Pointless M25 automatic speed limits
John Nelson
Driving along the M25 today... Sunday morning, light traffic, nice sunny
day, no problems...
A sign warns of heavy queues ahead, but I can't see anything and the traffic
isn't slowing down.
The next gantry has a 60mph speed limit, so I slow down a bit. The next one
is also on 60.
Then I turn a bend, and the gantry ahead is showing 40!! So stamp on the
brakes, and manage to slow down to 40-something.
The next gantry is showing 'end of restriction'. Apart from the speed
limits, there was no reason to slow the traffic down at all.
Am I the only one who thinks these automatic speed limits are somethimes
increasing the risk of accidents - by making drivers slam on the brakes -
rather than reducing them?
-- John
Chris Ward
posted this to uk.transport on Sun, 28 Feb 1999 22:24:27 -0000
Does anyone have the phone number for the police control centre so we can ring them up when this kind of thing happens and ask them what the hell they
are playing at ?
Chris Ward
David Binderman
> Driving along the M25 today... Sunday morning, light traffic, nice sunny
> day, no problems...
>
> A sign warns of heavy queues ahead, but I can't see anything and the traffic
> isn't slowing down.
A problem might exist without you being able to see it.
> Then I turn a bend, and the gantry ahead is showing 40!! So stamp on the
> brakes, and manage to slow down to 40-something.
ohh! Admitting to breaking the law !
Limit 40 means you should have been doing 30 something.
Like on urban roads.
> The next gantry is showing 'end of restriction'. Apart from the speed
> limits, there was no reason to slow the traffic down at all.
That you could see.
> Am I the only one who thinks these automatic speed limits are somethimes
> increasing the risk of accidents - by making drivers slam on the brakes -
> rather than reducing them?
I've found in practice that the limits on the M25 are a good idea. When
the inevitable crashes occur, they are so much less likely to be
serious and block up the road, when speed limits are lower.
Sometimes the reduced limits seem to be triggered by one or
two fast drivers. Did you see any of the 90+ mph club going past, just
before ?
Or maybe the folks at the control center we getting a bit bored ...
It cannot be the most interesting job to watch traffic a lot.
I'd also note that since the reduced limits have been introduced, zero
effort
has gone into offering increased limits elsewhere.
Regards
dcb
David Pipes
<ch...@waverider.co.uk> writes
>John Nelson of
> posted this to uk.transport on Sun, 28 Feb 1999 22:24:27 -0000
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> day, no problems...
>>
>> A sign warns of heavy queues ahead, but I can't see anything and the traffic
>> isn't slowing down.
>>
>> is also on 60.
>>
>> brakes, and manage to slow down to 40-something.
>>
>> limits, there was no reason to slow the traffic down at all.
>>
>> increasing the risk of accidents - by making drivers slam on the brakes -
>> rather than reducing them?
>
>them up when this kind of thing happens and ask them what the hell they
>are playing at ?
I'd prefer to be slightly delayed by this sort of glitch in the system
rather than a glitch which informed me the motorway was clear when it
was blocked round the next bend.
This happened to me on the M25 last December - except I don't recall
having to 'slam on the brakes' to slow from 60 to 40mph. I probably
arrived home about 15 seconds later than if I hadn't been delayed.
As for phoning the police control centre to 'ask them what the hell
they're playing at', I don't think so.
--
David Pipes
da...@plusone.demon.co.uk
Clive Page
John Nelson <jne...@nojunk.psilink.co.uk> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Driving along the M25 today... Sunday morning, light traffic, nice sunny
>day, no problems...
>Then I turn a bend, and the gantry ahead is showing 40!! So stamp on the
>brakes, and manage to slow down to 40-something.
[snip]
>Am I the only one who thinks these automatic speed limits are somethimes
>increasing the risk of accidents - by making drivers slam on the brakes -
>rather than reducing them?
Yes I agree - I once found a similar thing, very early on a Sunday
morning, when there were 40 mph signs for several miles, when there was
virtually no one else on the road.
My guess was that the police test the signs at such times. But it's very
frustrating when you are trying to reach an airport for an early flight.
Surely there must be a better way.
--
Clive Page, e-mail: cgp (at) le (dot) ac (dot) uk
Dept of Physics & Astronomy,
University of Leicester.
Timothy Sinkins
>
> Chris Ward <ch...@waverider.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Does anyone have the phone number for the police control centre so we can
> > ring them up when this kind of thing happens and ask them what the hell
> > they are playing at ?
>
> enough aggressive calls from complete dickheads. These signs are not set
> for fun, they are set to warn motorists of a dangerous situation. The
> fact that you may not be able to perceive the danger doesn't mean that
> there is no danger in the situation.
>
I have a similar story, Driving down the M5 one Sunday morning about
09:30 I could see about a dozen other cars at any one time. Got to a
Central Res warning sign (which I think are 2 miles apart) flashing a
speed restriction (50 perhaps). Next sign, same thing and again the
next. One mile further on, was a bloody great lorry with it's own
flashing amber lights and a ****ing great big keep right sign on the
back of it, driving slowly down the hard sholder (presumably cleaning
it).
