Bad traffic enforcement

[Shrop]

A few people doing doughnuts for half an hour one evening will categorically not pollute less (in carbon/particulate matter terms) than a large proportion of people going a bit over the limit on a given road all day, or doing 70 instead of 50. Also it will be about localised pollution causing harm to local residents.

Did you mean to include "not" in your first sentence?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Did you mean to include "not" in your first sentence?

No, I typed "less" rather than "more", edited

 

[bramling]

One thing which is really noticeable if your car keeps a live MPG performance count is how much speeding up eats away at your efficiency. I managed 48mpg in a 3 litre turbodiesel Range Rover Velar Autobiography from the Midlands to Welshpool last week averaging 46mph on A roads for the entire duration (astonishing performance for that car). On the return I took a slightly different route, with the same average speed, but on winding roads with variable speed limits. Result: 36mpg. It's all the slowing for corners and speeding up again. So I'm sceptical that reducing speeds for a few miles is worthwhile.

Absolutely correct, the difference between doing a journey at 70 mph or 80 mph is negligible compared with the fuel wasted sitting around going nowhere or slowing down unnecessarily.

 

[35B]

Some on this forum might have driven past signs which say the lower speed limit is to reduce pollution. Wrexham by-pass is one example.

However the road is clearly a 70mph road, and its galling to have to do 50mph when there's hardly any traffic around.

It makes me think of the many large car parks and even public roads where boy racers gather to burn far, far more fuel in order to make massive tyre marks, horrendous noise, and to actually put lives in danger.

But because they're often aggressive, often neither Govt nor police are willing to tackle them, preferring instead to force money out of those who do just a few mph over the speed limit even though they cause far less pollution than boy racers.

Is this anything other than affording favouritism to bullies and aggression?

In answer to the direct question, yes.

It's an approach that undermines effective road policing. Where the permitted speed is markedly less than the speed that the road is laid out for, the natural response of drivers is to drive at the "natural speed" for that road. This leads to tougher enforcement, often with cameras, which undermines the relationship between drivers and police.

Where there is also an engineering fix (even just visually - e.g. painted lines narrowing the lanes), the gap between what feels "natural" and the road speed will narrow down.

 

[Shrop]

A few people doing doughnuts for half an hour one evening will categorically not pollute more (edited!) (in carbon/particulate matter terms) than a large proportion of people going a bit over the limit on a given road all day, or doing 70 instead of 50. Also it will be about localised pollution causing harm to local residents.

So what are your thoughts about boy racers doing doughnuts? Is it acceptable in environmental terms, to burn fuel just for the hell of it?

Why prosecute drivers who drive slightly faster than an arbitrary speed limit, while ignoring those who burn fuel simply in order to show off?

It's not clear what you're saying.

If you're happy to tolerate boy racers, then why restrict drivers on fast roads? Or, if you persist with your comment that drivers on fast roads actually burn more fuel, then would you suggest that all motorways and dual carriageways should be restricted to 50mph in order to save fuel?

I'm just not sure why we should tolerate burning fuel in a dangerous manner for no gain in time savings to anyone, while accepting the persecution of drivers who are very probably going places just a bit more quickly, and safely, while serving the economy?

 

[sprunt]

Being penalised for breaking the law is not persecution whatever other offences may or may not be prosecuted.

 

[Llanigraham]

Some on this forum might have driven past signs which say the lower speed limit is to reduce pollution. Wrexham by-pass is one example.

However the road is clearly a 70mph road, and its galling to have to do 50mph when there's hardly any traffic around.

Funnily enough, even though the road may be quite at that time the motorist is still producing pollution, so that arguement doesn't stand. As a regular user of that road I certainly doesn't bother me.

It makes me think of the many large car parks and even public roads where boy racers gather to burn far, far more fuel in order to make massive tyre marks, horrendous noise, and to actually put lives in danger.

But because they're often aggressive, often neither Govt nor police are willing to tackle them, preferring instead to force money out of those who do just a few mph over the speed limit even though they cause far less pollution than boy racers.

Is this anything other than affording favouritism to bullies and aggression?

I can assure you that the Police do attend many of these types of events and do police them actively. It is also why there are increasing numbers of Traffic Regulation Orders issued by local Councils banning them.

 

[Llanigraham]

So what are your thoughts about boy racers doing doughnuts? Is it acceptable in environmental terms, to burn fuel just for the hell of it?

Why prosecute drivers who drive slightly faster than an arbitrary speed limit, while ignoring those who burn fuel simply in order to show off?

It's not clear what you're saying.

