From: GT on
"Clive George" <clive(a)xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:C4udnQ6owaXBQ5rRnZ2dnUVZ7vOdnZ2d(a)brightview.co.uk...
> On 03/06/2010 17:42, GT wrote:
>> "Clive George"<clive(a)xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:XYKdnduMAYZBRJrRnZ2dnUVZ8hqdnZ2d(a)brightview.co.uk...
>>> On 03/06/2010 17:21, GT wrote:
>>>> "Mrcheerful"<nbkm57(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:BxQNn.1595$Ty3.953(a)newsfe15.ams2...
>>>>> GT wrote:
>>>>>> "Mrcheerful"<nbkm57(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:3cQNn.1592$Ty3.1105(a)newsfe15.ams2...
>>>>>>> GT wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Mrcheerful"<nbkm57(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:igPNn.1590$Ty3.640(a)newsfe15.ams2...
>>>>>>>>> GT wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Adrian"<toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:86psi3F8o0U17(a)mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>>>>> "GT"<a(a)b.c> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>>>>>>>>>>> saying:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the recommended speed for the road
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognised safe speed for the road
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And where would this piece of information be available from?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Its written on large circular signs along the road.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Riiiiiight.<gently> I don't think that's what you think it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In the UK driving test, they make sure you know what those
>>>>>>>>>>>> signs
>>>>>>>>>>>> are for.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Quite. Which makes your misconception even more surprising. It's
>>>>>>>>>>> even written down in the Highway Code (125, btw).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is that the speed limit part? The limit that is set by the local
>>>>>>>>>> authorities as they consider that to be the safe speed for the
>>>>>>>>>> road?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, the 'speed limit' is the legal maximum that you may travel at
>>>>>>>>> (if other conditions allow), this is not a 'safe' speed, nor a
>>>>>>>>> recommendation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We've covered that point already.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> you seemed confused, so it needs to be re-iterated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I might have made one typo on another thread, but there's no
>>>>>> confusion here matey.
>>>>>
>>>>> just above at 2.37 you stated:
>>>>>
>>>>> "forced to slow down to
>>>>> about half the recommended speed for the road, while... "
>>>>>
>>>>> there is no such thing as a recommended speed for any road .
>>>>
>>>> Like I said at 16:26 - "We've covered that point already". The
>>>> recommended
>>>> maximum speed (commonly known as speed limit) is determined by the
>>>> local
>>>> authorities for *every* road in their area.
>>>
>>> What's "recommended" about it?
>>
>> Read the above post! The maximum speed is both recommended by the local
>> authority and enforced by law in the form of a speed limit.
>
> I've read your post above, and see nothing telling me it's recommended.
> Maybe you can point to a bit of the HC which says it.

This whole debate has now degraded into a slanging match around the word
'recommended'. This debate arose because I said that cars have to slow down
to about half of the recommended speed in order to drive over speed bumps
safely and without damaging their car, before accelerating back up to the
recommended speed. Let me revisit this apparently sore point and clarify:
One should never travel above the speed *limit*, as this is illegal, but one
should always try to 'make good progress', which means travelling close to,
but within the speed limit. Failure to make good progress is a common
shortcoming of test candidates on the UK DSA driving test. When learning to
drive, a student is taught to accelerate near to the speed limit (28-29 in a
30). Failure to do so during a test will result in the candidate being
marked down and enough 'bad' marks will result in a failed driving test - in
other words, if you don't drive at a reasonable speed, then you are not
driving to UK DSA standards.

In short, the speed limit is the mandatory maximum speed at which any
vehicle may travel on a given road. The recommended speed is 'normally' as
close to the limit as one can realistically get without breaking the law. In
adverse road conditions, the driver must determine for himself what is a
safe speed. OK, cue the 'its a limit, not a target' response from people who
are not up-to-date on DSA driving standards...


From: GT on
"john wright" <john(a)pegasus.f2s.com> wrote in message
news:86qnafFi8cU1(a)mid.individual.net...
> On 03/06/2010 15:43, GT wrote:
>> "Tom Crispin"<kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message
>> news:q8ff061d30in6kk6muu8k197vs1pt8gaae(a)4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 15:16:54 +0100, "GT"<a(a)b.c> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Tom Crispin"<kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message
>>>> news:6mcf069eqgndnc8spquko40ofpsmt9mjvr(a)4ax.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 14:37:03 +0100, "GT"<a(a)b.c> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> half the recommended speed for the road
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the 'recommended speed for the road'?
>>>>
>>>> 30 mph
>>>
>>> And can you tell me what the legal maximum speed for this road might
>>> be?
>>
>> We all know what point you are trying to make, but the legal speed limit
>> is
>> set by the local authorities as they consider that to be the safe speed
>> for
>> the road. In most main roads this is 30mph, in quieter streets this is
>> 20mph.
>
> If you were to stop after authority that would be more or less correct. I
> don't think consideration comes into it, more local politics.

Very true!


From: The Medway Handyman on
Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Wednesday I cycled the route of the proposed cycle superhighway 5,
> an excellent scheme to redistribute road space by taking a slither
> from motorists and giving it to cyclists.

No doubt paid for by motorists. Why should road space be redistributed in
favour of a bunch of lycra clad spongers?

> I cycled the route with a senior engineer from Transport for London,
> three road engineer consultants and a range of other interested
> parties representing cycle groups.

Did they consider having someone along who represented tax paying motorists?


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.


From: Hugo Nebula on
[Default] On 3 Jun 2010 15:40:01 GMT, a certain chimpanzee, Adrian
<toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com>, randomly hit the keyboard and wrote:

>Peter Johnson <peter(a)nospam.narrowgaugeuk.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding
>much like they were saying:
>
>>>60mph is the default extra-urban limit - and has been for ~50 years.
>
>> Not as long as that surely?
>
>From memory, the extra-urban limit was first introduced in the '60s,
>wasn't it?
>
>> If memory serves, it might not, it was 70mph until some fuel crisis in
>> the 1970s(?)
>
>OK. Nearly 40 years, then.

As in 33 years is nearer to 40 than to 50.

A limit on previously unrestricted roads was introduced at 70mph in
1966. This was lowered in 1973 to 50 mph on SC roads & 60 mph on DCs,
until 1977, when it was 'raised' to 60mph on SCs.

Obviously this is because in the last 44 years car safety has
decreased, with ABS, disc brakes, seat belts, etc, being removed from
cars, and reductions in medical techniques and road engineering. Or
does time move forward? I forget.
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have I strayed"?
From: JNugent on
Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Wednesday I cycled the route of the proposed cycle superhighway 5,
> an excellent scheme to redistribute road space by taking a slither
> from motorists and giving it to cyclists.
>
> I cycled the route with a senior engineer from Transport for London,
> three road engineer consultants and a range of other interested
> parties representing cycle groups.
>
> On the A2, at the New Cross Gyratory (which is scheduled for removal
> to allow two-way traffic, slow traffic speeds, and make the area safer
> for cyclists) there was a sunken drain cover causing a nasty pothole.
> While we were discussing how road space could be reallocated to
> cyclists within the constraints of two-way traffic flow, a truck
> pulled up with two workmen. They jumped out of the cab, each carrying
> a tub of "ULTRA permanent pothole repair". They proceeded to fill the
> pothole and instruct lorry and bus drivers to driver over it to
> compact it. Two minutes later and they were done. Two minutes to fill
> a pothole!? Why is there such a pothole problem?

Because filling a pothole (which can be done very cheaply and quickly) is not
the same as fixing it.