Now please explain why I was expected to slow down 7 miles from a
'danger' that I couldn't have missed if I'd tried?
Tim
Timothy Sinkins
>
> John Nelson <jne...@nojunk.psilink.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> You have to bear in mind that the reasons for setting the signs include
> congestion, and reports from members of the public of an 'incident' that
> may prove to be a hoax. The police have no option but to act on the
> information they are given
I though the M25 had enough camers on to enable them to see if a
reported
incident is real or not.
Agreed the comment is valid for other M-ways.
Tim
simon
<jne...@nojunk.psilink.co.uk> enlightened us with:
The flipside is the gantry just after J16 anticlockwise (M40 exit)
ALWAYS says 50mph.. My point? The traffic is going at around 3 miles
an hour..
Might as well set a 5mph limit..
Drifting off topic,
This morning on the M40 London bound around J2, traffic was solid &
stationary, when things started to get moving a black ford puma was
sitting in the middle lane - driver clearly asleep :)
Secondly, queing was because of an accident just before M25 exit. A
police car & ambulance went steaming up the inside on the hard
shoulder. So what? Well the new bit of the M40 does not have a
continuous hard shoulder (for bridges)... don't have a crash on that
bit of motorway kiddies!
>Hi,
>
>Driving along the M25 today... Sunday morning, light traffic, nice sunny
>day, no problems...
>
>A sign warns of heavy queues ahead, but I can't see anything and the traffic
>isn't slowing down.
>
>The next gantry has a 60mph speed limit, so I slow down a bit. The next one
>is also on 60.
>
>Then I turn a bend, and the gantry ahead is showing 40!! So stamp on the
>brakes, and manage to slow down to 40-something.
>
>The next gantry is showing 'end of restriction'. Apart from the speed
>limits, there was no reason to slow the traffic down at all.
>
>Am I the only one who thinks these automatic speed limits are somethimes
>increasing the risk of accidents - by making drivers slam on the brakes -
>rather than reducing them?
>
>
>-- John
>
Terry Harris
>Timothy Sinkins <etl...@guildford.ericsson.remove-this.se> wrote:
>
>> I have a similar story, Driving down the M5 one Sunday morning about
>> 09:30 I could see about a dozen other cars at any one time. Got to a
>> Central Res warning sign (which I think are 2 miles apart) flashing a
>> speed restriction (50 perhaps). Next sign, same thing and again the
>> next. One mile further on, was a bloody great lorry with it's own
>> flashing amber lights and a ****ing great big keep right sign on the
>> back of it, driving slowly down the hard sholder (presumably cleaning
>> it).
>>
>> Now please explain why I was expected to slow down 7 miles from a
>> 'danger' that I couldn't have missed if I'd tried?
>
>Because (in this case) the operators of the lorry requested the police
>to set a safe working zone, because most drivers are such dopey arses
>that they tend to scream up to hazards like this at over 95mph.
>
>Try putting yourself in the position of the person operating the lorry.
>What would you like to see the police do to save your rear from lunatic
>drivers?
Try putting yourself in the position of a driver who isn't a 'dopey
arse' being treated like one. What I would really like them to do is
take 'dopey arse' drivers who are likely to drive into the back of
slow moving lorries off the road.
But then in the eyes of the law being a 'dopey arse' driver is not
nearly so bad as being 'non-dopey arse' driver who breaks laws which
were created for 'dopey arse' drivers.
Cheers Terry...
Terry Harris
>Terry Harris <terry....@iname.com> wrote:
>> Try putting yourself in the position of a driver who isn't a 'dopey
>> arse' being treated like one.
>So why should protecting the life of someone working to keep the road
>open and safe for you be any more the cause of adverse comment than the
>above examples?
It isn't, I took issue with the method of keeping the road open and
safe. We should not pander to 'dopey arse' drivers - get them off the
roads or train and convince them not to be 'dopey arse'.
To misquote that charity advert, give a 'dopey arse' driver a road
sign and he will be safe for a day - give him some smarts and he will
be safe for a lifetime.
>And why on earth should you feel personally affronted by
>signs on the motorway and yet live happily with other signs
I don't live happily with them, they all piss me off.
Cheers Terry...
nightjar
Chris Ward wrote in message
<36da3e84...@nemesis.waverider.co.uk>...
...
>
>Does anyone have the phone number for the police control centre so we
can ring them up when this kind of thing happens and ask them what the
hell they
>are playing at ?
It would not do you much good. No-one there is responsible for setting
the variable speed limits. The Police did ask for an override in case of
major traffic accidents, but I'm not sure whether they got it.
