50 mph for lorries

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
Pete Owens
Posts: 2442
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: 50 mph for lorries

Post by Pete Owens »

Ellieb wrote:Put it this way: if cycling on the road took 20 minutes but going by cyclepath took 30 minutes for the same distance, there would be plenty on here who would decry the path as being not fit for purpose and complain that segregationists didn't understand why people should always stay on the road....


While that is a common trope of segregationists, those of us who keep to the road tend to do so for safety rather than speed.
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: 50 mph for lorries

Post by Bicycler »

Ellieb wrote:Put it this way: if cycling on the road took 20 minutes but going by cyclepath took 30 minutes for the same distance, there would be plenty on here who would decry the path as being not fit for purpose and complain that segregationists didn't understand why people should always stay on the road....

But they wouldn't complain about traffic lowering the road speed which is more comparable to this situation. The objection some cyclists have to roadside cycle paths is that they are expected to use them instead of the road. If that is the case, the provided cyclepath should be neither less convenient nor less safe than the road.

Tony, I think you're succumbing to the sense of entitlement drivers tend to feel. They feel that they have a right to proceed unhindered, their speed facilitated by those up ahead. The vehicle in front should not be going unnecessarily slowly (ie. slower than me!)
Tonyf33
Posts: 3926
Joined: 17 Nov 2007, 3:31pm
Location: Letchworth N.Herts

Re: 50 mph for lorries

Post by Tonyf33 »

No I don't, far from it, I know there are times when for some the judgement time/distance as well as making the manoeurvre is just too tight, I also know when there's a ridiculous amount of time/distance to overtake but a fair few just can't/don't. I also understand that there are differing levels of driving skill, BUT the fact we have people behind the wheel of a motorvehicle quite easily capable of killing people (1700+ in 2012) and severely injuring in the tens of thousands every single year we MUST have a standard that drivers be tested/re-checked for constantly.
It's clear to me those that
If a driver is incapable of making a basic assessment of passing a much slower moving vehicle and by doing so is hindering and creating a huge tailback due to driving at 40% less than the posted speed then they should be given further training. Driving is NOT A RIGHT, it is a priviledge and if people are just not able to make simple basic manoeuvres/assessments then they shouldn't be on the road..what if they are trying to overtake a cyclist..then what?? It's these types that drive too close to you (as a cyclist0 when they come past and pull in too quick because they have a fear of using the other lane and because they are rubbish at overtaking & can't plan their overtake 9or any other manoeuvre for that matter!)

This why partly I have no problem with speeds of HGVs being upped to 50 in a 60 zone WHERE THE 60 IS APPROPRIATE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE..what i don't agree with is the previous carte blanche posting of national Speed limits on roads that one could struggle to do 50 in places even in a car (though this is getting better)
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: 50 mph for lorries

Post by Bicycler »

I don't understand why the car driver should be under any obligation to travel at a higher speed than the lorry. I'm also not sure why the posted speed limit should dictate a minimum acceptable speed. If it is unacceptable to travel more slowly than others on the roads we should all hop off our bikes and let the mr toads have their way, unhindered by our presence.
Postboxer
Posts: 1929
Joined: 24 Jul 2013, 5:19pm

Re: 50 mph for lorries

Post by Postboxer »

The problem with people not overtaking HGVs is the people who don't overtake but don't leave a gap between them and the HGV to pull into, also, the same people tend to drive to the far right of the lane, probably so they can see where they're going as they're too close the the HGV in front. This makes it much much harder for the people following to overtake as them being on the right of the road can cut visibility so much it makes what would have been a simple, straightforward overtake impossible.

What if being stuck behind an HGV leads to you being stopped by 20 traffic lights you otherwise would have sailed through? Does anything like this ever happen? It certainly annoys me when someone speeds up to a traffic light and gets through, or runs on amber, I always wonder if they end up making the same journey minutes quicker.
broadway
Posts: 788
Joined: 9 Mar 2010, 1:49pm
Location: Cheshire

Re: 50 mph for lorries

Post by broadway »

Bicycler wrote:I don't understand why the car driver should be under any obligation to travel at a higher speed than the lorry. I'm also not sure why the posted speed limit should dictate a minimum acceptable speed. If it is unacceptable to travel more slowly than others on the roads we should all hop off our bikes and let the mr toads have their way, unhindered by our presence.


And you never overtake a slower bicycle?
Postboxer
Posts: 1929
Joined: 24 Jul 2013, 5:19pm

Re: 50 mph for lorries

Post by Postboxer »

I never meet a slower bicycle! :(
Mark1978
Posts: 4912
Joined: 17 Jul 2012, 8:47am
Location: Chester-le-Street, County Durham

Re: 50 mph for lorries

Post by Mark1978 »

SA_SA_SA wrote:
Mark1978 wrote:....however a lot of dual carriageways are designed to be motorways and these should be redesignated as such.

But that would require expensive alternative routes/bridges etc for the road users who would be forbidden:
I suspect lowering the limit and fixing layouts dangerous to slow users (eg slip roads) would be cheaper. And perhaps making some sort of obvious (subconscious?) visual reminder that its an ordinary road containly slow or squishy road users.


