August 30 2014 Latest news:

People and groups in East Anglia are being asked on their views on lowering speed limits on rural and urban roads to help save lives.

To send a link to this page to a friend, you must be logged in.

People and groups in East Anglia are being asked on their views on lowering speed limits on rural and urban roads to help save lives.

The Department of Transport has launched a three-month consultation on guidance on how reducing speed limits can save lives and improve the quality of people’s lives.

The consultation is examining rural and urban speed limits and will be used to help local authorities set speed limits.

In the rural speed management section of the consultation papers is a proposal to bring in 40mph limits for single carriage roads where there are many bends, junctions or accesses, substantial development or a number of vulnerable road users.

It could also cover national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and minor rural roads.

For high quality strategic A and B roads with few bends, junctions or accesses a speed limit of 60mph is recommended.

A 5omph limit is suggested for lower quality A and B roads that have relatively high number of bends, junctions or accesses.

Rural roads present the highest risk accounting for 68pc of fatalities in 2010. Nearly half of these deaths took place on roads with a 60 mph limit.

In urban areas the government suggests 20mph limits can be in areas where “pedestrian and cyclist movements are high, such as around schools, shops, markets, playgrounds and other areas, where vehicle movement is not the primary function”.

The consultation ends on October 5.

It is not looking at national limits of 30mph on street lit roads, 60mph on single carriageway roads and 70mph on dual carriageways and motorways.

The consultation can be found www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/dft-2012-32

15 comments

  • Confusing indeed. When Suffolk adopted the 30mph in all villages, NCC opted out without much consultation, the toads had it then. Since then their policy has cost numerous life's, no form can bring these victims back, no aloof talk from party politicians can cover their guilt.

    Report this comment

    ingo wagenknecht

    Monday, July 16, 2012

  • Just remember that "Consultation" means nothing. Consultation is someone in an Ivory Tower asking you "What do you think of this?" You sensibly reply "It's utter rubbish for x,y,z reasons" Next thing you know it's implemented anyway and when you complain all you get is "You were consulted". Now, NEGOTIATION, that's a horse of a different colour...

    Report this comment

    ThePresence

    Sunday, July 15, 2012

  • Too many rural roads are badly maintained and verges with unchecked vegitation restricting visibilty must have some impact? For any law to be effective it must be capable of being properly policed. A few years ago, when this was first proposed, the police spoke out against a reduction saying that it was not capable of benig policed. Bad laws tend to get ignored and can result in a pick and choose approach for any law which is both wrong and detrimental to us all.

    Report this comment

    andy

    Sunday, July 15, 2012

  • Its not the speed limits that need looking at it is the idiots that are using the roads and the state of the roads that require repairing. Plus the worst offenders is the Mothers doing the school run and droping them off at junctions double parking considering some of them only live approx 5 to 600 yards from the schools.

    Report this comment

    Dave

    Sunday, July 15, 2012

  • Andy...".speed was the prime cause of an accident in only 15% of the cases..." .. If your figure was correct , and it is not as its higher , then in 2011 there were 31,292 casualties from speeding vehicles and of these 3,715 were deaths or serious injuries. Or " only " 3,715 in your language , although the victims or their next of kin might object to your use of the word " only ". Speed is only one factor in threatening people's lives , but that is an argument for extending controls to other areas and not cutting them for speed.

    Report this comment

    LARSON.E. WHIPSNADE

    Sunday, July 15, 2012

  • There will always be drivers who have to exceed the speed limits, just like those that have to pull out in front of you and force you to brake. It is because they have such large inferiority complexes that they cannot bear to be behind someone else.

    Report this comment

    nicholas dasey

    Monday, July 16, 2012

  • "..The same old people and groups who give the right answer, will be asked their views...".. Er..... the EDP have provided a link. Go there and there is an online form where even conspiracy theorists such as yourself can give your opinion . Its as simple as that.

    Report this comment

    LARSON.E. WHIPSNADE

    Monday, July 16, 2012

  • Much as it is great to live in this beautiful area, one real problem is the average age of the drivers, must be close to 100!! All have Nissan Micras and have the speed set to precisely 38mph, irrespective of the speed limit above or below that! The journey to Norwich fills me with despair, you'll be on a nice clear bit of road on a dry day, in a well maintained car and there'll be this endless stream in front of you, the leader being..............yes, yet another Micra at precisely 38mph! The worst possible scenario is another one, or even worse, two, behind the first one, then there is zero possibility of anyone overtaking, even where safe so we all head to Norwich at 38mph. You hope for better on the way home, just passing Norwich Rugby club you'll meet the first one!. Seriously though, although we are all aware that excessive speed is dangerous, the frustration of being stuck at 38mph all the way from Norwich is probably worse. Any possibility of a blanket 40mph would drive me to (dangerous) frustration.