In the normal course of events traffic flow monitors set the M25 speeds
automatically. The aim to is slow traffic before it gets to a developing
bottleneck so that the bottleneck does not develop into a full scale
hold up. If the system works properly, at comparatively lightly
trafficked times drivers often will not see any obvious reason for the
speed limits.
Colin Bignell
Ron Vale
Has any other user of the northbound A34 noticed that the chevrons for
the roundabout at the junction with the m4 are BEHIND (by about 12 ft)
the Armco barrier. Even though i know its there it still gives me the
willies approaching it at night, I would imagine that most drivers would
assume that the markers are, at best, level with the armco or in front
of it.. or is it just me being paranoid?
Ron
Timothy Sinkins
>
> Terry Harris <terry....@iname.com> wrote:
>
> > Try putting yourself in the position of a driver who isn't a 'dopey
> > arse' being treated like one.
>
> being 'dumbed down' for the most stupid and assinine behaviour.
>
> Rumble strips on the approach to roundabouts - do we
> need those? I think not.
>
> Illuminated signs on bends do we need any signage
> for a bend? No, it should be obvious even to a halfwit
> that the road bends.
>
> Give way signs - do you ned to be told to give way at
> a side road? Only the stupid need to be told.
>
> Box junctions, surely only a complete arse would block
> a side road, fire station entrance or cross road.
>
Now you're being stupid. In my situation the lorry in question had it's
own primary protection in flashing amber lights and a 6 foot diameter
keep right sign. Does it really need any more than this?
In view of the fact that it was on the hard sholder and the rest
of the road was virtually empty I would suggest not.
> So why should protecting the life of someone working to keep the road
> open and safe for you be any more the cause of adverse comment than the
> above examples?
Because the restrictions imposed were unnecessary for the conditions.
Slowing someone down 7 miles before the obstruction is likely to be
counter-productive IMHO, most people will have got fed up with silly
flashing signs when there is no obvious reason, assumed there
is no real problem and returnd to their normal speed.
> And why on earth should you feel personally affronted by
> signs on the motorway and yet live happily with other signs which are
> not targetted at such an exemplary driver as yourself?
Because telling me I have to stop at a junction, at the point I reach it
is not the same as telling me to slow down 7 miles before I reach
it.
Tim
Roland Perry
>Then I turn a bend, and the gantry ahead is showing 40!! So stamp on the
>brakes, and manage to slow down to 40-something.
Yes, I've seen 40 limits there, when the traffic is very light. Very
odd.
>Am I the only one who thinks these automatic speed limits are somethimes
>increasing the risk of accidents - by making drivers slam on the brakes -
>rather than reducing them?
I used to think the restrictions were a safety hazard because they
caused very bad bunching, especially when the limit was 60. However, I
have become convinced that they do indeed speed the traffic flow, and
these days the bunching seems less bad (perhaps, ironically, because
enough drivers exceed the limit to give a little latitude to the
situation).
--
"Time is an illusion. Launch times doubly so".
Adrian Vickers
[Fuckwitted road furniture]
>
> Rumble strips on the approach to roundabouts - do we
> need those? I think not.
Hmm, slippery when wet. *Just* when you didn't need your grip reducing
further.
> Illuminated signs on bends do we need any signage
> for a bend? No, it should be obvious even to a halfwit
> that the road bends.
I'd always worked by the rule-of-thumb that if a bend is signed as such,
it probably can't be taken safely at the current speed limit. Mind you,
that entertaining little series of twists on the M5 in Brum don't need to
be signed to 50; it's quite possible to take these at 85 (provided it's
dry, quiet, and a racing line is employed).
> Give way signs - do you ned to be told to give way at
> a side road? Only the stupid need to be told.
On ickkle side roads, sure they are unnecessary (and most side roads
fitting that description don't have them.
> Box junctions, surely only a complete arse would block
> a side road, fire station entrance or cross road.
Ho, ho and thrice ho. If *fucking* only. I always wanted a 38-tonne truck
c/w enormous steel bullbars to engage in a little yellow-box clearing.
--
Ade.
"The best thing about rain forests is they never suffer from drought." -
Dan Quayle
Clive Page
Steve Firth <fil...@civet.firthcom.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Clive Page <c...@nospam.le.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> Yes I agree - I once found a similar thing, very early on a Sunday
>> morning, when there were 40 mph signs for several miles, when there was
>> virtually no one else on the road.
>
>off lanes.
There was no other evidence of that, and at that time on a Sunday it seems
unlikely. It seems to me much more likely that they _do_ need to test
the signs from time to time. If they have to do it some time, I guess the
early hours of Sunday is the time to cause least inconvenience. I'm just
annoyed that it inconvenienced me, and I didn't know why.
>The police do not set signals just to try them out.
Do have any evidence for that?
>Oh yes, you should also plan your journey to allow plenty of time to
>reach the airport. Including the possibility of traffic jams, roadblocks
>&c. Your poor planning isn't to be blamed on the police.
If one planned on having to go at 40 mph all the way along an empty
motorway then I'd have had to set out the previous day. Life's too short
for that.
