A groan about roadworks/poor signage

[PipK]

During my 140 mile drive this evening, I saw 2 situations where there were roadworks (or supposedly) and there are far more appropriate road signs they could have used.

This annoyed me because, I share the view of some that there are simple factors other than speed that should be addressed first to reduce risks.

On the A38 dual carriageway somwhere between Derby and the M1, still in a NSL stretch. There were cars doing 50-60ish in the left lane with their indicators saying they were to taking the next exit. So I went in the right hand lane to carry on doing 70 and seconds later there were temporary 40MPH red circles. There hadn't been any signs saying roadworks ahead and there were no roadworks within sight. So with me not being past all those cars yet, my choice was to breach the limit doing 70 until I'm past them or be a pain to other drivers in the right hand line and slow to 40. And it turned out that the short stretch of roadworks didn't start for miles and miles yet. And even once you were past the roadworks, the 40MPH red circles were still there for miles and miles.

There should have been a sign saying 40MPH limit ahead and the distance ahead. If there had been then I'd have stayed in the left lane behind those heading for the exit.
It was stupid how far ahead of the roadwords the limit was put in place. Luckily no one was behind when I wanted to break in the right hand lane and slowed to 50ish before I was able to get in the left. One I was in the left, many vehicles wanted to carry on doing the more appropriate speed of 70. Even lorries were overtaking me (at 60 maybe). If there wasn't this fear of opportunistic traffic cops then I'd have carried on with 70 until it was appropriate to slow down.
----------------------
Later on, "kind of" the opposite happened on the A64 near York (again a NSL dual carriageway)

Between the junction with the A1036 and A19, there had been multiple signs showing the right hand line was closed ahead and with a countdown of distance. When I thought the distance figures were getting low and yet NO temporary speed limit signs, I though still slow down to 50ish for the moment in case it's once of these roadworks situations where the cones make you switch from one lane to the other. Then at the A19 exit, just after where the slip road begins, cones were sharply spread to block both lanes. Not giving much time, I feel, to recognise that the road ahead was closed and you have to turn off there.

Yes it's nice for a change for there to be no speed limit imposed and it be up to the driver to judge. But if there was a reason for it on A38 where there were no roadworks then why ever not here? And most of all, after the right hand lane had closed they should have started signs saying the left one will end too. Or have had signs saying A64 closed after A19 from the start.


Hugghh - thanks for reading this groan about wreckless signage.

[martine]

Yes I agree - they really should make more of an effort to ensure the signing is correct and relevant...the more that are wrong or inappropriate, the less credence the average driver gives to any road signs.

I've often wondered why they don't have electronic temporary speed limit signs on m-way roadworks. How frustrating is to have a low speed limit at night or weekends with no-one working?

The temporary signs could be set at 50 (or whatever) when workers are actually present and then the last foreman to leave the site, drives along and turns them off by remote control...it's not rocket science and wouldn't cost a fortune as the signs would be reuseable for any limit.

[PipK]

the more that are wrong or inappropriate, the less credence the average driver gives to any road signs.

Yes it makes me lose respect for their "it's a speed limit for a reason" campaigns

[fungus]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the law regarding the placement of signs warning of a reduction in speed limit at road works changed recently, in that there is now no requirement to place a warning of the reduced limit untill the point at which that limit is enforceable. There was, IIRC, always a sign placed at about three quarters of a mile from the start of the reduced limit informing drivers what the new limit will be.

[crr003]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the law regarding the placement of signs warning of a reduction in speed limit at road works changed recently, in that there is now no requirement to place a warning of the reduced limit untill the point at which that limit is enforceable. There was, IIRC, always a sign placed at about three quarters of a mile from the start of the reduced limit informing drivers what the new limit will be.

Not sure it's a "law", but placing the "50mph in 3/4 mile" sign is now optional. Some areas seem to still use it, others don't. Argument against is that it's another sign for a road worker to have to cross three lanes of motorway to deploy, and a percentage of drivers will slow for the advanced warnign sign, rather than read it.
I can't find the exact wording yet

edited to add - now found it - my bold. 7290 is the "50 mph in 3/4 mile" sign.

Traffic Signs Manual - Chapter 8:
"D3.7.20 Temporary speed limit signs at road works on high-speed roads and other roads should comply with Table 3.4 above. The initial speed limit signing must be placed on both sides of the carriageway, for both dual and single carriageway roads. If the termination signing includes signs to diagram 670 or 671, then it must also be placed on both sides of the carriageway, for both dual and single carriageway roads. The use of the sign to diagram 7290 is no longer recommended."

[ScoobyChris]

On the A38 dual carriageway somwhere between Derby and the M1, still in a NSL stretch. There were cars doing 50-60ish in the left lane with their indicators saying they were to taking the next exit. So I went in the right hand lane to carry on doing 70 and seconds later there were temporary 40MPH red circles.

If it really was seconds, does this highlight that vision could be lifted to look further ahead?

Chris

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

70mph =~ 105 feet per second, or about 30 metres. So normal vision ahead (depending on whether it was daylight or illuminated by headlamps) would give, say, between 3 and 15 seconds of vision. At night, could easily be on you within one vision scan, and the OP did say "this evening".

[ScoobyChris]

So the cars in lane 1 being overtaken should have illuminated the signs?

Chris

[waremark]

I am interested in the level of non-compliance with the start of these speed limits. I always wonder whether it means that most drivers have not noticed the signs, or that they have noticed them but can see that they have been placed prematurely, and they only obey speed limits if they think they are justified or enforced.

Can one of the experts say how they choose between a 40 or a 50 limit for roadworks?

[dth]

I've often wondered why they don't have electronic temporary speed limit signs on m-way roadworks. How frustrating is to have a low speed limit at night or weekends with no-one working?

The temporary signs could be set at 50 (or whatever) when workers are actually present and then the last foreman to leave the site, drives along and turns them off by remote control...it's not rocket science and wouldn't cost a fortune as the signs would be reuseable for any limit.

I think the reason why they can't do this is because the temporary speed limits are there by regulation and cannot be changed until the regulation is amended or brought to an end by expiry etc.

[MGF]

Active Traffic Management has been legislated for to allow for variable and enforceable speed limits so it shouldn't be too difficult to achieve.

[dth]

It has to be funded, though, from somewhere.

[Gareth]

It has to be funded, though, from somewhere.

Presumably it could be funded from all the money the country saves by having fewer accidents, (unless, of course, the actual amounts frequently mentioned have been talked up far beyond reality, as so often seems to happen these days when one group or other is trying to convince the rest of us of their view).

[dth]

It has to be funded, though, from somewhere.

Presumably it could be funded from all the money the country saves by having fewer accidents, (unless, of course, the actual amounts frequently mentioned have been talked up far beyond reality, as so often seems to happen these days when one group or other is trying to convince the rest of us of their view).

I'm not necessarily defending the reasons but merely stating what they are

[MGF]

My point is that the law can be changed so that variable speed limits are enforceable. There is nothing in principle that requires speed limits to be varied only by a change in regulation. The law can delegate that responsibility to others in prescribed circumstances. That will not necessarily be particularly expensive. I think as far as motorways and many dual carriageways are concerned they are constructed to provide for the movement of large volumes of traffic at high speed from one place to another. Unnecessarily inhibiting the flow of traffic is something that should be avoided.