Could this be the first step in reducing the NSL for motorcycles and cars on single carriageway routes to 50mph?
That won't be necessary, because, as now, the lorries who ccurrently [illegally] travel at 50 mph on single carriageways effectively create mobile road blocks...or 'traffic-calming' measures.
I think this issue with LGV speed limits has entirely lost the plot.
Firstly, we are not talking about nice , modern , wide single carriageways..although that is the mental picture conjured up.
We are talking about any single carriegway road, regardless of actual width, visibility, nature, terrain, or whatever.
The issue really isn't about LGVs being able to move faster..but really, about how high the NSL for cars/bikes needs to be, to enable such vehciels to effect a realtively safe overtake, yet remain within the Law.
Folk have conveniently forgotten the considerable studies that were conducted in the 1980's, when this issue of raising LGV speed limits arose before.
The crux of the matter centred on how long it would take a car to overtake an artic travelling at 40, or 50 mph.[yet, remain within the overall 60 mph limit].
To pass an artic doing 50, yet remain within the Law as it stands, requires an awful lot more clear road on the other side of the centre line, than would be required to do the same thing, with an artic doing 40mph.
If the car limit was raised to, for example, 70 mph...would that be a wise move, given that car drivers [on the whole a lot less competent than they imagine...but then, so are lorry drivers, in my professional experience] would do the speed, simply because they are allowed to.....without regard for whether it is a safe speed to drive at, given road & traffic conditions?
Then there is the issue of available clear space alongside a normal LGV [at around 2.5 meters wide?]
Next time out on the roads, look how incredibly narrow some of our major, single carriageway roads really are?
With the average LGV having barely a couple of feet of clear space before they are either onto or across the centre line [in close conflict with oncoming vehicles...perhaps another lGV?]...or are into the verge...which may well consist of soft soil and grass?
The LGV driver needs to keep their long, jointed, swaying bouncing LGV within some very close confines, if they are to avoid collision, or worse, being suddenly dragged sharp left on a soft verge [or tramlined], probaly rolling over in the process.
Next time out, when following LGVs..especially on motorways, with their wide lanes, and lack of real obstacles....and see how well LGV drivers manage not to stay on their path...but wander around from side to side,, even onto the hard shoulder? [ever wondered why the hard shjoulder is considered a very dangerous place? Watch LGV drivers to see the point.]
To me, this incease is folly, brought about by an attempt to pander to the unknowing driving public. It is a political move..and little will change in practical terms from today.
It is a fudge, plain & simple.
What really should have been done is to focus attention on widening to dual status, those roads that currently present a congestion issue ,with LGVs the scapegoat. [A15, Lincolnshire, anyone?] Maybe triple laning some points of single carriageway, with a 'one-down, two up' system?
Of course, the jams behind LGVs are largely created by less-than-competent drivers, [right across the age, & 'experience' group, too] failing to seek opportunities to pass, as they present themselves..failing to understand how to reduce the potential levels of risk in doing so.
I have often observed LGVs entering dual sections of road....and following cars still not bothering to overtake.....
But,that isn't the point really.....the point is, basic drivers are not encouraged to leave room for others to pass them, [and pull back in] should they themselves not wish to progress more quickly.
This is where the frustration arises.
It really is a sad day when the lack of proper mental attitude of drivers dictates the laws of the land.
And folk want to raise speed limits even further....with all those drivers around, who cannot control their frustrated urges?
I note mention of car driver frustration with lGVs, and the taking of chances, with accompanying dangers....?
Imagine the amount of risk if drivers have to drive even faster to still overtake....with even less clear oncoming road space to do so [more speed, more ground gets covered...]
In the 1980's, they decided not to raise the limits [because of the need to raise other limits too, beyond what is reasonable]....nothing has changed.....drivers are no more competent now than back then. Probably less so.
Increase overtaking capacity....and improve ordinary driver education.
But that involves spending money, and becoming unpopular....[ and no-one likes being told their apparently ''good ''driving is rubbish, do they?]
|
