Wessex Way 40mph limit ‘will cut casualties’ (From Bournemouth Echo)

Total Nonsense.
It's the poor road layout that is to blame for any accidents along with poor driving.
It is totally safe to drive along that stretch at 50 mph. If there is a high amount of traffic then the natural order pervades and cars have to slow down anyway.
Britain is now a total Nanny State where no-one is allowed to use common sense or have personal responsibility.
If Bournemouth, Poole & Dorset councils spent as much time on improving the roads as they do on reducing speed limits and operating their scameras then we would have some of the best roads in the country instead of the worst.

Whilst I would agree that the problems with that stretch of road can be blamed on poor layout and bad driving, I cannot disagree with the 40mph speed limit.

Fixing the layout, particularly at Richmond Hill would, I suspect, be prohibitively expensive if not actually impossible, seeing as extending the northbound "on-ramp" would require major building works as it would be on the elevated section of road.

Bad driving is endemic and few drivers seem to stick to the speed limit, whatever it may be. Even in the 40mph section I am regularly passed by drivers moving at speeds in excess of 50mph (except at the speed cameras where they slam on their brakes). A large proportion of drivers on the Wessex Way drive at least 10mph over the legal limit with many well in excess of that. And many of these will also be tailgating the car ahead of them.

Driving at 40mph from St Pauls to County Gates adds such a tiny amount of time to your journey that I really don't see why so many people are getting their panties in a bunch.

given that the MAJORITY of drivers make no attempt to stick to existing limits it's not surprising limits are continually being reduced just to try and get people to slow down.I have a feeling that the most of the moaners on here are the sort of selfish people who would drive through residential areas at 45-50 given half a chance. The trouble is no-one has any patience these days, no-one wants to let anyone else out from side roads so people are then forced to push their way out , etc etc. Ah for a time machine to go back to the 70's , people seemed to have more of a sense of perspective and humour then , be willing to help others. We have paid a high price for our material gains!

"Has cut casualties"..or.."is predicted to reduce"??????

uvox44 wrote:
given that the MAJORITY of drivers make no attempt to stick to existing limits it's not surprising limits are continually being reduced just to try and get people to slow down.I have a feeling that the most of the moaners on here are the sort of selfish people who would drive through residential areas at 45-50 given half a chance. The trouble is no-one has any patience these days, no-one wants to let anyone else out from side roads so people are then forced to push their way out , etc etc. Ah for a time machine to go back to the 70's , people seemed to have more of a sense of perspective and humour then , be willing to help others. We have paid a high price for our material gains!

Nonsense, in resedential areas it is not possible to speed at 40 to 50 mph due to all the parked cars, cyclists, children playing etc
I do agree that no-one has any patience to let others out but suspect that is because journey times are long due to traffic that people's tempers are frayed.
The country is overcrowded and the infrastructure cannot cope, that is the real problem.

Here we go again,the usual cr**p from the "speed does not cause accidents" brigade,it stands to reason that you are more likely to lose control at higher speeds as anyone with half a brain knows.

stuartc73 wrote:

uvox44 wrote: given that the MAJORITY of drivers make no attempt to stick to existing limits it's not surprising limits are continually being reduced just to try and get people to slow down.I have a feeling that the most of the moaners on here are the sort of selfish people who would drive through residential areas at 45-50 given half a chance. The trouble is no-one has any patience these days, no-one wants to let anyone else out from side roads so people are then forced to push their way out , etc etc. Ah for a time machine to go back to the 70's , people seemed to have more of a sense of perspective and humour then , be willing to help others. We have paid a high price for our material gains!

Nonsense, in resedential areas it is not possible to speed at 40 to 50 mph due to all the parked cars, cyclists, children playing etc I do agree that no-one has any patience to let others out but suspect that is because journey times are long due to traffic that people's tempers are frayed. The country is overcrowded and the infrastructure cannot cope, that is the real problem.

I think you'll find it is easy to drive at 40-50mph through residential areas if you wanted to (not all of them though I grant you). Judging from some of the boy (& girl) racers near me, it's VERY easy.
My opinion is that the 40mph limit is completely justified, and in my experience of driving that stretch of road has actually improved general traffic flow (less harsh braking going on causing less traffic queues). Of course there will always be queues of traffic on this part of the wessex way, especially at rush hours, as there are 3 major junctions. Even at Richmond Hill roundabout though (probably the most dangerous junction) it has made it easier to enter the Wessex Way.
I think everyone agrees that the road layout is poor (especially at Richmond Hill), but without major funding (unlikely for many years, if at all) that isn't going to change, so the lower speed limit is a good compromise.

ski wrote:
Here we go again,the usual cr**p from the "speed does not cause accidents" brigade,it stands to reason that you are more likely to lose control at higher speeds as anyone with half a brain knows.