I think if I find this situation again I'll stop by an emergency phone and
ask what's going on.
Terry Harris
>Terry Harris <terry....@iname.com> wrote:
>
>> It isn't, I took issue with the method of keeping the road open and
>> safe. We should not pander to 'dopey arse' drivers - get them off the
>> roads or train and convince them not to be 'dopey arse'.
>
>And how would this enlightened policy help a driver working today in
>current conditions? I have to put it to you that if you sit down, your
>voice will be muffled. Furthermore I have hte deep suspicion that you
>are exactly the type of driver these signs are designed for.
So, I want to treat the cause of the problem and your only solution is
to ease the symptoms, and I'm the one talking shit?
Cheers Terry...
Malcolm Groom
<nos...@toolsbase.demon.co.uk> writes
>Whilst bantering in uk.transport, fil...@civet.firthcom.demon.co.uk said:
>
>[Fuckwitted road furniture]
>>
>> Rumble strips on the approach to roundabouts - do we
>> need those? I think not.
>
>Hmm, slippery when wet. *Just* when you didn't need your grip reducing
>further.
Much like the new roundabout designs which seem to involve turning 90
degrees left then 90 degrees right just to go straight on and as IME
almost all the cars fail to manage it and drift into the third lane
before drifting back into the correct lane it adds to the hazard rather
then reduces it.
>> Illuminated signs on bends do we need any signage
>> for a bend? No, it should be obvious even to a halfwit
>> that the road bends.
>
>I'd always worked by the rule-of-thumb that if a bend is signed as such,
>it probably can't be taken safely at the current speed limit. Mind you,
I used to do that, but nowadays I know 90+% of them are unnecessary.
Still, I do use a little more caution on an unknown road so I guess they
(arguably) serve some purpose.
>dry, quiet, and a racing line is employed).
Tut-tut isn't that reckless driving ;-)
>
>> Give way signs - do you ned to be told to give way at
>> a side road? Only the stupid need to be told.
>
>On ickkle side roads, sure they are unnecessary (and most side roads
>fitting that description don't have them.
Hmm, unrelated but when approaching a mini-roundabout which is used
purely to provide flow of traffic on a busy T-Junction is it illegal to
just drive across it if for example turning right? Esp. if there isn't
room to go around it?
If it isn't, is it illegal to avoid it altogether and just turn right on
its right (as you approach it)?
>> Box junctions, surely only a complete arse would block
>> a side road, fire station entrance or cross road.
>
>Ho, ho and thrice ho. If *fucking* only. I always wanted a 38-tonne truck
>c/w enormous steel bullbars to engage in a little yellow-box clearing.
Amen.
--
Malcolm Groom
Alan Collier
In article <$tbvvCApq$22I...@wcompsys.demon.co.uk>,
Malcolm Groom <Mal...@WCompSys.XXXdemon.co.uk> wrote:
[molto snippo]
>
>Hmm, unrelated but when approaching a mini-roundabout which is used
>purely to provide flow of traffic on a busy T-Junction is it illegal to
>just drive across it if for example turning right? Esp. if there isn't
>room to go around it?
>
>If it isn't, is it illegal to avoid it altogether and just turn right on
>its right (as you approach it)?
The new HC explicitly states that you MUST NOT drive across the blob on a
mini-roundabout if you can get round the outside. The exception obviously
being for long vehicles.
HTH
Alan
--
Alan Collier
Department of Chemical & Process Engineering, U Sheffield, England.
Don't force it, use a bigger hammer!
Nick Finnigan
>
> Hmm, unrelated but when approaching a mini-roundabout which is used
> purely to provide flow of traffic on a busy T-Junction is it illegal to
> just drive across it if for example turning right? Esp. if there isn't
> room to go around it?
The new HC rule 164. Mini Roundabouts (...)
All vehicles MUST pass around the central markings except
large vehicles which are physically incapable of doing so
(there seems to be no MUST NOT about going the wrong way
around a standard roundabout though)
> If it isn't, is it illegal to avoid it altogether and just turn right on
> its right (as you approach it)?
That is what the buses do at the new (4-way) mini-roundabout
near our school - after waiting for a gap in oncoming traffic.
John Kenyon
>
SNIPPED
> >its right (as you approach it)?
>
> The new HC explicitly states that you MUST NOT drive across the blob on a
> mini-roundabout if you can get round the outside. The exception obviously
> being for long vehicles.
>
And cars etc at mini-roundabouts placed in narrow roads.
J W B Greenwood
>
> I have a similar story, Driving down the M5 one Sunday morning
> about 09:30 I could see about a dozen other cars at any one time.
) flashing a speed restriction (50 perhaps). Next sign, same thing
> and again the next. One mile further on, was a bloody great lorry
> right sign on the back of it, driving slowly down the hard sholder
> (presumably cleaning it).
