Lancashire police with not enough to do...

[dsr]

How would you propose they raise awareness?

A leaflet campaign?
6 month advance notice on the road itself?
Highway safety tv and radio advertising?

It wouldn't matter what they did, someone would still get caught out and blame everyone else for it.
If you dont spot the speed limit sign then it's your own fault.

If there is a change of speed limit, they can put up signs saying so. Where are you so dead set against advising drivers of a change in speed limit?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

If there is a change of speed limit, they can put up signs saying so. Where are you so dead set against advising drivers of a change in speed limit?

I'm not dead set against it, that's why I'm asking what the best policy is.
How far in advance should the signs go up?

How long do you need to be aware of a change?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Raising awareness - I don't think you can beat a good old fashioned sign where everybody knows where they stand, as it's been mentioned some of the 30s have disappeared & in the absence you presume it's a 30, when I learnt years ago the rule of thumb was if it's a built up residential area it's a 30 but even some of them are 40 now, yes I agree it's our own faults if we miss the signs, but in some cases as mentioned signs don't exist. Call me old fashioned I think signs everywhere would increase road safety & minimise the road safety offences, some people seem to be guessing now, if it doesn't change I think eventually more accidents will occur because when driving we'll all be looking at & concentrating on the Speedos that much & nothing else happening on the road.

There is a reason why the EU is making speed monitors in cars compulsory, I'm sure you can work out why.

There are signs all over the place and still people fail to drive without due care and attention, more signs won't fix it.

Cars are safer than they've ever been seat belt warnings, lane assist, assisted braking, automatic lights, lights go on/off when turning because people can't use indicators etc
With Speed monitors coming in soon for new cars it will reduce the number of people speeding, but the issue will be those in older cars who don't pay attention to their speed and area around them.

[Tall Paul]

If there is a change of speed limit, they can put up signs saying so. Where are you so dead set against advising drivers of a change in speed limit?

They do

They look like this:


I guarantee there is one of these on the Grane Road where the speed limit changes from 40 to 30.

[Jakubclaret]

There is a reason why the EU is making speed monitors in cars compulsory, I'm sure you can work out why.

There are signs all over the place and still people fail to drive without due care and attention, more signs won't fix it.

Cars are safer than they've ever been seat belt warnings, lane assist, assisted braking, automatic lights, lights go on/off when turning because people can't use indicators etc
With Speed monitors coming in soon for new cars it will reduce the number of people speeding, but the issue will be those in older cars who don't pay attention to their speed and area around them.

Will the speed monitors be standard or a optional extra safety feature in new vehicles? Sorry missed compulsory.

[Greenmile]

Will the speed monitors be standard or a optional extra safety feature in new vehicles?

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dicti ... compulsory

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Will the speed monitors be standard or a optional extra safety feature in new vehicles?

Standard, however they can be over ridden to allow for overtaking etc, but a warning beep will happen at that point.
See link.

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motori ... -limiters/

[Jakubclaret]

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dicti ... compulsory

Already edited, smart a**e, it's difficult reading other people's posts whilst driving,
I'm joking.

[dsr]

They do

They look like this:


I guarantee there is one of these on the Grane Road where the speed limit changes from 40 to 30.

We're talking about the spot where the limit used to change but now it doesn't. They took the 40 mph sign away but didn't put any new sign in place to advise drivers of the change.

Are you saying that there is a National Speed Limit sign wrongly placed in a 30 zone, or just that you think there should be?

[Mala591]

I am still convinced that a new speed limit of 35 mph is required in those (many) stretches of road where 40 mph is too fast (pedestrian and driver safety) and 30 mph is too slow (reasonable safe progress).

[Billy Balfour]

If you're not aware of the maximum speed limit on any given road - then I suggest you reacquaint yourself with the Highway Code.

[Billy Balfour]

By the way, I'm not being smug here. I've been caught speeding twice in the past and guess what? Each time it was my own fault.

[Tall Paul]

We're talking about the spot where the limit used to change but now it doesn't. They took the 40 mph sign away but didn't put any new sign in place to advise drivers of the change.

Are you saying that there is a National Speed Limit sign wrongly placed in a 30 zone, or just that you think there should be?

Which spot are you talking about? Did the speed limit increase from 30 to 40 in this spot? Or does it decrease from 50 to 40? Wherever there is a change there will be a sign. If they took the sign away then the speed limit on that part of the road is the same as it was on the part of the road you're leaving.

As for your second paragraph, 30 mph is the national speed limit in a built up area, which is defined by there being streetlights at the side of the road.