Not always, much of the time there is already a suitable alternative route and if not it can be a big plus for cycling if one is built, as realistically no cyclist is going to be using a motorway standard DC anyway.
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: 50 mph for lorries

Post by Bicycler »

broadway wrote:
Bicycler wrote:I don't understand why the car driver should be under any obligation to travel at a higher speed than the lorry. I'm also not sure why the posted speed limit should dictate a minimum acceptable speed. If it is unacceptable to travel more slowly than others on the roads we should all hop off our bikes and let the mr toads have their way, unhindered by our presence.


And you never overtake a slower bicycle?

I do. I don't feel it's an obligation
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: 50 mph for lorries

Post by Bicycler »

Mark1978 wrote:
SA_SA_SA wrote:
Mark1978 wrote:....however a lot of dual carriageways are designed to be motorways and these should be redesignated as such.

But that would require expensive alternative routes/bridges etc for the road users who would be forbidden:
I suspect lowering the limit and fixing layouts dangerous to slow users (eg slip roads) would be cheaper. And perhaps making some sort of obvious (subconscious?) visual reminder that its an ordinary road containly slow or squishy road users.


Not always, much of the time there is already a suitable alternative route and if not it can be a big plus for cycling if one is built, as realistically no cyclist is going to be using a motorway standard DC anyway.

The reason why these are not proper motorways in the first place is either that they are not up to motorway standard (eg. no hard shoulder, at grade junctions, access roads, footpath crossings etc.) or providing alternatives for non-motorway traffic would be inconveniently expensive. They are a cheap bodge which suits no-one well and only motorised users adequately.

For cyclists, a decent cycle path next to an unrideable dual carriageway might be the best outcome.
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: 50 mph for lorries

Post by Bicycler »

I don't understand the point of tailgating lorries for miles on end without being able to see the road ahead either. No idea why people do that.
Postboxer wrote:What if being stuck behind an HGV leads to you being stopped by 20 traffic lights you otherwise would have sailed through? Does anything like this ever happen? It certainly annoys me when someone speeds up to a traffic light and gets through, or runs on amber, I always wonder if they end up making the same journey minutes quicker.

People driving faster and running lights do tend to get to their destinations quicker, though they tend to overestimate the time saving.

There's no reason why travelling more slowly or following a lorry would make you more likely to be stopped at a traffic light than at a higher speed. Unless, as you say, you were the kind of driver who accelerates approaching the junction in order to beat the lights.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: 50 mph for lorries

Post by [XAP]Bob »

The perceived saving is even greater in rush hour, when the actual saving is less...

We're rubbish at judging "time saved"
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Flinders
Posts: 3023
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 6:47pm

Re: 50 mph for lorries

Post by Flinders »

[XAP]Bob wrote:The perceived saving is even greater in rush hour, when the actual saving is less...

We're rubbish at judging "time saved"

Agreed. I used to do a regular commuter-time journey (driving) and would often be overtaken when I was doing the speed limit. It was a very rare occasion indeed when I didn't catch up with the offender later in the journey- sometimes I was still behind them, or maybe one or two cars behind them, ten or more miles later. They might have got through the odd traffic light before it went red when I had to stop, but in the end, I'd still nearly always catch up with them at either lights or a roundabout. So for all that risk (often the overtake was completely blind, and they were breaking the speed limit anyway) they gained what- two seconds?

I was once 'holding up' a chap behind me (i.e., I was doing the speed limit on straight bits and somewhat less on bends, but getting harassment) when I drove round a bend in the road and had to brake as there was a fire engine stationary on my side of the road and traffic coming the other way. If I'd been speeding, or hadn't slowed for the bend, I couldn't have stopped in time, and the bloke behind couldn't have stopped in time - he was lucky to be able to stop as it was. Ironically, the reason the fire engine was there was a car upside down just off the road on the bend - it could have been a mechanical failure, but given that the road was notorious for stupid driving in both directions in the rush hour, I'd not like to bet on it.
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: 50 mph for lorries

Post by Vorpal »

Ellieb wrote:Put it this way: if cycling on the road took 20 minutes but going by cyclepath took 30 minutes for the same distance, there would be plenty on here who would decry the path as being not fit for purpose and complain that segregationists didn't understand why people should always stay on the road....


I don't think this is really comparable to the cycle path versus road argument. For one thing, cycle paths that slow us by that much are also often unsafe. For another thing, the sort of journeys that is being discussed on this thread, tend to be a bit longer than a few miles.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Tonyf33
Posts: 3926
Joined: 17 Nov 2007, 3:31pm
Location: Letchworth N.Herts

Re: 50 mph for lorries

Post by Tonyf33 »

(avoidable) delays in terms of bicycle journeys are comparable to being delayed on the road in a car, if a journey is delayed by a considerable percentage through no fault of your own (the distance is irrelevant actually) and without sacrificing safety in absolute terms it can be very frustrating.
Post Reply