If you're happy to tolerate boy racers, then why restrict drivers on fast roads? Or, if you persist with your comment that drivers on fast roads actually burn more fuel, then would you suggest that all motorways and dual carriageways should be restricted to 50mph in order to save fuel?

I'm just not sure why we should tolerate burning fuel in a dangerous manner for no gain in time savings to anyone, while accepting the persecution of drivers who are very probably going places just a bit more quickly, and safely, while serving the economy?

If one takes that arguement to it's logical conclusion you would also ban all forms of motorsport, from circuit racing to rallying, and at the most extreme also ban all leisure motoring. And what about last Sunday which was Drive It Day, when classic car owners were encouraged to take their cars out for runs, raising money for Childline and other charities? Should that not be allowed?
Is that really what you are implying?

 

[Shrop]

Being penalised for breaking the law is not persecution whatever other offences may or may not be prosecuted.

Thank you for this, but the definition of persecution I looked up was "unjust mistreatment".

As I said earlier, some drivers doing a few mph over an arbitrary speed limit are getting prosecuted, while others who risk lives while exceeding speed limits by a great deal more, are wilfully ignored in case they argue back and cause trouble.

Maybe your definition is different, but that's not really the point, my concern remains the same.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As I said earlier, some drivers doing a few mph over an arbitrary speed limit are getting prosecuted, while others who risk lives while exceeding speed limits by a great deal more, are wilfully ignored in case they argue back and cause trouble

This certainly happens with fare evasion, but given that speed is mostly enforced via fixed cameras which are unable to exercise any form of discretion and don't require confrontation in person (aside from usually but not always being set to 10% + 2mph over) do you have any actual evidence of this taking place? As I tend to say, the right-wing press such as the Mail and Telegraph don't really constitute such evidence these days - a report on the Beeb or a more balanced paper like the Times or Huffington Post might do though.

It's a common moan but I don't see much evidence of it. And speeding fines remain a wholly optional thing - it is easy not to speed and thus not incur them. I never have and expect I never will simply because I don't drive in excess of the posted speed limit and use the features of my car (e.g. the manual limiter) to help prevent me doing so accidentally.

 

[35B]

Thank you for this, but the definition of persecution I looked up was "unjust mistreatment".

As I said earlier, some drivers doing a few mph over an arbitrary speed limit are getting prosecuted, while others who risk lives while exceeding speed limits by a great deal more, are wilfully ignored in case they argue back and cause trouble.

Maybe your definition is different, but that's not really the point, my concern remains the same.

Except that the offences of those boy racers are in a different category to “ordinary” speeding, and require a different policing response.

I’m no fan of artificially low speed limits that don’t reflect the safe speed of the road, but there is a public interest in enforcing the law (not least, ensuring that drivers obeying those signs aren’t put at risk by others driving at very different speeds). Provoking violence by breaking up boy racer meets isn’t necessarily a good thing for public order, especially as there are other ways of getting those offending.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Except that the offences of those boy racers are in a different category to “ordinary” speeding, and require a different policing response.

I’m no fan of artificially low speed limits that don’t reflect the safe speed of the road, but there is a public interest in enforcing the law (not least, ensuring that drivers obeying those signs aren’t put at risk by others driving at very different speeds). Provoking violence by breaking up boy racer meets isn’t necessarily a good thing for public order, especially as there are other ways of getting those offending.

Though views on the safe speed of the road can vary. 20mph on Welsh urban roads feels incredibly low, but it's actually likely that having that and enforcing it will save far more lives than breaking up every single car meet that takes place this week, given that these do tend to occur in most cases on rural 70mph dual carriageways on which you just don't get pedestrians or cyclists, the people most in danger from speeding. It does seem that 20 is low enough that almost all accidents (even those caused by a pedestrian running out) can be avoided, and those that do occur are low enough energy to generally cause only injury, not death.

I don't think those meets should be taking place, but I equally don't think they are the biggest road safety problem. Someone doing 40 in a 30 outside a school is almost certainly a far greater danger.

 

[35B]

Though views on the safe speed of the road can vary. 20mph on Welsh urban roads feels incredibly low, but it's actually likely that having that and enforcing it will save far more lives than breaking up every single car meet that takes place this week, given that these do tend to occur in most cases on rural 70mph dual carriageways on which you just don't get pedestrians or cyclists, the people most in danger from speeding.

I don't think those meets should be taking place, but I equally don't think they are the biggest road safety problem. Someone doing 40 in a 30 outside a school is almost certainly a far greater danger.