[Jakubclaret]

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dicti ... compulsory

Differences between mandatory & compulsory


https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions ... compulsory

[dsr]

Which spot are you talking about? Did the speed limit increase from 30 to 40 in this spot? Or does it decrease from 50 to 40? Wherever there is a change there will be a sign. If they took the sign away then the speed limit on that part of the road is the same as it was on the part of the road you're leaving.

As for your second paragraph, 30 mph is the national speed limit in a built up area, which is defined by there being streetlights at the side of the road.

I wasn't one of the ones caught, and it was some years ago. But to try and put it simply:

At one point, coming out of Haslingden I believe, the road went from 30 mph (urban) to 40 mph (no longer urban) - and the road sign at that spot said 40 mph as you would expect.

Then it was decided that urban sprawl or whatever had changed things and the 30mph stretch had to be extended. So they just took away the 40 mph signs, but did not put up any new signs, so there wasn't a sign to say this is no longer a 40 mph zone.

Now, I'm sure there are people that are so careful about driving that even if they have driven on a road a thousand times before, they always ensure that they look at every road sign to make sure it's still there. But there are also drivers who don't. And if you know that there are large numbers of drivers who believe (because they have been told for many years) that the road is safe and legal to drive on at 40 mph, and you know that they will continue in the short term to drive at 40 mph unless they are told to slow down, what is the most efficient way of telling them to slow down?

Is it (a) to put up signs advising them of the new limit; or
(b ) to hide round the corner and post fixed penalty notices out later?

By not putting up signs, they ensured that more drivers were driving too fast on that road and that they raised more money. Was it because they wanted drivers to go too fast, or was it to raise money?

[Tall Paul]

I wasn't one of the ones caught, and it was some years ago. But to try and put it simply:

At one point, coming out of Haslingden I believe, the road went from 30 mph (urban) to 40 mph (no longer urban) - and the road sign at that spot said 40 mph as you would expect.

Then it was decided that urban sprawl or whatever had changed things and the 30mph stretch had to be extended. So they just took away the 40 mph signs, but did not put up any new signs, so there wasn't a sign to say this is no longer a 40 mph zone.

You've got it the wrong way round, they didn't extend the 30 zone, they shortened the 40 zone. The sign is there to tell drivers that it's safe to speed up to 40 past that point (they're also repeated at regular intervals to leave drivers in no doubt). If you don't see a sign it''s still 30.

[dsr]

You've got it the wrong way round, they didn't extend the 30 zone, they shortened the 40 zone. The sign is there to tell drivers that it's safe to speed up to 40 past that point (they're also repeated at regular intervals to leave drivers in no doubt). If you don't see a sign it''s still 30.

You're stating the obvious. I know that all that is true. But not all drivers on their regular commute can swear that every sign that was there yesterday is still there today. You possibly can, but some drivers have less ability to see absolutely every hazard and are looking somewhere else as they pass the sign that was there yesterday.

If you are genuinely opposed to signage telling drivers that there is a new speed limit on a certain stretch of road - why are you opposed?

[Billy Balfour]

Christ.

[Jakubclaret]

I am still convinced that a new speed limit of 35 mph is required in those (many) stretches of road where 40 mph is too fast (pedestrian and driver safety) and 30 mph is too slow (reasonable safe progress).

That'd be a common sense solution, meeting halfway, the treasury wouldn't like it though.

[Tall Paul]

You're stating the obvious. I know that all that is true. But not all drivers on their regular commute can swear that every sign that was there yesterday is still there today. You possibly can, but some drivers have less ability to see absolutely every hazard and are looking somewhere else as they pass the sign that was there yesterday.

If you are genuinely opposed to signage telling drivers that there is a new speed limit on a certain stretch of road - why are you opposed?

I'm not against it. There is always a sign when there's a new speed limit.

[Rileybobs]

You're stating the obvious. I know that all that is true. But not all drivers on their regular commute can swear that every sign that was there yesterday is still there today. You possibly can, but some drivers have less ability to see absolutely every hazard and are looking somewhere else as they pass the sign that was there yesterday.

If you are genuinely opposed to signage telling drivers that there is a new speed limit on a certain stretch of road - why are you opposed?

Surely the drivers would be looking for the sign telling them that they can speed up though?

[Billy Balfour]

That'd be a common sense solution, meeting halfway, the treasury wouldn't like it though.

They won't bring it in because too many will think it's fine to do 40mph in the 35mph zone. You only have to read through this thread to see that some think it's so unfair to be sanctioned for doing 36mph in a 30mph zone.