>
> Now please explain why I was expected to slow down 7 miles from a
> 'danger' that I couldn't have missed if I'd tried?
>
Sorry Tim, it wasn't you we were targeting, we respect your driving
abilities. However, there were other silly pillocks on the road as
well which we were targetting. Do you feel better now ?
--
J W B Greenwood
> Hi,
>
> Driving along the M25 today... Sunday morning, light traffic, nice sunny
> day, no problems...
>
> A sign warns of heavy queues ahead, but I can't see anything and the traffic
> isn't slowing down.
>
> The next gantry has a 60mph speed limit, so I slow down a bit. The next one
> is also on 60.
>
> brakes, and manage to slow down to 40-something.
>
> limits, there was no reason to slow the traffic down at all.
>
> increasing the risk of accidents - by making drivers slam on the brakes -
> rather than reducing them?
>
Why was it necessary to STAMP/SLAM on the brakes? From what you say
the traffic wasn't heavy, or are you infering that there was a queue
built up after the 40 sign and before the 'end of restriction'?
--
J W B Greenwood
> >Hi,
> >
> >Driving along the M25 today... Sunday morning, light traffic, nice sunny
> >day, no problems...
>
> >Then I turn a bend, and the gantry ahead is showing 40!! So stamp on the
> >brakes, and manage to slow down to 40-something.
> >Am I the only one who thinks these automatic speed limits are somethimes
> >increasing the risk of accidents - by making drivers slam on the brakes -
> >rather than reducing them?
>
> morning, when there were 40 mph signs for several miles, when there was
> virtually no one else on the road.
>
> frustrating when you are trying to reach an airport for an early flight.
> Surely there must be a better way.
>
Weather forecast of icy roads ?
There is a much better way.
There should be no speed restrictions on motorways, no money spent on
painting lines and instructions on the road, no gantries, nothing.
Just a plain open road for sensible motorists to use in their normally
intelligent way.
There is a problem though. The whole thing would be snarled up in
about a couple of hours and the other roads would be jammed by
motorists who didn't fancy committing suicide.
--
Steve Walker
It's quite possible to take them at 85 without straying out of one's
lane.
--
Steve
I may be ugly, but I've got the bottle opener
use bourneh to reply.
Adrian Vickers
> >
> >I'd always worked by the rule-of-thumb that if a bend is signed as such,
> >it probably can't be taken safely at the current speed limit. Mind you,
>
> I used to do that, but nowadays I know 90+% of them are unnecessary.
> Still, I do use a little more caution on an unknown road so I guess they
> (arguably) serve some purpose.
Hmm. Most of the roads I drive on are either motorways, or ones I've been
driving on for years, and no new "bend" signs have appeared. Quite a lot
of new "Camera" signs though. There's a few on the A41 approach into
Chester (from the south), but no cameras...
>
> >dry, quiet, and a racing line is employed).
>
> Tut-tut isn't that reckless driving ;-)
>
Shurely shome mishtake, ossifer.
Bill Foote
motorway!
Clive Page wrote in message
<7bgpnj$q...@owl.le.ac.uk>...
:
:I think if I find this situation again I'll stop
Malcolm Groom
<etl...@etl.x.dmx.ericsson.se> writes
Yep, that reflects the situation pretty well. In this case I think I'll
just keep on taking the sensible line rather then the road layout one.
The only time I almost got driven into was when I attempted to follow
the road layout.
From what everybody else wrote I guess most of you would do likewise so
it must be the right thing to do :-)
Maybe it's another sneaky attempt to force us all into using toy cars.
--
Malcolm Groom
Adrian Vickers
> On Tue, 2 Mar 1999 20:18:55 +0000, in
> <N6e7sPAv...@bourneh.demon.co.uk>, Steve Walker wrote:
> >In article <MPG.1145563bf...@news.demon.co.uk>, Adrian Vickers
> ><nos...@toolsbase.demon.co.uk> writes
> >>it's quite possible to take these at 85 (provided it's
> >
> >lane.
>
It's more fun doing the racing line.
Oops: Fun + Roads = Slaponthewristbyanantimobilityfreak.
Terry Harper
Roland Perry wrote in message ...><jne...@nojunk.psilink.co.uk> writes
>>Then I turn a bend, and the gantry ahead is showing 40!! So stamp on the
>>brakes, and manage to slow down to 40-something.
>
>odd.
>
bit of debris from the carriageway. IMO that was a very sensible use of
them.
--
Terry Harper
E-mail: terry....@btinternet.com
URL: http://www.btinternet.com/~terry.harper/
Roland Perry
<Terry....@btinternet.com> writes
>I saw one down to 30 and maybe 15 one Sunday. A police car was retrieving a
>bit of debris from the carriageway. IMO that was a very sensible use of
>them.
Yes, if something like that is afoot. But when it isn't ??
Malcolm Groom
<nos...@toolsbase.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>It's more fun doing the racing line.
>
>Oops: Fun + Roads = Slaponthewristbyanantimobilityfreak.