In general, I agree. My post was in the context of the example used by @Shrop of the A483 Wrexham bypass. This is a modern dual carriageway that has a 50mph limit for environmental rather than road safety reasons, which is a policy that undermines the credibility of speed limits in general when the experience as a driver is of driving artificially slow relative to both road and car.

I've limited experience of driving in Wales since the 20mph limits were introduced. The little experience I have reinforces my long held view that applying blanket limits without the credibility of the underlying policy and, more importantly, effectiveness by encouraging drivers to think they know better. For what it's worth, I also take the view that a national speed limit that applies unless otherwise reduced is also counter-productive - I used to do a drive where I came off an A-road with a (low) 40mph restriction onto a country lane, which was signed at the national restriction.

 

[Harpo]

Bringing ‘fuel burning’ environmental concerns into any motoring discussion only holds water if those expressing those views can solemnly state that they never burn fuel for leisure, pleasure or non-essential use.

Car owners have varying personal aims and I have no issue with the younger generations getting pleasure from their vehicles in any way, provided it’s done safely.

 

[sprunt]

Thank you for this, but the definition of persecution I looked up was "unjust mistreatment".

So not being fined for speeding then.

 

[renegademaster]

The concern with mandatory retesting about the huge waiting list that exists presently is very valid.


What about the retest is done in a driving simulator set up where an AI supervises you to gauge wether your reactions are still good enough. They'll still have to be staff but they can be just unskilled minimum wage roles, not anything that requires special qualifications. If you disagree with the AI verdict you can pay £20 for a real person to watch the video of you driving.

It would be politically an easier pill to swallow if failing meant you automatically got a PIP supplement as compensation, to accommodate for the extra cost of having to get taxis everywhere. Maybe you could make an exemption if you lived in major metro areas with good public transport for that particular benefit.

 

[35B]

The concern with mandatory retesting about the huge waiting list that exists presently is very valid.


What about the retest is done in a driving simulator set up where an AI supervises you to gauge wether your reactions are still good enough. They'll still have to be staff but they can be just unskilled minimum wage roles, not anything that requires special qualifications. If you disagree with the AI verdict you can pay £20 for a real person to watch the video of you driving.

It would be politically an easier pill to swallow if failing meant you automatically got a PIP supplement as compensation, to accommodate for the extra cost of having to get taxis everywhere. Maybe you could make an exemption if you lived in major metro areas with good public transport for that particular benefit.

Because good driving is not just about reactions?

 

[Krokodil]

Bringing ‘fuel burning’ environmental concerns into any motoring discussion only holds water if those expressing those views can solemnly state that they never burn fuel for leisure, pleasure or non-essential use.

People can only care about the environment if they are absolutely squeaky clean themselves?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've limited experience of driving in Wales since the 20mph limits were introduced. The little experience I have reinforces my long held view that applying blanket limits without the credibility of the underlying policy and, more importantly, effectiveness by encouraging drivers to think they know better. For what it's worth, I also take the view that a national speed limit that applies unless otherwise reduced is also counter-productive - I used to do a drive where I came off an A-road with a (low) 40mph restriction onto a country lane, which was signed at the national restriction.

What would you rather and why? That NSL genuinely meant no limit?

 

[renegademaster]

Because good driving is not just about reactions?

But it's probably the most likely part to degrade over time. You could monitor basic rule following as well.

Any kind of retesting will never go down well, but have fun being whatever politician makes 1000s unable to drive because they are waiting 2 years for a another driving test.

The people that don't think rules should apply to them aren't going to be caught out with a retest, since they'll behave with the instructor sitting next to them and go back to normal the next day. The main purpose of a retest will be essentially dementia screening

 

[The exile]

What would you rather and why? That NSL genuinely meant no limit?

Maybe the other way around? NSL on single carriageway roads = 30mph unless otherwise marked. Gets away from the fact that tearing along single track lanes at 59mph is legal, probably doesn’t need that many more signs. Transition would, however, be a nightmare.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Apr 2026 ==

But it's probably the most likely part to degrade over time. You could monitor basic rule following as well.

Any kind of retesting will never go down well, but have fun being whatever politician makes 1000s unable to drive because they are waiting 2 years for a driving test

A simulator cannot simulate the most important variable (and influencing factor) - which is the human element. The driver knows they are being tested so will behave differently; they are not in a hurry; dog-tired; driving off after having had a blazing row or being egged on by four friends they look up to but who are all “worse for wear”. Neither can a human test, which is the main reason I’m sceptical about the blanket retests.

 

[35B]

What would you rather and why? That NSL genuinely meant no limit?