[TsarBomba]

In the event of a summons the costs are recoverable by the defendant, every expense initially incurred will be more than handsomely recovered.

Don’t you mean recovered by the prosecution?

Costs and fines are certainly not handsomely recovered as you seem to think, I’m not sure where you’ve got that impression from.

I think you underestimate how much it costs to run a hearing with CPS, magistrate, Police, witnesses and defendants all present.

A defendant can incur costs if found guilty, but dependent on their circumstances, they may work out a payment plan with the court where they can pay as little as £1 per week.

[Tall Paul]

You're stating the obvious. I know that all that is true. But not all drivers on their regular commute can swear that every sign that was there yesterday is still there today. You possibly can, but some drivers have less ability to see absolutely every hazard and are looking somewhere else as they pass the sign that was there yesterday.

Also, this is why there are repeater signs at regular intervals when the speed limit is anything other than the standard limit for that type of road, so failing to see the original sign is no excuse.

I would suggest that drivers who don't have the ability to read signs shouldn't be on the road.

[Jakubclaret]

Don’t you mean recovered by the prosecution?

Costs and fines are certainly not handsomely recovered as you seem to think, I’m not sure where you’ve got that impression from.

I think you underestimate how much it costs to run a hearing with CPS, magistrate, Police, witnesses and defendants all present.

A defendant can incur costs if found guilty, but dependent on their circumstances, they may work out a payment plan with the court where they can pay as little as £1 per week.

Yes sorry worded it wrong, I don't dispute any of that post regarding the costs, but the overwhelming majority of the cases will just be pay the fixed penalty & have it done with, I can't imagine that many cases going to court when people are in the wrong as I was when I got caught, speeding is wrong there's no 2 ways about that, I'm just researching now about how much the cameras are making & also if evidence exists supporting the cameras in improving road safety & reducing accidents, quite a lot online contradicting each other.

[dsr]

I'm not against it. There is always a sign when there's a new speed limit.

You still haven't understood what I mean by a new speed limit.

On this particular stretch of road, the speed limit was 40 mph. Then they changed it for that stretch of road so it became 30 mph. They did not put up signs advising mortorists of the change. There was no sign at the point where the speed limit had been 40 and was now 30.

[Jakubclaret]

Police aren’t responsible for signage.

It always makes me smile when I read that fines for traffic offences are seen as a great money making scheme by the Police.

Firstly, the money doesn’t go to the Police. And secondly, the CJS is cumbersome and inefficient. If I administer a ticket at the roadside for a traffic offence, by the time this is processed, there has actually been a loss not a profit.

Vehicle stop, checks, roadside interview, administering ticket, statement.. if there’s a summons to court, then that’s also file to be prepared and a court hearing with all the related costs.

Not quite the money making scheme you seem to think it is.

Edit- The locations of where speed vans will be is posted online beforehand too.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/1 ... s-courses/
I've discovered that whilst researching.

[Tall Paul]

You still haven't understood what I mean by a new speed limit.

On this particular stretch of road, the speed limit was 40 mph. Then they changed it for that stretch of road so it became 30 mph. They did not put up signs advising mortorists of the change. There was no sign at the point where the speed limit had been 40 and was now 30.

I understand perfectly. You're just wrong to suggest that a sign is necessary.

You don't appear to understand how road signage works. The speed limit is 30 mph unless there are signs stating otherwise. They removed the 40 mph speed limit on this stretch of road and they let motorists know this by removing the 40 mph signs.

To put up 30 mph signs there would go against road sign convention which is the same throughout the UK for good reason.

[dsr]

I understand perfectly. You're just wrong to suggest that a sign is necessary.

You don't appear to understand how road signage works. The speed limit is 30 mph unless there are signs stating otherwise. They removed the 40 mph speed limit on this stretch of road and they let motorists know this by removing the 40 mph signs.

To put up 30 mph signs there would go against road sign convention which is the same throughout the UK for good reason.

Of course I know the rules about 30 mph zones; what I didn't realise was that when you said there will always be a sign to indicate a change of the speed limit, you were including the taking away of a sign as being the same as putting up a sign.

[Tall Paul]

Of course I know the rules about 30 mph zones; what I didn't realise was that when you said there will always be a sign to indicate a change of the speed limit, you were including the taking away of a sign as being the same as putting up a sign.

I'm not.