You're not more likely to lose control at all. You are less likely to recover from losing control and will have a worse crash if you do though.

Why do they have to wait until it has been up for over 6 months and then estimate statistics??? Shouldn't the 'estimation' have happened before it was put in place in order to provide justification for it??? Shouldn't we be working with real numbers? Or have they not actually bothered to count OR.... has there been no difference at all so an estimation works more in their favour!??!

I am really losing faith here!!

And why does the story title say 'has cut casualties' when the story clearly doesn't say that?!?!

Its amazing how you can make anything fit the bill

It's good news to see quite a number of very sensible posts here today, with only the first one from "stuartc73" being really idiotic.
.
Anyone who gives it any thought will see (as some here have already mentioned) that rebuilding the Richmond Hill slip road would cost an astronomical sum. True, it should never have been built like that, but the design was done 40+ years ago and no one can turn the clock back. So we all, including the Council, have to live with it.
.
As for bad driving standards, again that's all too true. But no council can control the mindless petrol-heads or those that are so impatient to save 30 seconds other than to try to 'persuade' them to slow down a little bit.
.
So the 40 mph limit might well be undesirable, but (as in so much of today's society) it is the irresponsible/anti-s
ocial/arrogant few who force extra restrictions on all of us. It's sad but inevitable.

I don't care what the speed limit is, since I've covered up my speedo with gaffer tape to stop the deadly device from distracting me. It's the speedo that kills, not speed.
---
As I keep saying, speeding's much the same as drink-driving. One means you have less time to react; the other slows your reaction times. I do both, but not at the same time, so don't worry. I've never had an accident in 37 years. So that proves it's harmless.
---
Anyone who disagrees with me must be a pro-speeding-camera pedant who also works for the DSCP.

McPricker wrote:
I don't care what the speed limit is, since I've covered up my speedo with gaffer tape to stop the deadly device from distracting me. It's the speedo that kills, not speed. --- As I keep saying, speeding's much the same as drink-driving. One means you have less time to react; the other slows your reaction times. I do both, but not at the same time, so don't worry. I've never had an accident in 37 years. So that proves it's harmless. --- Anyone who disagrees with me must be a pro-speeding-camera pedant who also works for the DSCP.

Lol! Tongue in cheek I trust!

You could also say that as 10% of all accidents are caused by drink drivers, that means 90% are caused by us sober buggers! Perhaps we should stop and let the drunks drive in safety!

There are just as many RTA at the reduced speed. Just not so much damage to the vehicles. Thats all thats changed. Down to bad drivers.

MJD wrote:
There are just as many RTA at the reduced speed. Just not so much damage to the vehicles. Thats all thats changed. Down to bad drivers.

Exactly. It's those bad drivers that are to blame, not us speeders and drink-drivers who get such a bad press. It's time the police went after the dangerous drivers, not us law-abiding motorists.

It's the old people I tell you, the old and the young. Let's just ban the lot of them and be done with it.

stuartc73 wrote:
Total Nonsense. It's the poor road layout that is to blame for any accidents along with poor driving. It is totally safe to drive along that stretch at 50 mph. If there is a high amount of traffic then the natural order pervades and cars have to slow down anyway. Britain is now a total Nanny State where no-one is allowed to use common sense or have personal responsibility. If Bournemouth, Poole & Dorset councils spent as much time on improving the roads as they do on reducing speed limits and operating their scameras then we would have some of the best roads in the country instead of the worst.

stuartc73 wrote: 'Britain is now a total Nanny State where no-one is allowed to use common sense or have personal responsibility.'
Or could it be that it is because of increasing numbers of people failing to use common-sense, and or not taking responsibility for their own actions, that we have a 'Nanny State'?
Whatever the posted speed limit is, there will always be a majority of motorists who exceed it by 5 to 10mph, and a minority who exceed it by considerably more.
A simple way to get the bulk of these motorists to drive below what the consensus says is (for whatever reason) a safe maximum speed, is to make the posted speed limit 10mph less.
For example, if 50mph is deemed the maximum safe speed, then make the posted limit 40mph, thus ending up with the majority of motorists travelling at 45 to 50mph (most of the time, anyway).
Mind you, we'd still have to fine (I think incarceration would be more effective ;) ) the little blighters who exceed the posted speed limit...

MJD wrote:
There are just as many RTA at the reduced speed. Just not so much damage to the vehicles. Thats all thats changed. Down to bad drivers.

