20mph limits

[DTR]

Sorry for the confusion. For the benefit of younger readers, “ wireless” means communication transmitted via radio waves (long, medium, or FM) to a box some people refer to as a Radio or even a Tuner. Give it a go (preferably BBC Radio 4).

[Malc]

15 hours ago, Spock66 said:

Maybe the next generation of cars will self-report and snitch on you, automatically give you points and then permanently disable the vehicle.

I shouldn't jest about that 

YES, I can see the insurers linking in with the Authorities ( whatever they are ) AND issue speeding tickets etc automatically and points on your Licence and the insurer all the while keeping tabs on you to calculate the " risk " you pose to their coffers £££

Malc

[Las Palmas]

15 hours ago, Illogan said:

LenT: I think you're spot-on. It's ALWAYS someone else's fault, and unfortunately the dominance of t'internet and soshul meedja turbocharges all this selfish and accusatory indignation.

You will be correct in determining that I'm now a 'grumpy' of the older generation.

Does not need a policeman to give a fine. Many places cameras are installed, taking your picture when speeding (even if just a little) and then you have to pay for the picture.

[Las Palmas]

13 minutes ago, Malc said:

I shouldn't jest about that 

YES, I can see the insurers linking in with the Authorities ( whatever they are ) AND issue speeding tickets etc automatically and points on your Licence and the insurer all the while keeping tabs on you to calculate the " risk " you pose to their coffers £££

Malc

Brave new world.

Is 1984 now?

[Las Palmas]

6 hours ago, DTR said:

Sorry for the confusion. For the benefit of younger readers, “ wireless” means communication transmitted via radio waves (long, medium, or FM) to a box some people refer to as a Radio or even a Tuner. Give it a go (preferably BBC Radio 4).

No more BBC news on my phone. They want to know all your personal data in order to get their news and hand them over to Facebook and other spam companies.

[Linas.P]

43 minutes ago, Malc said:

I shouldn't jest about that 

YES, I can see the insurers linking in with the Authorities ( whatever they are ) AND issue speeding tickets etc automatically and points on your Licence and the insurer all the while keeping tabs on you to calculate the " risk " you pose to their coffers £££

I would add that this extremely dangerous not to be able to speed in certain situations, where it is the car itself monitoring it. As it happens I always rent premium cars and often they come with tracking, which is fine... rental companies don't want their cars to be rented and then stolen and perhaps insurance insists on it as well. But recently some companies went further - they have clause in the contract saying that if you speed for more than 10km/h for 5 minutes, or if you ever exceed 25km/h you will pay 50 Euro "fee". So although this is not the law it is contractual agreement. Now on the face of it seems ok in the cities and on motorways, but it is completely impossible to drive like this on highways as overtaking is basically impossible - ever tried overtaking truck by going just 10km/h faster? It takes forever! And if you go over 20km/h which by the way isn't really that much faster when overtaking, then instead of looking at road, you are looking at your speedometer so that you don't exceed 25km/h - it is dangerous!

The point is overtaking is the most dangerous manoeuvre there is, so the less time it takes on the opposite side of the road, the better. As such my experience tells me that I should decide whenever to overtake based on road conditions, gap between upcoming cars and capability of my car. So if there is 20s gap and I know car is capable of overtaking in 10s I will go for it, floor it and complete the overtaking as fast as possible regardless of what speed I will momentary reach during the overtaking, focus is on returning to your own side of the road as quickly as possible. But with the contraption saying that you will pay 50 Euro every time logic doesn't work and you basically have to take more risk by overtaking extremely slowly, not because your car isn't capable or not because road conditions doesn't permit it, but because you have to stick to the limit... and on top of that watch speedometer instead of watching the road. 

And one would say 10km/h is ok for overtaking... if truck is doing say 80 and speed limit is 90, then you will be overtaking basically 20km/h (~5m/s) and if truck is 25m long, then it will take ~5s... but you kind of need to start the overtaking truck length begin and return leaving some space in front of the truck, so that is suddenly 15s. And what happens if you are overtaking and there is sign saying speed limit is now 70km/h? Should you break on other side of the road? Should you continue overtaking and accept 50 Euro fee? It really doesn't sound like much of an handicap until theory meets the practice and it turns out that sometimes speeding j is needed for safety. And as well - it isn't so much of an issue that you can't speed more than 25km/h, much more of an issue is that you have to watch speedometer instead of watching the road. 

[Ken Timbers]

Among all the comments about the burgeoning number of 20 MPH speed limits, I may have missed any comment about the way these are often linked to speed humps. Certainly in my part of London (Greenwich) these have proliferated like rabbits and I've often thought the associated 20 MPH limits are as much to do with limiting the damage to vehicle suspensions and passengers' spines as to keeping speeds down! I've driven both new and old cars over these carbuncles for years and still feel obliged to drop well under 20 MPH for the sake of  both myself and my car.  I feel that the combined cost of road humps and the limit signs illustrates all too clearly the way of the 'nanny state's' relish for spending the tax-payers' money without regard for value.

But I've reached the age to be permitted a tendency towards grumpiness.

[LenT]

24 minutes ago, Ken Timbers said:

 I've often thought the associated 20 MPH limits are as much to do with limiting the damage to vehicle suspensions…

You may well be right, Ken.

MrsT has a Suzuki 4x4 which is so good at negotiating rough terrain that she has developed a degree of disdain for road bumps.

Over the years this has resulted in two broken front coil springs and thus the replacement of four!  Unfortunately this didn’t result in any great deterioration in handling and only came to light during annual MoTs.  

So she didn’t feel compelled to revise her attitude to speed bumps!  ☹️

 

[Spock66]

1 hour ago, Ken Timbers said:

Among all the comments about the burgeoning number of 20 MPH speed limits, I may have missed any comment about the way these are often linked to speed humps.

They are also not great for the environment as many motorists will brake for the hump and then accelerate hence more noise, CO2, pollution etc.

[Phil xxkr]

1 hour ago, Spock66 said:

They are also not great for the environment as many motorists will brake for the hump and then accelerate hence more noise, CO2, pollution etc.

If I recall correctly Andrew, humping involves acceleration followed by braking? Have I been doing it wrong all these years? 😂

[wharfhouse]

2 hours ago, Ken Timbers said:

Among all the comments about the burgeoning number of 20 MPH speed limits, I may have missed any comment about the way these are often linked to speed humps. Certainly in my part of London (Greenwich) these have proliferated like rabbits and I've often thought the associated 20 MPH limits are as much to do with limiting the damage to vehicle suspensions and passengers' spines as to keeping speeds down! I've driven both new and old cars over these carbuncles for years and still feel obliged to drop well under 20 MPH for the sake of  both myself and my car.  I feel that the combined cost of road humps and the limit signs illustrates all too clearly the way of the 'nanny state's' relish for spending the tax-payers' money without regard for value.

But I've reached the age to be permitted a tendency towards grumpiness.

Ah - speed humps - where I drive quite regularly, if I have four up in my IS 300h it bottoms out on the speed humps in the middle of the car (in fact it very nearly bottoms out with just one up) - no matter how slowly I drive! I looked underneath the other day and one of the plastic panels that cover the underside of the car has been worn away at it's lowest point. I did ask Lexus about a replacement at my last service but they said the cost of the panel was £400 - and did I really want to go ahead...? - they reported the panel was quite secure, just rather scuffed and worn through in one place! I decided to leave it at that as it would only happen again. How councils get to put in speed humps that can actually damage a normal road car traversing them at a very slow speed (when the speed limit is actually 30mph) is beyond me.

[Bluemarlin]

I find that speed humps have minimal impact if you take them at an angle. 45 degrees is perfect if you have the room.

[wharfhouse]

15 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

I find that speed humps have minimal impact if you take them at an angle. 45 degrees is perfect if you have the room.

Yes I do that where I can but sometimes just not the room with oncoming traffic

[Bluemarlin]

5 minutes ago, wharfhouse said:

Yes I do that where I can but sometimes just not the room with oncoming traffic

That's true Phil. You could also try taking the council to task if the humps are exccessive:

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-6202675/One-five-motorists-suffered-car-damage-speed-bumps.html

[wharfhouse]

24 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

That's true Phil. You could also try taking the council to task if the humps are exccessive:

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-6202675/One-five-motorists-suffered-car-damage-speed-bumps.html

I'll have a read of that - problem is always going to be proving it was a specific speed bump that did the damage I guess...