Adrian please don't take this subject lightly it is amazing how many
arrogant car users use their cars for things other then vital journeys
for my^h^hthe national good and it just isn't on.
In future please be a good civilian and think of the children before you
get into your car. You may otherwise be setting a bad example, fun is
just too darn near to sin in my book.
--
Malcolm Groom
Dave
> >
> >SNIPPED
> >> >its right (as you approach it)?
> >>
> >> The new HC explicitly states that you MUST NOT drive across the blob on a
> >> mini-roundabout if you can get round the outside. The exception obviously
> >> being for long vehicles.
> >>
> >
> >And cars etc at mini-roundabouts placed in narrow roads.
>
> Yep, that reflects the situation pretty well. In this case I think I'll
> just keep on taking the sensible line rather then the road layout one.
> The only time I almost got driven into was when I attempted to follow
> the road layout.
>
> From what everybody else wrote I guess most of you would do likewise so
> it must be the right thing to do :-)
>
> Maybe it's another sneaky attempt to force us all into using toy cars.
Most people take the normal line, but when people go to all the extra
effort of going round one (if they have a tight enough turning circle) they
take a lot longer and its not always sure of their intention sometimes
(are they turning right or going back where they came from?).
Taking a clean direct path is far quicker and (with correct indicating)
if more infomative to other drivers waiting what you are doing -
fortunately most of us do that anyway. I was even taught this
when learning to drive.
AFAIK Mini-roundabouts were originally designed to simply equalise
the priorities of the intersecting roads, so you didn't have big queues
on a giveway unable to safely join the main(er) road. There wasn't
really any intention for you to go round the silly blob, that was
more to imply priority to the right. If they wanted you to go round
it they would have made it a proper roundabout.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Adrian Vickers
> <nos...@toolsbase.demon.co.uk> writes
> >
> >It's more fun doing the racing line.
> >
> >Oops: Fun + Roads = Slaponthewristbyanantimobilityfreak.
>
> Adrian please don't take this subject lightly it is amazing how many
> arrogant car users use their cars for things other then vital journeys
> for my^h^hthe national good and it just isn't on.
Ach, I forgot. We only make essential journeys here, don't we. Driving
for pleasure? <smack> Naughty polluter.
>
> In future please be a good civilian and think of the children before you
> get into your car. You may otherwise be setting a bad example, fun is
> just too darn near to sin in my book.
Heh heh heh. I *do* think of the children: they're worth double points[1]
:-)
[1] Smaller targets, and they move faster...
--
Ade.
"Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things." - Dan Quayle
Peter White
John Nelson wrote in message <36d9c...@nnrp1.news.uk.psi.net>...
>Hi,
>
>Driving along the M25 today... Sunday morning, light traffic, nice sunny
>day, no problems...
>
traffic
>isn't slowing down.
>
>The next gantry has a 60mph speed limit, so I slow down a bit. The next one
>is also on 60.
>
To about 80!
>Then I turn a bend, and the gantry ahead is showing 40!! So stamp on the
>brakes, and manage to slow down to 40-something.
>
You "stamp" on the brakes for a supposed 20 mph speed reduction?
>The next gantry is showing 'end of restriction'. Apart from the speed
>limits, there was no reason to slow the traffic down at all.
>
There must have been a reason otherwise it wouldn't have been shown!
>Am I the only one who thinks these automatic speed limits are somethimes
>increasing the risk of accidents - by making drivers slam on the brakes -
>rather than reducing them?
>
Sounds to me like it's the likes of you who CAUSE accidents!
>
Pete
David Binderman
>
> In article <36DAF1...@pncl.co.uk>,
> David Binderman <d...@pncl.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Did you see any of the 90+ mph club going past
>
> Hey. I didn't know there was an official society. Do you have an address?
Try www.whitevan.co.uk :->
Isn't it odd how the fastest cars (eg Porsche 911, TVR, Ferrari, Rolls
Royce,
Bentley etc) tend to be driven on UK motorways at up to 65 mph
ie very slowly, where low performance cars ( eg white vans, little
shopping
trolleys like Peugeot 106, Fiesta, Micra) tend to get the tits thrashed
off them at 90+ mph ?
I like to think its Darwin in action. I recommend any books by
P.J.O'Rourke
to the readership of this newsgroup. "Republican Party Reptile", for the
few pages about Ferrari, especially.
Regards
dcb
Graham Wilson
>Clive Page <c...@nospam.le.ac.uk> wrote:
>> I think if I find this situation again I'll stop by an emergency phone and
>> ask what's going on.
If you stop on the motorway to use an emergency phone just to ask the
Police why the warning signs are on, then I suspect you will end up
being charged.
Graham
Gra...@dirconabc.co.uk
(to reply remove abc from domain name)
Terry Harris
>Terry Harris <terry....@iname.com> wrote:
>
>> So, I want to treat the cause of the problem
>
>Your proposal has no merit. You aren't treatign the cause of a problem
>you are simply proposing htat anyone who drives in a way that you don't
>like must be removed from the road.