MJD wrote: 'There are just as many RTA at the reduced speed. Just not so much damage to the vehicles.'
The knock-on effect of which is less work for garages and vehicle body repair shops.
Oops, we can't have that, can we.
For the sake of all garages and vehicle body repair shops everywhere, speed limits should be increased with immediate effect.
Now then, who else is or would be badly effected financially by reduced speed limits?
How about: lower speeds = less fuel = upset oil companies.
Or: lower speeds = less vehicle wear and tear = fewer new/second hand car sales.
How about less work for the AA, RAC, Green Flag et al?
I was about to add car insurance companies, but then suddenly remembered they make money out of motorists no what happens.

I drive along this road about 5 or 6 times a year and have done for years. A recent journey under the new limit was the first time I ever felt I might have an accident. At 50 mph I always could find a space in traffic by speeding up or slowing down to get into the right hand lane before reaching the Richmond Hill junction, so anyone coming down that slope could join in the clear. Now in both lanes you have everyone driving bumper to bumper without gaps at the same speed, making it impossible to be courteous to other drivers and forcing drivers on the slip road to force there way in, with the risks that involves.

There is only one dangerous part on this road, and the speed limit makes it a lot worse. The council should trial a 50 limit with the left hand lane shut under Richmond Hill. This would be by far the safest solution. This road was designed for a 70 limit. 40 doesn't solve the problem, it makes it worse.

Apart from the 300 yards in the immediate vicinity of the speed cameras I would say that pretty much EVERYONE is still driving at 50mph. So the trail is pointless. The results have no meaning. If councillors rely on the results to make a policy decision then they are guilty of maladministration. I hope that sensible councillors understand enough about maths to point out the obvious and demand they are given correct support for any decisions they are asked to make.

If the council really want to make this trail work they need to restart it with some measure of strict enforcement backed up by traffic data loggers so that the actual 'on the ground' reality can play a part. Otherwise its just so ridiculous it is beyond belief.

Markmag wrote:
I drive along this road about 5 or 6 times a year and have done for years. A recent journey under the new limit was the first time I ever felt I might have an accident. At 50 mph I always could find a space in traffic by speeding up or slowing down to get into the right hand lane before reaching the Richmond Hill junction, so anyone coming down that slope could join in the clear. Now in both lanes you have everyone driving bumper to bumper without gaps at the same speed, making it impossible to be courteous to other drivers and forcing drivers on the slip road to force there way in, with the risks that involves. There is only one dangerous part on this road, and the speed limit makes it a lot worse. The council should trial a 50 limit with the left hand lane shut under Richmond Hill. This would be by far the safest solution. This road was designed for a 70 limit. 40 doesn't solve the problem, it makes it worse.

Markmag wrote: 'This road was designed for a 70 limit. 40 doesn't solve the problem, it makes it worse.'
The Wessex Way was completed 30 years ago, when the volume of traffic throughout the UK was less than half what it is now*.
Surely this increase has had some adverse effect?
* this is a guesstimate by me.

ski wrote:
Here we go again,the usual cr**p from the "speed does not cause accidents" brigade,it stands to reason that you are more likely to lose control at higher speeds as anyone with half a brain knows.

Are you saying that you only have half a brain.

captsanders wrote:

ski wrote:
Here we go again,the usual cr**p from the "speed does not cause accidents" brigade,it stands to reason that you are more likely to lose control at higher speeds as anyone with half a brain knows.

Are you saying that you only have half a brain.

We all have half a brain, and most of us have another half. And as you so rightly pointed out before, it's staring at the speedo that causes accidents, not speed. It doesn't matter how fast you're going, the laws of momentum DO NOT APPLY on the roads. FACT.

ski wrote:
Here we go again,the usual cr**p from the "speed does not cause accidents" brigade,it stands to reason that you are more likely to lose control at higher speeds as anyone with half a brain knows.

If you can't manage to drive at 50mph without "losing control" then I suggest you need your licence taking away. Having said that, your comment suggests you are not a driver.

stuartc73 wrote:
Total Nonsense. It's the poor road layout that is to blame for any accidents along with poor driving. It is totally safe to drive along that stretch at 50 mph. If there is a high amount of traffic then the natural order pervades and cars have to slow down anyway. Britain is now a total Nanny State where no-one is allowed to use common sense or have personal responsibility. If Bournemouth, Poole & Dorset councils spent as much time on improving the roads as they do on reducing speed limits and operating their scameras then we would have some of the best roads in the country instead of the worst.

Well said..........I totally agree......