserted m25 at 3:00am you deserve to be hit, limts displayed or no. Some of us know which ones have the cameras and which dont! ;)
|
|
|
This is very very dangerous. As far as I am aware if the sign says 40 and I go through it at 44+ I get a ticket even at 3am on an empty M25 (this has happened to me). So I stick to outside lane and slow to 40. Then inevitably some idiot zooms up behind me and hits the horn before overtaking in to the outside lanes. Someone WILL hit me one day and then what?
Understand why you would slow down, but why in the outside lane?
|
Obviously I meant inside.
Everyones a comedian...
|
These signs are dangerous when they are not used properly.
On the way back from Portsmouth the other day the signs on the M27 were displaying 'WARNING - QUEUE AHEAD' and an advisory 40mph speed limit.
This kept on until at least Fareham when it then said 'End'.
There was no queue, the Motorway was entirely free flowing. Most drivers ignored the signs and carried on at 80, probably becuase they are used to 95% of them being lies.
One day a load of people will crest a hill at 80mph right into the back of a queue having ignored the signs..
|
|
A law should be passed , if thats whats required, that states that beside every one of these signs, is a sign giving the phone number of the operator. Operator would obviously need to answer the phone though!
|
Signs are turned on, in advance of the merry men whose job I'd not want, laying out the cones. I know, I've seen it done. Makes good sense as otherwise bods might drive into said cones.
And before everyone rubbishes the notion, how many near misses when everything is completed have you seen
I do agree though, there are signs with no work in sight, or the alleged cause, is plainly daft. Part of the problem is when low speeds are signposted, the road is clear, no-one takes any notice. Adhering to the speed limit can make you a hazard as everyone else is moving far faster.
If the accuracy of these signs was faultless, I suspect folk would more happily obey - safe in the knowledge there was good reason.
I treat each one on it's merits - judging my speed on the principle that I must be able to come to a complete standstill if the car in front runs into an invisible brick wall. If I'm crowded from behind, I'm more likely to slow further. Usually means I do slow quite a bit, not as much as the signs - and nearly everything passes me.
That's ok, that's why I carry a fire extinguisher and first aid kit - not because I think I might need them, but because somebody else might.
|
|
|
|
I agree, they become very dangerous when they are not turned off when the incident has ended, or have been used in error.....it's getting a bit like the boy who cried wolf once too often!!!
As for the M27, the signs approaching Junction nine seem to be programmed to come on at 4.30 pm with "Queue on slip road" never quite sure whether this is a warning, as there is sometimes (although not very often) no queuing traffic or an instruction!!!
|
|
Agree about the signs on the M27. It seems like someone has a new toy to play with, hopefully the novelty will wear off.
|
|
|
|
>>One day a load of people will crest a hill at 80mph right >>into the back of a queue having ignored the signs.
This happened to an employee driving a van some years ago on the A1. There were no signs and he was cruising at 60mph. When he came ove the crest of a hill there was standing traffic in both lanes. There was nowhere to go and badly damaged the Fiesta he ploughed into. When the Police arrived and assessed the situation, they immediately told him there was nothing he could have done to avoid the accident and he was not prosecuted. The Fiesta required a new body shell and the front of the van had to be rebuilt.
You cannot have signs for every eventuality, but we all think those that are displayed should be accurate and useful. Leaving signs for events that have finished, or have not yet started, brings all signs into the category of do you believe any of them! Signs should have a contact number on them so the requisite authority can remove them. Possibly some fine or punishment should be instigated.
|
|
I believe that all the signs are controlled from Coleshill, just off the m42. The local police control centre call there when they want them on/off.
|
|
|
>>One day a load of people will crest a hill at 80mph right >>into the back of a queue having ignored the signs. This happened to an employee driving a van some years ago on the A1. There were no signs and he was cruising at 60mph. When he came ove the crest of a hill there was standing traffic in both lanes. There was nowhere to go and badly damaged the Fiesta he ploughed into. When the Police arrived and assessed the situation, they immediately told him there was nothing he could have done to avoid the accident and he was not prosecuted. The Fiesta required a new body shell and the front of the van had to be rebuilt.
Call me old-fashioned, but how about driving at such a speed that you can stop within the distance that you can see to be clear?
|
>>I do agree though, there are signs with no work in sight, or the alleged cause, is plainly daft. Part of the problem is when low speeds are signposted, the road is clear, no-one takes any notice. Adhering to the speed limit can make you a hazard as everyone else is moving far faster.
I posted on this subject only last week - signs on half empty M42 to set the max speed limit at 40mph and only me, worried about possible threat of Variable speed limit carmeras, was obeying the limit. I felt like the biggest hazard on the road.
|
|
|
>>Call me old-fashioned, but how about driving at such a speed >>that you can stop within the distance that you can see to be >>clear?