No. My issue is that the credibility of limits is heavily undermined when turning off a main road to a minor causes a reduction in restrictions despite an increase in inherent risk.

The proper answer is not to have/not have restrictions, but to apply them intelligently so they appear coherent and logical, as though there’s actually been an attempt at systematic thinking.

My hunch is that this implies fewer restrictions, with less of an attempt to micro manage traffic through bespoke schemes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No. My issue is that the credibility of limits is heavily undermined when turning off a main road to a minor causes a reduction in restrictions despite an increase in inherent risk.

It only does if you don't understand what NSL means. It doesn't mean you should do 60mph on a rural single track road.

Traffic managment schemes including limit reductions are expensive and so are targetted at where they bring most benefit.

Though personally I would be more than happy to see limits generally reduced to the van limits (50-60-70) for all vehicles, and a new 40mph limit to be introduced as a default on any road with no marked centreline, which would solve the problem you mention in so much as there is one.

 

[35B]

It only does if you don't understand what NSL means. It doesn't mean you should do 60mph on a rural single track road.

No, it means that you are legally permitted to do up to 60 mph on that road, subject to the road conditions - as is the case with any speed limit.

I agree with you on the principle of traffic management schemes; suffice it to say that my memory of that particular scheme on that road at that time is that the benefits were questionable and I strongly suspect politics were at play.

Your idea of flexing the limit could be good, though I have my doubts about (a) whether dropping the car limit in that way is desirable and (b) how well understood such a limit structure would be (as evidenced by white van men the country over).

 

[Bikeman78]

Already exists. (My other half has switched it off.)

But, please, no more audible alerts. The only alert on older cars was a ping when outside temperature dropped to 4 degrees whereas now it could be anything and it’s a distraction trying to establish what it means.

Otherwise, a yes to anything to improve worsening driving standards.

Agreed. I don't want driving to become an ordeal like train travel, with constant warnings for everything. Part of the problem is that the Police are clearly overwhelmed. Anything I send to Operation Snap gets an automatic no further action. This renders it completely pointless.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Your idea of flexing the limit could be good, though I have my doubts about (a) whether dropping the car limit in that way is desirable and (b) how well understood such a limit structure would be (as evidenced by white van men the country over).

I think it would be better understood than the present approach of different limits per vehicle type. It strikes me that most people learn the car limits when they pass their test and just assume they are the same for everything. If they WERE the same for everything (subject to the cap provided by any legally mandated speed limiter) it'd be much better.

 

[35B]

I think it would be better understood than the present approach of different limits per vehicle type. It strikes me that most people learn the car limits when they pass their test and just assume they are the same for everything. If they WERE the same for everything (subject to the cap provided by any legally mandated speed limiter) it'd be much better.

At which point, I'd be asking why the 50mph limit for most vehicles other than cars should remain on single carriageway roads - it's the limit that is least well understood, most disobeyed, and gives rise to most dangerous frustration when people obey it and cause those behind them delays.

 

[Bletchleyite]

At which point, I'd be asking why the 50mph limit for most vehicles other than cars should remain on single carriageway roads - it's the limit that is least well understood, most disobeyed, and gives rise to most dangerous frustration when people obey it and cause those behind them delays.

That is best resolved by making it the limit for all vehicles. It is a good speed for single carriageways for smooth driving - much more climate efficient too. Many Councils are already signing down to 50. A few wider ones could be signed up to 60 but there aren't many where it would be justified.

60 for duals is also a good plan, I would include in this hard-shoulderless motorways. 70 only with a hard shoulder (A-roads with this could be signed up).

 

[jfollows]

From memory, so unreliable, these were the limits in the 1970s after the oil price rises - I’m old, but not that old, I wasn’t driving then.

Actually seeing a mandatory 50 limit is relatively new, well at least not until the 1980s so not that new. Used sparingly at first for “dangerous” locations but now very common.

 

[35B]

That is best resolved by making it the limit for all vehicles. It is a good speed for single carriageways for smooth driving - much more climate efficient too. Many Councils are already signing down to 50. A few wider ones could be signed up to 60 but there aren't many where it would be justified.

60 for duals is also a good plan, I would include in this hard-shoulderless motorways. 70 only with a hard shoulder (A-roads with this could be signed up).

Suffice to say that I disagree on principle that the reaction should be to lower limits in this way. A number of the single-carriageway roads near me are signed down to 50mph and, judging by other drivers, all the limits are doing is increasing the number of people "speeding" - they have not had any noticeable impact on the speed of the flow of traffic.

The thinking about hard shoulders is interesting - especially given the persistence of all lane running despite political commitments.