You really are a dickhead - I didn't propose that anyone who drives in
a way *I* don't like is removed from the road. I said people who drive
the way *you* don't like using *your* 'dopey arse' definition and I
didn't say remove them from the road but remove them *or* train and
convince them not to drive the way *you* don't like.
>> and your only solution is
>> to ease the symptoms, and
>My solution also controls drivers such as yourself,
And I'm supposed to value the opinion of someone who can't even read
and comprehend a usenet post?
Cheers Terry...
Terry Harris
>Terry Harris <terry....@iname.com> wrote:
>
>> You really are a dickhead - I didn't propose that anyone who drives in
>> a way *I* don't like is removed from the road. I said people who drive
>> the way *you* don't like using *your* 'dopey arse' definition and I
>> didn't say remove them from the road but remove them *or* train and
>> convince them not to drive the way *you* don't like.
>
>No you didn't, you said:
>
>" What I would really like them to do is take 'dopey arse' drivers who
>are likely to drive into the back of slow moving lorries off the road. "
But in a more recent post (which you have already quoted once) I said
"We should not pander to 'dopey arse' drivers - get them off the
roads or train and convince them not to be 'dopey arse'. "
>Since you defined 'dopey arse' and since only you can know the
>definition that you apply to the category,
I didn't define 'dopey arse', let me aid your failing memory by
quoting your second post in this thread.
"Because (in this case) the operators of the lorry requested the
police to set a safe working zone, because most drivers are such dopey
arses that they tend to scream up to hazards like this at over 95mph."
>> And I'm supposed to value the opinion of someone who can't even read
>> and comprehend a usenet post?
>Try remembering what you typed, difficult as it may be for you to do.
But easier for me than it is for you apparently.
>BTW, you don't have to value my opinion, TBH I don't give any value to
>what you think after the preceding diatribe. You come across as another
>can't-drive fuckwit.
I've had enough of this slanging match, which as you have probably
forgotten you started with this personal comment:-
" I have to put it to you that if you sit down, your
voice will be muffled. Furthermore I have hte deep suspicion that you
are exactly the type of driver these signs are designed for."
Cheers Terry...
Stuart Burge
this lane ownership shit or "I'm doing 70 so I'm not moving" or asleep in
the middle lane crap in mainland Europe. In Belgium most drive way over the
120km limit but they get the hell out of the way after they've overtaken. Is
it too much to ask for it to happen here?
Aside from spouting the M25 driving etiquette gospel has anyone been snapped
when the variable speed limits aren't in operation?
Stu
David Pipes
<s_b...@nospam.rocketmail.com> writes
>I just wish people would learn to use friggin lanes. You get very little of
>this lane ownership shit or "I'm doing 70 so I'm not moving" or asleep in
>the middle lane crap in mainland Europe.
you get, the worse it becomes.
> In Belgium most drive way over the
>120km limit
Isn't that the only way drivers can 'flatten out' the appalling road
surfaces there?
>but they get the hell out of the way after they've overtaken.
Mmmmm, not always. I think they're generally better behaved in Germany.
The last time I was in Belgium (last November) I was nearly side swiped
into the central barrier, maybe it'll be better on Thursday on my next
visit.
>Is
>it too much to ask for it to happen here?
Apparently so. Despite the Highway Code being quite clear on motorway
overtaking procedure, apparently few follow it - not surprising as
according to official figures, out of 2000 motorists questioned, half
did not have a copy and half had not read it in the last five years :-(
>
>Aside from spouting the M25 driving etiquette gospel has anyone been snapped
>when the variable speed limits aren't in operation?
No, never been snapped by a Gatso on the grounds that there's no real
excuse, especially on the M25. I'm not preaching, just saying that I
manage to resist exceeding the posted limit (or 70mph) for the few miles
covered by the cameras then........
--
David Pipes
da...@plusone.demon.co.uk
Terry Harris
>A point which you have taken great pains to prove to be true. If yo ever
>do come up with a solution to the problem which would ensure that
>drivers behaved safely and that didnt involve improbable solutions such
>as removing from the road people you personally dislike, do pop back
>again, there's a good chap.
I've been a bit slow but I have it sussed now.
I believe that the majority of drivers with some encouragement and
assistance could become safe and competent.
You say this "proposal has no merit", in reality it is the notion
that you would not be one of the few competent drivers on the road
which poses such a threat to your ego that you must dismiss it.
Feel free to write me off as a "can't-drive fuckwit" again, I'm sure
it makes your ego feel much better.
Cheers Terry...
Terry Harris
>Terry Harris <terry....@iname.com> wrote:
>
>> You say this "proposal has no merit", in reality it is the notion
>> that you would not be one of the few competent drivers on the road
>> which poses such a threat to your ego that you must dismiss it.