[dsr]

So when you said "There is always a sign when there's a new speed limit", what did you mean? Bearing in mind that you were referring specifically to the introduction of a new limit on the same stretch of road, where you know full well that there isn't a new sign, just the removal of the old one?

[Tall Paul]

So when you said "There is always a sign when there's a new speed limit", what did you mean? Bearing in mind that you were referring specifically to the introduction of a new limit on the same stretch of road, where you know full well that there isn't a new sign, just the removal of the old one?

It's pretty obvious what I meant.

When you're driving along a road and there's a change in the speed limit, there is always a sign.

In this case, there was a sign when the limit changed from 30 to 40. Now the sign is removed, there is no longer a change in the speed limit. It wasn't an introduction of a new limit, it was the removal of the previous one. There's a difference.

When you said that you know the rules about 30 mph zones, does that mean that you accept that the reason they removed the sign and didn't put up a new one was to comply with UK convention and not a scam, as you originally claimed?

[dsr]

It's pretty obvious what I meant.

When you're driving along a road and there's a change in the speed limit, there is always a sign.

In this case, there was a sign when the limit changed from 30 to 40. Now the sign is removed, there is no longer a change in the speed limit. It wasn't an introduction of a new limit, it was the removal of the previous one. There's a difference.

When you said that you know the rules about 30 mph zones, does that mean that you accept that the reason they removed the sign and didn't put up a new one was to comply with UK convention and not a scam, as you originally claimed?

No, because I don't share your obsession that the rules and conventions must be complied with, no more and no less. It's a scam, same as it would be if HMRC changed the tax rules but didn't publicise them. I have no objection to telling people what their obligations are; there we will have to differ.

I have seen new speed limits posted and made clear, on the grounds that the powers that be in those places wanted to tell the drivers what the speed limit actually is. I'll let you know next time I see one so you can picket it, or cover it up!

[Tall Paul]

No, because I don't share your obsession that the rules and conventions must be complied with, no more and no less. It's a scam, same as it would be if HMRC changed the tax rules but didn't publicise them. I have no objection to telling people what their obligations are; there we will have to differ.

I have no objection either and in this case they have been told. It's quite clearly 30 mph.

As for the HMRC analogy, it isn't even remotely similar.

I have seen new speed limits posted and made clear, on the grounds that the powers that be in those places wanted to tell the drivers what the speed limit actually is. I'll let you know next time I see one so you can picket it, or cover it up!

Please do. Not sure why I'd want to do either of those things though. I'm willing to bet that you won't find one like this specific case.

[SalouClaret]

Imagine knowing that you'll be fined and/or get points if you are caught speeding, proceeding to speed anyway and then complaining once caught speeding

[Claret32yrs]

Well this has been enlightening! A who's who of people all in one thread.

[Burnley Ace]

In the event of a summons the costs are recoverable by the defendant, every expense initially incurred will be more than handsomely recovered.

No they aren’t, some cost may be awarded at the Magistrates discretion (s64 Magistrates Court Act) and the hourly rate the Court pay is a lot less than a solicitor would charge a private paying client. Ask Nigel Evans about it!

[Jakubclaret]

No they aren’t, some cost may be awarded at the Magistrates discretion (s64 Magistrates Court Act) and the hourly rate the Court pay is a lot less than a solicitor would charge a private paying client. Ask Nigel Evans about it!

For the £100 fixed penalty it wouldn't even see the light of day in a courtroom it'd be unlikely, caught red-handed you'd pay the tonne & put it to bed, I don't even know why some people are bringing court into the equation to perhaps justify the expense I don't know I'm guessing. You'd get the letter thought the post, bang done.

[ChorltonCharlie]

People who speed are so confident in their own ability that they use it to justify why speed limits are wrong and why the cameras are in the wrong place. Yet accidents happen all over the country because people don’t drive as they should, and speeding is one of those reasons. This is why that confidence is arrogance. It’s not about the thousands of journeys where you’ve not had an accident, it’s about the one time you could have an accident. Speed limits mitigate the impact of having an accident and a few miles an hour could be difference between a death or life changing injury and a minor injury.

As for money making exercises and stealth tax, I wish it was. Add in zero tolerance on people hitting 12 points and you’ve got a more money for the government to reinvest elsewhere and sooner or later less cars on the road meaning less accidents, less congestion and better for the environment. Meanwhile it’s only the idiots who lose out. What’s not to like? Obviously it’s not a money making exercise despite what Daily Mail readers would like to think, so hopefully instead we’ll see more and more average speed camera areas like they have in Blacko and speeding will soon become a thing of the past.