From: Tosspot on
On 03/06/10 15:32, 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?

That's the spirit! Aim for the numbers. I like the cut of your jib Sir!
From: Brimstone on
"GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
news:4c07bfbe$0$29801$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com...
> "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:86pt5mF8o0U18(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?
>>
>> It's related to that fallacy, yes.
>
> Marvelous. Thats sorted then.
Oh no it's not, not by a long chalk.


From: GT on
"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.


From: Peter Johnson on
On 3 Jun 2010 14:49:03 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote:


>60mph is the default extra-urban limit - and has been for ~50 years.
>
Not as long as that surely? If memory serves, it might not, it was
70mph until some fuel crisis in the 1970s(?) when the national limit
was reduced to 60mph and subsequently returned to 70mph on motorways
and dual carriageways but not on single carriageways.
From: Zimmy on

"bod" <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:86prcuF9kpU2(a)mid.individual.net...
> Zimmy wrote:
>>
>> "Tom Crispin" <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message
>> news:s41f065j8se9mr0dr790fb2u3dq63ge4cj(a)4ax.com...
>>> 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 it doesn't do what it says on the tin. It's not permanent, the
>> holes will likely be back next time it is frosty. What they really need
>> to do is sort out the drainage, everywhere that puddles regularly lie,
>> freeze, and traffic drives over usually ends up as a pothole.
>>
>> Z
>
> The main problem is water getting into cracks in a road, not puddles per
> se, IMO.

Sorry, that's basically what I meant. In my experience regular puddles cause
cracks eventually. A road near me, which regularly puddles (almost floods)
in one area, was resurfaced last year because of all the potholes there.
After the winter, all the potholes are back in the same area, as they didn't
fix the drainage.

Z