[Linas.P]

5 hours ago, Ken Timbers said:

Among all the comments about the burgeoning number of 20 MPH speed limits, I may have missed any comment about the way these are often linked to speed humps. Certainly in my part of London (Greenwich) these have proliferated like rabbits and I've often thought the associated 20 MPH limits are as much to do with limiting the damage to vehicle suspensions and passengers' spines as to keeping speeds down! I've driven both new and old cars over these carbuncles for years and still feel obliged to drop well under 20 MPH for the sake of  both myself and my car.  I feel that the combined cost of road humps and the limit signs illustrates all too clearly the way of the 'nanny state's' relish for spending the tax-payers' money without regard for value.

But I've reached the age to be permitted a tendency towards grumpiness.

I don't think they are related, however they are similar - as they are equally useless, achieves opposite effect and increases pollution, noise, cost of maintenance and further associated pollution, because replacing shock absorber or wheel not only costs money, it is waste it is pollution. Let's not forget other contraptions like narrow gates. All in all, these all measures works together to make roads hostile for road users as much as possible and as discussed it seems like the goal is to drive people mad to the point where they quit driving. Roads are children playground except the one where instead of soft cushions on every edge there are needles, razors, spikes and all sorts of nasty hidden traps. So I guess idea here is that if you every took your kids to playground and they came back all cut and bruised, you wont take them there anymore. However... is it only me or it is criminally negligent to do this? Like they deliberately hurting people, maybe not physically, but at very least financially? How is that "okey"?

There is one further caveat - technically speed humps have to be engineered in a way that car passing them at the posted speed limit should not needs slowing down, angle and height should be calculated as such that passing them at certain speed they should be nearly unnoticeable. So if it is 30MPH roads, then you should be able to drive over hump at 25-35MPH let's say without slowing down and it should not be very uncomfortable and certainly should not damage the car. As we all know the reality is completely different however - they come in all shapes and forms and one newer knows whenever they will pass the hump without noticing it, our you may leave half of your suspension and oil pan scattered on the road. This is technically "illegal" and council should be liable for damages, but it is very hard to prove. That said these rules applies only on the "main" roads where speed limit is 20MPH+, so by turning roads into 20MPH zones councils avoids any responsibility for incorrectly installed speed humps as well. In other European countries speedhumps are regulated and only approved design can be fitted, in UK any retard can build a wall with engineering not so much different from one required for sand castle. 

I have long said speed humps should be made illegal as they are very retarded way of controlling speed in modern times (19th century solution for 21st century), they actually kill more people than they save (by slowing down ambulances and hurting patients), but they still commonly used. To be fair given a choice I would rather have speed camera than speed hump or narrow gate, at least going at speed limit past the camera one has nothing to worry about, whereas speeds humps does not discriminate against any speed and ruins everyone's life equally bad.

[Ken Timbers]

29 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

I have long said speed humps should be made illegal as they are very retarded way of controlling speed in modern times (19th century solution for 21st century), they actually kill more people than they save (by slowing down ambulances and hurting patients), but they still commonly used. To be fair give a choice I would rather have speed camera than speed hump or narrow gate, at least going at speed limit past the camera one has nothing to worry about, whereas speeds humps does not discriminate against any speed and ruins everyone's life equally bad.

You'd think that the high percentage of drivers who are anti these retarded laws would form a sufficient body to influence the political community that makes them, but we don't seem to have a voice. I think the AA and RAC have made comments, but which—if any—among the political parties actually listens?

[Bluemarlin]

56 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

I don't think they are related, however they are similar - as they are equally useless, achieves opposite effect and increases pollution, noise, cost of maintenance and further associated pollution, because replacing shock absorber or wheel not only costs money, it is waste it is pollution. Let's not forget other contraptions like narrow gates. All in all, these all measures works together to make roads hostile for road users as much as possible and as discussed it seems like the goal is to drive people mad to the point where they quit driving. Roads are children playground except the one where instead of soft cushions on every edge there are needles, razors, spikes and all sorts of nasty hidden traps. So I guess idea here is that if you every took your kids to playground and they came back all cut and bruised, you wont take them there anymore. However... is it only me or it is criminally negligent to do this? Like they deliberately hurting people, maybe not physically, but at very least financially? How is that "okey"?