The speed limit on this section of dual carriageway was 70mph. He was driving well within the limit. The van had higher than car seating so his visibilty was excellent. According to him there had been a clear road in front for sometime, and nothing had passed him for several miles. In these circumstances you would never expect backed up traffic just over the brow of a hill. Normally when there is some traffic in front you are aware of a problem by their brake lights. In this case there was absolutely no prior warning. The Police agreed and he was never prosecuted.
So may be travelling with other traffic can be safer than being a sole vehicle on what looked like a lightly used road. If the traffic queue had been longer or shorter, or at a different place, then there would have been no accident.
Do you always drive at a speed that you can guarantee to stop within if a fixed obstical was suddenly in your path e.g. a broken down vehicle, especially round bends or over brows of hills? I very much doubt it.
If that obstical was a car coming towards you then you would never have a chance to stop. As the other driver was in the wrong place that makes you feel better because you are not in the "wrong", just being in the right place at the wrong time!
|
>>Do you always drive at a speed that you can guarantee to stop within if a fixed obstical was suddenly in your path
Yes.
>>He was driving well within the limit
The word is "limit" - not minimum, recommended or even compulsory - limit.
|
I'm not sure about this, and I don't know which stretch of road we're talking about, but felt someone shoyuld play devils advocate. Is it possible that the nature of the blind brow was such that, in order to be able to stop in the visible distance, you would be doing a speed which was unsafe on a 70mph road?
I certainly wouldn't feel too comfortable slowing down to say 30 on a motorway with no evidence of any traffic buildup. What about the speed differential between you and hypothetical other vehicles?
|
Hello Mark
>>Do you always drive at a speed that you can guarantee to stop within if a fixed obstical was suddenly in your path
You may do, but the vast majority of drivers also think the same - until something goes wrong. The number of rear end shunts proves my point. Personally I have never shunted another vehicle, let alone been in a major accident in 33 years, despite driving up to 30,000 miles a year, fortunately now reduced to about 10,000. Also I have only had one speeding ticket and that was 30 years ago - long may it continue.
>>>>He was driving well within the limit
>>The word is "limit" - not minimum, recommended or even compulsory - limit.
Under the conditions prevailing he was driving very sensibly, if he had not then he would have been prosecuted. At the time he was a Christian family man, who would never hurt a fly. He had never had a speeding ticket, despite driving over 25,000 miles a year on business, plus personal driving. I still see him occasionally, and he still has a clean licence. I would describe him as one of the safest drivers I know, always being very tolerant of others and forgiving of their mistakes - not like many of the drivers of today.
The accident really caused him some real grief as he said there was absolutely nothing he could do to avoid it. Possibly the only thing would have been to drive towards the brow of a hill at less than 50mph on the expectation of what might be, despite the road being rated with a limit of 70mph. Were the Lords and Masters of our roads wrong to give it a 70mph limit? In normal conditions 70mph is the correct rating, but with the unexpected even a substantially reduced limit might not have prevented an accident.
Too frequently we are becoming more of a "nanny state" where the individual is being controlled for their own interest or other parties interests. Unfortunately once controls are brought in they are very rarely removed. Taking the excess speed arguement to reduce accidents. The massive use of speed cameras is only part of the mix in reducing speed, many roads now have lower limits and extended areas covered. All of this is in the supposed goal of reducing road accidents. The results are not being delivered, just more motorists a paying fines (another indirect tax), having points added to their licences causing increased insurance costs and/or lose of their licence.
I cannot believe that this thread has moved from bad signage to a discussion on speeding. For this reason I am stopping this deviation from the original thread. My example of the accident was only made to illustrate a point made by another posting.
|
"Do you always drive at a speed that you can guarantee to stop within if a fixed obstical was suddenly in your path"
Mark?s right. I wouldn?t fly over a blind crest at 70mph any more than I?d drive flat out into a billowing cloud of thick smoke. Even just thinking about it has me pressing an imaginary brake pedal under my desk.
|
|
|
|
|
Surely, If there is a stretch of road with reduced visibility due to a hill crest which really is unsafe to drive at 60mph, then logically the limit on that section should be permanently reduced to 50mph or less.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I remember numerous times driving late at night on an empty M25,with the electronic signs showing a 40 OR 50 MPH speed limit.
>>
En route to LGW via the M25 at 5am this morning, sign said queues ahead. Absolutely not. Still no queues on the way back.
M23 gantry suddenly flashed 20mph. testing? testing?
Who owns the problem? Who should we write to complaining about the problem.
|
|
|
|
