Did it have a red circle around it? If not it was not a speed limit.
I thought they were mandatory but it is long enough ago that I cannot recall if they had a red circle around them and as I know the difference it would be likely they were mandatory.
I remember it being in the Highway Code in the '60s when the UK versions of the established 'continental' signage were introduced. The signs were grouped into informative, warning and mandatory/prohibitive groups. In the latter, group, the feature of the red circle was noted. When I took my driving test in '78, there was no formal written test, it being a simple few questions by the examiner pointing at images of road signs in a book.
I despair at those who believe that the HC is just for learners but then claim that "nobody told them" when caught out making wrong decisions at road signs. Major changes in traffic.laws are rare, but there are detailed changes to rules and recommendations in every new edition of the HC. Add to that the fact that the whole publication is available free on line, there is no excuse for being ignorant of what in this case is a.fundamental feature of traffic signs.
Same as me just the test itself, probably 1978.
Your second paragraph reminds me of the idea of having a regular re-test. Was pointed out that it would be impractical to re-test all drivers again every X years. But an on-line test would not cost much. I would like to think I am good enough to pass - but there is only one way to be sure.
There's also the DfT
Know Your Traffic Signs publication which, after a chapter on the history, starts off with "Circles give orders, triangles warn, rectangles inform".
I must look into this.
The satisfaction of knowing that you were doing the right thing doesn't help if other drivers pile into the back of you of course
That was very much my concern. Serves me right for looking behind me I suppose.
Even if that did happen, you would not be liable.
However, if you were paying excessive attention to the person behind you that caused you to rear-end the person in front of you, you would be liable.
My instructor also taught me that what people are doing behind you is not your problem to deal with (you just need to be aware that they are there)
If I was not liable for someones death but could have helped avoid it I would still have my own concience to deal with.
You are right - in life one must not be distracted by one thing to the detriment of other things.
I remember my instructor working on my apparent lack of use of the rear view mirror. He said watching closeley he could see I was using it but for the test make sure you turn your head. So sufficient use of the rear view mirror was considered a requirement. In my view the main use of the mirror(s) is when needing to change lane or turn (right only in the past but also left nowadys). We all remember Mirror, Signal, Manoevre right ?. Prior to indicating. Having a good idea of what is approaching from behind helps calculate the timing required to change lanes - to overtake a vehickle ahead. But also means you have a good idea if swerving to avoid something is not a good idea !. The above is all something lost on middle lane cruisers of course !.
Not being liable doesn't cure whiplash, nor the hassle of being involved in the incident! ("Here lies X, they had right of way", etc)
I don't dispute that you can't drive purely in the rear-view mirrors - as you say, it distracts from where you're supposed to be paying attention when it should be the car behinds job to not hit you. However in the context of driving at 40mph on a clear motorway and being (or having the potential to be) "swamped" by drivers arriving at 70mph then paying attention to what's happening behind and being able to react to it is advisable.
That's not to endorse driving on closed lanes, but when I've been in similar circumstances (low speed limit on visibly clear motorway with little traffic) I've been checking mirrors far more frequently than would normally be the case.
Yes as soon as I slow down I am taking in what is happening behind me. I have been off into the hard shoulder to evade a rapidly approaching van behind me !.
Obviously the slower a person drives then the more people are catching up. I have been in a car driven faster than I usually drive (75+) and it was noticeable how little need there was to consider what was behind us. And how frustrating it was waiting behind people doing er the legal maximum.
I'm fed up with people driving behind me at 70 mph after a mandatory restriction when they can see the end of restriction sign in the distance. The speed limit doesn't change until you have passed that sign.
Many seem to think you only need to start slowing down as you pass the more restrictive limit. That means braking hard which is a hazard in itself - sudden changes cause sudden reactions. But then again same believe you can (must) speed up as soon as you glimpse the less restrictive sign ahead !.
Are you referring to the Peterborough - A14 section, or the section of A1 recently upgraded south of the A14?
Whilst the former section definitely doesn’t have variable speed limit or cameras, the latter section does - there’s at least one gantry in each direction with yellow cameras mounted behind it. Having said that I’ve never encountering a lower speed limit on that section since it was commissioned a year or two ago.
You have triggered a brain cell - I knw we were traveling Peterborough to Dartford. My usual route is via M11 but on this occaision I think we might have been avoiding reported congestion on the M11 and carried on down the A1. I remember debating whether the A1 would be much slower (unfamiliar) and how likely the congestion warning was to be correct. I have stuck with the M4 on warnings of a 30 minute delay that cost me over three hours !. Road was closed all the time !. That is another example of unreliable information leading to contemptuous thoughts - which neatly brings things back on topic.
I really think that if smart motorways are to be successful OR accepted long term then the information giving must get better. It must not become a cheap way of improving capacity. In my case it was causing more of a hazard than the (non existent) hazard !. Agony is that smart motorways might be a way of avoiding more dangerous scenarios (like driving on inherently less safe alternative routes) but it would be inadvisable to compromise safety on the motorway however little it actually does. This is because a deterioration is seen as more negative than a lack of improvement.
)