There is one further caveat - technically speed humps have to be engineered in a way that car passing them at the posted speed limit should not needs slowing down, angle and height should be calculated as such that passing them at certain speed they should be nearly unnoticeable. So if it is 30MPH roads, then you should be able to drive over hump at 25-35MPH let's say without slowing down and it should not be very uncomfortable and certainly should not damage the car. As we all know the reality is completely different however - they come in all shapes and forms and one newer knows whenever they will pass the hump without noticing it, our you may leave half of your suspension and oil pan scattered on the road. This is technically "illegal" and council should be liable for damages, but it is very hard to prove. That said these rules applies only on the "main" roads where speed limit is 20MPH+, so by turning roads into 20MPH zones councils avoids any responsibility for incorrectly installed speed humps as well. In other European countries speedhumps are regulated and only approved design can be fitted, in UK any retard can build a wall with engineering not so much different from one required for sand castle. 

I have long said speed humps should be made illegal as they are very retarded way of controlling speed in modern times (19th century solution for 21st century), they actually kill more people than they save (by slowing down ambulances and hurting patients), but they still commonly used. To be fair given a choice I would rather have speed camera than speed hump or narrow gate, at least going at speed limit past the camera one has nothing to worry about, whereas speeds humps does not discriminate against any speed and ruins everyone's life equally bad.

If it's any consolation Linas, I don't have many roads with speed humps where I live, despite it being very residential. The council even gives you a free card that gives you 30 minutes free parking in pay and display spaces.

Oh, and the nearby bus lane only operate during peak hours too.

They're not all out to get you 😉

[Linas.P]

10 minutes ago, Ken Timbers said:

You'd think that the high percentage of drivers who are anti these retarded laws would form a sufficient body to influence the political community that makes them, but we don't seem to have a voice. I think the AA and RAC have made comments, but which—if any—among the political parties actually listens?

The problem here is that despite majority of public actually driving (something like 75% of journeys and 80% of trip miles are in the cars), only minority are "motorists, gearheads, motorheads" or in short enthusiasts who actually care. The problem here is that it seems society overall hates motorists and motoring, because over many years it was politically convenient to demonise motorists. Same as it was politically convenient to blame immigrants, EU, or anyone but the government in charge. I mean literally looking at articles motorists and immigrants have same underlying negative connotation. Like you will never read that crash happened because of bad road, poor design, unclear layout or that sub-optimal roads caused delays, or traffic - it is always motorists, speeding, not keeping safe distance, flocking something all at once... or anyway it is somehow always motorists fault no matter.  And again this negativity over the time made it such that society (despite many using cars themselves) tries to distance themselves from motorists and considers motorists as some sort of sub-humans who have no rights and cannot demand anything. So yes RAC and AA exists, but they are viewed as "devil advocates" and not seriously considered, they don't have same political power as some lycra warriors do and further they are kind of compromised already, they rarely make fuss of anything expect making comment somewhere on the news. They never really did what would be expect from strong pro-motoring society or lobby, like maybe organising protests or educating public etc. 

[Ken Timbers]

 

46 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

 

And again this negativity over the time made it such that society (despite many using cars themselves) tries to distance themselves from motorists and considers motorists as some sort of sub-humans who have no rights and cannot demand anything. So yes RAC and AA exists, but they are viewed as "devil advocates" and not seriously considered, they don't have same political power as some lycra warriors do and further they are kind of compromised already, they rarely make fuss of anything expect making comment somewhere on the news. They never really did what would be expect from strong pro-motoring society or lobby, like maybe organising protests or educating public etc.

Sadly, I  have to agree with you, Linas, but it's a lack of clear thinking that is all too prevalent in our present society. It seems that many people would rather accept the views expressed in their favourite media, often parroting them rather than thinking for themselves. Unfortunately, much of the media output is equally short of clear thought. In their case it's more a question of riding whatever topic floats their readers' boat in order to keep the sales high. I despair of there being any change, though I would happily vote for an MP or borough councillor who was prepared to oppose this pernicious attitude. I wonder whether there's any mileage in pushing the motoring organisations to make more effort on behalf of their members, but the cynic in me says they are more likely to avoid taking any action that might provoke today's 'woke warriors'!

[ROYT]

The plan appears to be that private car ownership is to be phased out entirely, except

for the 'very important' people and the very rich.

Despite the fact the car is very low down on the pollution scale compared to air travel,

 ships and industry. The net zero brigade ignore the true facts. The 'stop oil' protesters never explain how they will get food supplies to supermarkets etc. or how they travelled to their

protest site, or how people will get work.

20mph is only the start, next it will be tolls to drive on the road, despite the ever increasing car tax. Satellite spying on you and your car is already in the pipeline.