>
>I'm willing to take an appropriate test, and I would like to see you
>subject to the same selection process. I think I can guess which of us
>would return with a driving license, but I'm generous, I'll give you a
>lift to the bus stop afterwards.
I thought I might get a denial, but, I actually get confirmation. I
guess your 'case' is even worse than I thought.
Cheers Terry...
clive_...@my-dejanews.com
> From Clive Sawers - mini-roundabout designer & author of "Mini-roundabouts -
Getting them Right!" Not altogether correct. If the mini-rbt is designed
correctly drivers are guided to the left of the "spot", which is overrunnable
for long vehicles. Most UK designers haven't a clue hence the problems. My
book has sold to UK highway authorities and consultants in numbers in excess
of almost any other book by a private individual and I now run seminars of
the same title which many authorities have had and find useful. I am about to
go to the USA to help them, initially with a two week lecture tour of NE
states; lectures are booked out! Visit my website:
HTTP://members.aol.com/penntraff/mini-roundabout and if your local
mini-roundabouts are AWFUL get in touch with me and I will look into it with
the authority concerned. Well done they are saving many accidents and
injuries.
Geoff Lane
>In article <7blmht$15l$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> Dave <dav...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > >
>> > >SNIPPED
>> > >> >its right (as you approach it)?
>> > >>
>> > >> The new HC explicitly states that you MUST NOT drive across the blob on a
>> > >> mini-roundabout if you can get round the outside. The exception obviously
>> > >> being for long vehicles.
After reading your posting I wondered what the legislation was that
made it an offence.
The HC merely states in relation to the mini roundabout sign to give
way to traffic on the right. I then found in Hughes Traffic Law in
addition to the obvious give way wording etc it goes on to say 'and
pass the marking in the centre of the road in the direction of the
arrow'.
Well, if all the markings were in the centre of the road I don't think
anyone would have a problem, it's the ones that are NOT in the centre
of the road where the problem lies.
Geoff Lane
Roland Perry
anes.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>I then found in Hughes Traffic Law in
>addition to the obvious give way wording etc it goes on to say 'and
>pass the marking in the centre of the road in the direction of the
>arrow'.
Is the arrow you refer to in a diagram (in the book) or is it supposed
to be painted on the road?
--
Roland Perry
Geoff Lane
wrote:
The wording appeared beside an image of the conventional 'mini
roundabout' sign so I assume the 'direction of the arrow' would be the
one painted on the road.
Geoff Lane
Roland Perry
<bunsen@at.?.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>The wording appeared beside an image of the conventional 'mini
>roundabout' sign so I assume the 'direction of the arrow' would be the
>one painted on the road.
I'll have a closer look next time I go round my local mini roundabout.
--
Roland Perry
Nick Finnigan
> On Sun, 28 Mar 1999 22:06:29 GMT, clive_...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>In article <7blmht$15l$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dave <dav...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >SNIPPED
>>> > >>
>>> > >> mini-roundabout if you can get round the outside. The exception obviously
>>> > >> being for long vehicles.
>
> After reading your posting I wondered what the legislation was that
> made it an offence.
>
> The HC merely states in relation to the mini roundabout sign to give
> addition to the obvious give way wording etc it goes on to say 'and
> arrow'.
The new HC reads 'All vehicles MUST pass around the central
markings except large vehicles which are physically incapable
of doing so. Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 and TSRGD 10(1)
In which case the 'markings' (blob and arrows) do not need to
be in the centre of the road.
Roland Perry
writes
> The new HC reads 'All vehicles MUST pass around the central
>markings except large vehicles which are physically incapable
>of doing so. Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 and TSRGD 10(1)
What about small vehicles which are similarly incapable.
> In which case the 'markings' (blob and arrows) do not need to
>be in the centre of the road.
Are they going to move all the ones that can't be circumnavigated by
small vehicles?
--
Roland Perry
Nick Finnigan
> In article <qlMnjH...@yrl.co.uk>, Nick Finnigan <ni...@yrl.co.uk>
> writes
>> The new HC reads 'All vehicles MUST pass around the central
>>markings except large vehicles which are physically incapable
>>of doing so. Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 and TSRGD 10(1)
>
> What about small vehicles which are similarly incapable.
I would regard 'physically incapable' as a definition of 'large'.
Geoff Lane
On 6 Apr 99 11:33:41 GMT, ni...@yrl.co.uk (Nick Finnigan) wrote:
> The new HC reads 'All vehicles MUST pass around the central
>markings except large vehicles which are physically incapable
>of doing so. Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 and TSRGD 10(1)
>
> In which case the 'markings' (blob and arrows) do not need to
>be in the centre of the road.
Except that it is ' Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 and TSRGD 10(1)' that make
the offence and the wording I found states 'and pass the marking in
the centre of the road in the direction of the arrow'.
Now bearing in mind that many cases (Traffic and others) get slung out
due to misworded paperwork etc I am wondering about the wording.
Geoff Lane