"Are we this backwards?": Disbelief at town ditching 20mph speed limit...because most motorists ignore it; Police van blocks cycle lane for 36 hours...opposite traffic warden centre; Vine's LTN dilemma; Should've gone to Specsavers + more on the live blog

Speed limit changes are always signed and there should be small repeaters.
Around towns it is 30 unless otherwise indicated.
Not sure if motorways are specifically sign posted but if the speed is not a maximum of 70, then it will be signed.
Perhaps you were out in very rural areas where there can be few signs although if you follow 'stop in the distance you can see' you will be fine.

dabba wrote:

Maybe if you had better speed limit signage it would help to reinforce the speed limits instead of keeping them a secret!

Perhaps you should have gone to Specsavers.

Dual carriageways and motorways generally 70mph. Other roads = 60mph. Built-up areas = 30 or 40mph.

Speed limits are clearly signed everywhere, as hirsuite has mentioned. The real problem is compliance - if drivers obeyed the limit then everyone behind them would be obliged to do the same.

There are a number of vehicle activated LED warning signs on my route to and from work and they're activated an awful lot. That's solely because drivers - the vast majority of whom drive those roads daily - refuse to obey the law.

"if drivers obeyed the limit then everyone behind them would be obliged to do the same."

That's right. And most people aren't that selfish.

"That's solely because drivers - the vast majority of whom drive those roads daily - refuse to obey the law."

Yes, obviously. Why do you think they might do that?

Dave Dave wrote:

"if drivers obeyed the limit then everyone behind them would be obliged to do the same."

That's right. And most people aren't that selfish.

"That's solely because drivers - the vast majority of whom drive those roads daily - refuse to obey the law."

Yes, obviously. Why do you think they might do that?

I know! I know! Is it because they're selfish entitled twunts who think the rules don't apply to them?

Are you soctwaticyclist reborn ?

Ever since wtjs submitted loads of complaints to lancs police?

Ever since wtjs submitted loads of complaints to lancs police?

Fame at last! However, I have achieved no points on anyone's licence yet. I'm hoping there will be loads to come starting with LC's first close-passing prosecution next month, followed by an absolute deluge of supposed prosecutions for red light crashing offences. However, I'm still aware that LC may have dodges up its collective sleeve to enable the offenders to get away with joke penalties.

When they decided parking in cycle lanes comes under the remit of being on duty.

Tom_77 wrote:

I've never really understood why the "No Vehicles" sign exists, can't think of any circumstances where you couldn't use a "No Entry" sign instead.

Because "No vehicles" means "no vehicles". "No entry" just means they can't go in that way.

My impression is that No Entry typically designates a one-way street (no vehicles may enter but vehicles are permitted to be on that bit of road) while No Vehicles marks a segment of road where vehicles are not permitted to be.

In some cases, the No Vehicles prohibition applies to only a very narrow section which can look very similar to No Entry (e.g. a modal filter in a LTN - motor vehicles may be allowed on either side of the planter, but there is a very narrow section from one side to the other in which they are entirely prohibited).

As others have said, no entry just means that and doesn't implicitely ban vehicles from entering along it elsewhere. If you had said Road Closed signs it might have been different but I think they are only ever temporary. That said, I wonder how many no vehicles signs are in use across the country. 

Well, as he prefaced his statement with "Genuine question", and then included the phrase "looks like" a LTN, he is not saying it is a LTN but rather sincerely asking what it is, and what the rules are, because it is genuinely unclear. In addition, there is (as far as I know) no technical or legal definition of what a LTN is. Also, it appears that it isn't a purely pedestrianised area, because cyclists would be allowed to ride through it.

I think you are being rather harsh here.

It's no motorised vehicles plus there is a deliberate bike sized gap left hence the question.

Pedestrian Zone does not neccesarily mean no bikes as lots of Pedestrian Zones allow cyclists. And the sign below just states no Motor vehicles between those times. So no, the sign does not make it clear without further signage.

As for the letter, he states vulnerable and people who need their vehicles for their liveliehoods, but can he or you answer what does that mean? No vehicles are banned from LTN's. They just might have to go slightly further afield to access / exit them? And who is vunerable? Are children classed as vulnerable in that scenario? Is his argument for Vulnerable people inside the LTN in which case are they Vulnerable or are they weathy and powerful? Surely it can't be both in your claims.

Edit as you edited yours with the additional comment below.
Along with the Labour MP of Ealing is shows there is a broad political coalition against these undemocratic measures, which suggests their enduring unpopularity.

Yes, there were none at all before Covid......

"Additionally, for people of limited resources time is money."

How much real cash do these people get then if they save 30 minutes a day ? Are they all wfh doing piece work ?

As to the demographics - https://road.cc/content/news/london-ltns-not-mainly-affluent-areas-resea...

Nigel Garrage wrote:

You don't need to data mine or manipulate out-of-date census figures to work out that LTNs push traffic from leafier sideroads on to main roads. 

I always thought main rides were the desired location for through traffic rather than mainly residential side roads, it is only sat nav and apps looking to shave minutes off of journeys that have diverted traffic from intended through roads onto local roads in the first place.

I think it is you who has fallen into the trap of assuming main roads are lined with housing for the poor. Most main routes into cities have bigger houses, built before the rise of motorised transport. It was a safer area away from the back street crowded slums. Purpose built workers' housing is generally built to the sides without through-routes.

Wardy74 wrote:

Most main routes into cities have bigger houses, built before the rise of motorised transport.

Something similar is still happening but for different reasons. Housebuilding companies developing an estate put larger detached houses on the outside (or around the entry junction) so that it looks more impressive and 'gives a more upmarket impression' if you're looking from the road.

"Road.cc and campaigning activists (who sometimes pretend to be academics)"

" the real world experience of the vulnerable victims of LTNs."

Yeah, it's pure evil. Apartheid in action, typical of commie councils run by self-important Derek Hatton wannabes. All those oppressive councils installing LTNs are ruining poor people's lives, they are prisoners in their own homes. They don't even get to inhale the same toxic smog as those on main routes. How unfair! (which is comical if you consider how unfairly this government has treated disabled people, EU nationals, refugees, those in the gig economy and on zero-hours contracts and many more).

Nigel Garrage wrote:

You don't need to data mine or manipulate out-of-date census figures to work out that LTNs push traffic from leafier sideroads on to main roads. That is just simple common sense looking at the aims and locations of LTNs. Who lives on already-polluted and congested main roads, who bear the brunt of the increased traffic spawned by LTNs? Poor people.

Sat Nav and Google pushed traffic from main roads onto to poorer side streets. This is the real 'displaced' traffic of the last 15-20 years. Come and visit Walworth and see the 'leafier' side streets that are your common sense locations. LTNs are overwhelmingly popular - you've fallen for the trap of believing those who shout the loudest.

markieteeee wrote:

Nigel Garrage wrote:

You don't need to data mine or manipulate out-of-date census figures to work out that LTNs push traffic from leafier sideroads on to main roads. That is just simple common sense looking at the aims and locations of LTNs. Who lives on already-polluted and congested main roads, who bear the brunt of the increased traffic spawned by LTNs? Poor people.

Sat Nav and Google pushed traffic from main roads onto to poorer side streets. This is the real 'displaced' traffic of the last 15-20 years. Come and visit Walworth and see the 'leafier' side streets that are your common sense locations. LTNs are overwhelmingly popular - you've fallen for the trap of believing those who shout the loudest.

and in moving traffic into the side roads, freed up capacity on the main roads which was quickly taken up by addiitonal cars.

Car use increases quickest where capacity is available and much slower where congestion already exists, almost as if driving being made eaiser encourages more people to drive.

It is not possible to provide enough capacity for all roads to be free of traffic, allowing residential roads to turn into through routes just makes all roads to be equally congested.

Seems you are relying on anecdotes. Why do you think main road = poor and why do you think these people are poor? Or do you mean comparatively lower pay?

Still waiting to hear about time is money and why Vine was correct to ask his question.

It's definitely not the case in London. Data shows there is no demographic difference between the main roads and side streets in neighbourhoods in the capital.  I'm sure there are exceptions to this but it's not the case where the LTNs I pass through are.

You may have missed the point that rich people actually live in de facto LTNs - IE leafy outer London boroughs/cul de sacs etc. The whole point of this exercise is to redress the balance following the advent of sat navs that drive through traffic through residential urban areas.

Poor people in urban areas deserve to not have through traffic thundering through their neighbourhood. LTNs are actually addressing a great imbalance in favour of poor urban people. 

"Deeply unpopular LTNs". Usual bollocks from you. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2020/oct/22/despite-a-...

And yet he received a response (from Surrey Police) to confirm that the signage used only prohibited motor vehicles and cycling was absolutely permitted. 

Always good to ask questions when you are not sure.