If you get that donkey and cart, remember if the donkey makes a mess in the road you will be taxed on it!

 

 

[Malc]

10 hours ago, ROYT said:

if the donkey makes a mess in the road you will be taxed on it!

but it will have a value .......  to be sold on T'Bay in 5kg bags for an inordinate sum ££££  

Malc

[First_Lexus]

Many years (and two subsequent house moves) ago, I lived in a village  in Bucks. Nice place to live, quiet, not much traffic.

Over a few days, and without warning, the local authority painted a whole load of road markings everywhere, including in residential streets. They were ugly - although hardly the end of the world - but more importantly they seemed totally unnecessary. They were things like white lines around the kerbs and driveways, 30mph on the roads (even though there were already perfectly serviceable signs for the speed limit).

Nobody understood why they’d done it, so I enquired. “Safety” was the answer, so I asked for the evidence. They didn’t have any - no surveys had been done, nothing. I was actually concerned at the cost of the works as they seemed unnecessary, and managed to get it on the agenda at the public Council meeting. 

It turned out the works had been (essentially) done on the whim of one local councillor based on a discussion with one local resident! He hadn’t followed the correct rules in terms of sign-off for the spend, and he was admonished (on the record) for his actions. Fair to say I wasn’t on his Christmas card list…

Even so, what really happened as a result? Nothing. The markings remained, the Councillor also stayed in post and was re-elected! It didn’t even make the local newspaper (and I tried to get them interested). I know we were talking about less than £3k but that wasn’t (and isn’t) the point. I wonder how many other local councils are doing similar, and people generally just can’t be bothered to dig and challenge.

I’ve dealt with local Government a few times over the years and have always found it to be incompetent and wholly unsatisfactory. But where is the opportunity for change? In most areas local election turnouts are low and people vote (mainly) on national issues. In many ways we’ve only got ourselves to blame.

[Marko89]

There seems to be a school of thought with government advisors that there is a direct correlation between going slow and lower emissions. To be fair this is correct, to a point. However, they clearly have never spoken to anyone in the industry, in particular HGV manufacturers. 

Engines are designed to run hot, especially exhaust systems to clean out as many of the nasties as possible. Diesel engines are particularly vulnerable to build ups at lower speeds, hence the need for regen cycles. Lowering speed limits to 20 will only serve to increase the emissions for HGVs. Which then causes the driver a key question, are they able to stop and let the vehicle regen or do they override and drive on with an engine choking itself.

There is a video from a few years ago before Renault changed their software to allow an override. One of the then new T cabs had been pootling along all day in fields doing short runs back and forth between the tractor and farm. As a result it dropped into regen mode whilst sitting idling in a field. Given the exhaust gas temperatures during a regen cycle were around 600C you can guess what happened next to the farms field. 

Diesel will be here to stay for a good while yet as there is no viable alternative for the logistics industry. This is before the consideration of acceleration being where we use the most fuel, so the constant speeding up and slowing down is really inefficient. 

[Malc]

1 hour ago, Marko89 said:

Diesel will be here to stay for a good while yet

and petrol .....  this is all a ridiculous argument about vehicles and emissions .........  about 16% of the world is western run and controlled and the rest really doesn't care a hoot about vehicle emissions  ........... some 6.7 billion people .............  who have to often struggle ( much more than we do in the west whatever " class" and impoverishment we may experience amongst our societies ) ..  so let the do-gooders think their 20mph speed limits are making a difference .  the emission technicalities will catch up with them eventually when they really want to open their minds to the reality of it all .......... so keep spending taxpayers money on fresh white lines and speed humps and all that ..... it keeps the business world running and employment good  too ............. more white lines and humps please, it's good for Society in that respect 

 

NOW  .....  if anyone wants to make a difference to emissions then I suggest they stipulate NEVER to fly Wizzair .......... the little I can do in my business environment to help Ukraine is not to book any pax with this airline coz they are openly now flying to Moscow from UAE and in defiance of Western sanctions   ( UAE doesn't care a hoot btw ) and to STOP the missiles and war mongering emissions of CO2 and all the other crap from armaments going " bang " everywhere 

.... heaven knows what the emissions effect is of all that and especially when the next nuclear power station goes pop in that part of the world too

 

OK  .  off my high horse now  .  sorry if it's digressed a little .  my apologies everyone

Malc