    Report this comment

    Windless

    Sunday, July 15, 2012

  • Around the A140 corridor many people, even when getting to the 'de-restriction' sign at the end of a 50mph stretch seem to think the limit is still 50! Can cause frustration, with some drivers taking stupid risks to get past them. Also, I have had personal experience of meeting a traffic hazard of a large mass of cyclists three or four abreast, riding along a country lane, in diminished visibility, no lights, no distinctive clothing, treating motorists with no respect. I met them on a bend so I had zero warning of their approach and they obviously couldn't have cared less! Fortunately I WAS driving according to the conditions, doing less than 25mph - they were going far quicker! If they get hit no doubt it would be the poor driver who gets blamed!! Before introducing new rules why not publicise and enforce the existing ones?

    Report this comment

    jayprime

    Sunday, July 15, 2012

  • This so called consultation is based on the premise that speed is THE factor in accidents. The last Transport Research Laboratory (a government body) report that I was aware of stated that inappropriate speed was the prime cause of an accident in only 15% of the cases. We need to move away from dogma and address the real causes.

    Report this comment

    andy

    Sunday, July 15, 2012

  • Speed is a factor in 4% of accidents according to government figures,human error accounts for the rest! speed limits are so confusing and variable that they are an expensive trap for the unwary! At the end of the day motorists are soft targets for the police,who have now become another agency for raising revenue for the government,prosecuting when a stern warning would have sufficed! Keeping a constant eye on your speedometer is potentially dangerous,but it could save you from the roadside revenue collectors!

    Report this comment

    Harry Rabinowitz

    Monday, July 16, 2012

  • Harry Rabinowitz , as i think i may have pointed out before speed cameras raise very little money for the government and none for the police. If you prefer not to contribute money to the government in this way then you need only obey the traffic laws . Any driver should be capable of driving at or within the speed limit without staring at the speedometer , those that can't should not be on the roads. A fine is not a tax ....a tax is a compulsory charge made by a government whilst a fine is self imposed , voluntary and easily avoided by obeying the law. Government figures do not show that speed is a factor in 4% of accidents. This figure is taken from the contributory factors in accident reports ( Stats 19 ) which are not even investigations into the actual cause of accidents. They are a tick box exercise completed by the first officer at the scene and as the authors of these reports make clear because of the way the data is collected speed is is under reported , appearing instead as " loss of control " or " sudden braking ". Even if you choose to ignore these warnings the authors make about jumping to conclusions , the figures show that in serious and fatal accidents the figure is far higher than 4%. Other than that , i agree with every thing you say.

    Report this comment

    LARSON.E. WHIPSNADE

    Monday, July 16, 2012

  • "People and groups in East Anglia are being asked on their views........" Dont take any notice of this. The same old people and groups who give the right answer, will be asked their views. Perhaps the Mercury would like to give us a list of "people and groups" who will - have been asked ?.

    Report this comment

    "V"

    Monday, July 16, 2012

  • Its not the speed limits that need looking at it is the idiots that are using the roads and the state of the roads that require repairing. Plus the worst offenders is the Mothers doing the school run and droping them off at junctions double parking considering some of them only live approx 5 to 600 yards from the schools.

    Report this comment

    Dave

    Sunday, July 15, 2012

  • Just scrolled up from this to "More from the Web" to see that a delta winged car can do 320kmph with only 300hp! Better downgrade that a bit then, my lawn mower engine should do for 40mph!! I seem to recall that a good horse could hold 20mph, circa 200 years ago, we now have ABS, automatic everything, safety cells, air bags, seat belts, turbo-charged engines and 200 years of progress and our "powers that be" are going to suggest we manage twice the horse speed!!!!! Glad the same one don't deal with aviation, we'd need a hot air balloon.

    Report this comment

    Windless

    Sunday, July 15, 2012

The views expressed in the above comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this site

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Homes24
Jobs24
Drive24
MyDate24
MyPhotos24
FamilyNotices24
Weddingsite

loading...
Click here to read more of our digital publications

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT