Most accidents on single carriageways are caused by dangerous overtaking, caused by frustration, caused by being stuck behind a proud member of 40 on a 60 brigade.
I am a proud member of the 40 brigade when it is very clear that it would be dangerous to drive any faster. Anyway there are a lot around who think it is their right to drive around at just above the speed limit.
@@rogerphelps9939 very clear to you? You write the rules for everyone else and their specific vehicle at any one specific time? You should put that on your cv. They'd know what kind of person you are right of the bat. I bet you have the cheapest tires you could get fitted too...and drive a kia.
I know the A9 from Perth to Inverness has speed cameras everywhere and most drivers stick to the 60mph speed limit. So if it was reduced to 50 they would probabley keep to that or risk a big fine. But as I've said in the previous comment the slower I drive the drowsier I get and that is DANGEROUS!!
Utter rubbish. You do realise, don't you, that increased speed increases both reaction distance and stopping distance? If you get drowsy driving at 50mph you are a definite danger at any speed and I suggest you take a rest and see a doctor. Reducing speed limits from 60mph to 50mph has hardly any effect on overall journey times anyway.
Be careful when filling out consultation forms,in this case they are looking to reduce speed limits,some answers will work in their favour and some opose. What would people answer if they said limit down from 60 to 40mph on open roads. Pedestrians now have right of way over cars at junctions. Cyclists can now take up the whole road. If someone either blocks a driveway or parks on your driveway without asking there is nothing you can do about it,you are not allowed to block them in. Councils won't remove abandoned cars taking up valuable parking spaces for residential properties if the space is not on the actual road. Some road rules are there to keep traffic flowing and reduce accidents as long as people all follow them,other rules are a joke. Traffic lights in some cases actually cause more congestion. Your future your choice.
It's a drip drip effect by suggestion. A two lane A road nearby has had multiple speed changes introduced over the years and it works. Collisions and injuries have reduced. Over 12 rural miles the limit is 30,40,50 and 60 depending on the driving environment. But it is still annoying when you have a good open road with minimum traffic and a prevailing time interest. If those speed limits were reduced by 10MPH there may well be more 'chancers' making overtaking moves which caused the original limits to be put in the first place. There have been some horrendous crashes on that stretch of road. If it works is there anything to change?.
If someone blocks your driveway and you cannot get out then you can call the police to remove them. If they are blocking your driveway and you cannot drive in then I suggest one of their tyres gets mysteriously deflated. Regarding cars abandoned in parking spaces, how do you know they are abandoned? If you suspec that a car is abandoned you can call he police who will run a tax, MOT and insurance check on it. If has no MOT, no insurance or no tax the owner is in deep shit. If the car is clean the owner has every right to park it there as long as it is not causing an obstrucion. These parking spaces are not your personal property.
So you think that there are things more important than the safety of pedestrians and travellers. Geting somewhere a couple of minutes earlier is of prime imporance in your book, is it? Pathetic.
@@rogerphelps9939 Why are there pedestrians on the motorway? And you think that because people die we should slow everything down? Why don't we just ban the car all together then nobody will die and we can go back to the stone age. You are absolutely pathetic.
Thanks very much for producing this video and highlighting this consultation. It’s great that you’ve taken the time to go through it in real time on the video. I’m interested to note that several of the consultation questions now include a ‘No change’ option, which I am sure was missing when I attempted to fill it in myself a few weeks ago but put a hold on my response to get better info. I would like to be able to source researched data to support my views that the proposed reduction in speed limit is a bad idea. Another RUclipsr, (Scottish Car Clan) mentioned a study in Denmark which showed some negative safety impacts of a similar speed limit reduction. Any suggestions from viewers on back up info to support keeping existing limits would be helpful. Another aspect of this issue is that out with the central belt (where power is located of course), many people have long commutes on single carriageway roads, and this limit reduction would be a considerable inconvenience for many road users. My view is that existing arrangements where local speed reductions are imposed on higher risk roads is the right way to go, and a reasonable approach. Worth noting also that increasing LGV speed limit would significantly increase pollution as air resistance increases with square of speed and lorries are inherently unaerodynamic, plus they will continue to use fossil fuels for many years, due to their weight. Thanks again for highlighting this consultation and the need to participate.
Much appreciated - thanks for letting me know about this. And hopefully this will encourage a few more people to fill in the consultation. If you find additional info or data on negative impacts of speed reduction, do share! 🙏🏽☺️
As far as I’m aware anyone in UK can fill this out so it would be brilliant if more people than actually live in Scotland responded negatively. Scotland could well be the test case for a full UK roll out
Just filled in they have seen what wales have done and through we can do that here, a friend of a friend who works for a courier company has said they are thinking of increasing there fees for delivery's to wales due to the fact that they have to work longer to make the same amount of money for a given length of time.
They tried to reduce the speed on the A92 on the coast to 40mph and all it did was cause a tailback on the road so they had to put the speed limit up to 60 mph and then there was no problems
We had a motorhome which at 50mph felt slow, so dawdling along in a car at 50mph would be yawn inducing and people could nod off. That could be dangerous. The faster I drive, the more awake I remain.
Another impact that it could have would be to reduce the number of tourists visiting the North of Scotland. A lot of people who enjoy driving their cars or motorbikes on twisty open roads at a moderate speed like 60mph, visit Scotland for driving adventures, to enjoy the scenery and also, more importantly, to enjoy the twists and turns of the awesome open roads. If the limit were reduced to 50, assuming it's enforced with extra speed cameras, etc, it would take quite a lot of the enjoyment out of it for those spirited drivers, negatively affecting business for shops / cafes / hotels / etc. I'm not talking about boy racers, who drive at 70 to 100mph and bikers who often do well over that, they will probably just keep doing the crazy speeds they usually do, regardless of the limit, but law abiding people who enjoy the open roads and lack of traffic found in the North will probably need to look elsewhere for their driving holidays if the national speed limit is reduced to 50!
What happens with a bad law is people ignore it - squeeze too tightly and well get more people driving idiotically quickly at the wrong time, place and weather What's missed in the entire conversation is that in of itself a given speed in a vehicle is not dangerous in of itself - it is when its inappropriate for the vehicles, road and prevailing conditions and hazards that it becomes a factor......
This will affect road users in the south and north of Scotland more than the central belt because the central belt has less national speed limit single carriageway roads. It also makes the journey from Edinburgh to England slower using roads like the A70 and A7 and A68. Not that I'm suggesting the Nationalist might want this.
@@JasonKing-m6m Depends on how low you go, I have found with my current car I can get 40+ Mpg when not towing sitting between 50 and 55 Mph. When towing I am lucky to get 24 Mpg at 50 Mph and often 20 Mpg especially if driving into a head wind. It is what it is. In most towns even with the 20 Mph limit you will be lucky to get 15 Mph average especially around rush hour, put one set of lights on a street and hey ho things get very slow in fact there re several small villages on the A75 where they have done that very thing, triggered by a speeding "over 30 Mph" driver.
I don't know if you're aware but the Scottish government has introduced 20 mph limits in the majority of towns and villages. These limits are on the whole are not policed. But what they do have is lots of council run speed vans, just another cash grab. Regarding lorries speed limits was raised to 60 mph unless otherwise indicated on roads such as the A75, specified 40mph.
I would love to know where these 'amazing roads' are in Scotland. I'm in Fife and the road surfaces are a nightmare. To travel 50 mph on some around here wouldn't be possible due to constantly avoiding potholes.
The A9 has had HGV speeds of 50 MPH on normal bits of the road for a number of years. Not sure of the results. Most roads in Scotland are narrow and have lots of caravans motorhomes etc that only travel at 50 MPH anyway so making the actual limit 50 would not make much difference to most people. As for distancing themselves from England that is why they exist.
@@scottyfive4319 That’s simply not the case: there are plenty A class roads in Scotland which are not narrow and do not have lots of caravan and motorhomes using them. A 50mph limit would be a significant inconvenience, particularly to commuters who use these routes.
@@JohnCIronside M8 the vast majority of roads in Scotland can be at times unsafe at 60 MPH and certainly now a lot of them have motorhomes and caravans on them in much greater numbers that just a decade ago. I know I use them, yes there are dual carriageways where you can put the foot down but many normal A road where you cannot. The A75 M6 to Stranraer road was filled with HGV's now not so many but there are many places specifically to the west of Dumfries where safe at 50 not so much at 60. Too many roads in Scotland do not have the width, much better than it was in most places but still too many narrow with twisty bit. Great on a motorbike not so great towing a 2 ton 27ft caravan. Been there still doing it, sadly no bike these days.
@@scottyfive4319I’ve been driving in Scotland since 1978, mainly East coast. Not a huge amount of caravans etc, except perhaps in summer. There are plenty sections of road here that in my view are safe to drive at between 50 and 60mph, which I guess is what’s in question here. That’s my experience anyway.
@@JohnCIronside The new dual carriageways/bypasses are fine, inland not so much and the A96 is still a death trap for the unwary, but hey I have not been up that way for a couple of years and mostly towing and limited to 50Mph. 55Mph I have found is the optimum for fuel even with my beast I can get 40+Mpg when not towing.
I have been riding motorcycles and driving cars for nearly 55 years all around the UK. And at a time when the up-keep of road surfaces was higher than it is today. I remember a time when tight twisty country roads were 30 mph! And for good reasons!! No pavements by the road side for pedestrians to walk safely along in some areas especially where no street lighting existed. Horse riders and animals getting onto the roads. And being in farming community's tractors often appeared at a corner without much notice if at all. Stopping distance at 30 mph is lower than at 60 mph despite of car tyers and braking improvements! So just what was the reason to increase speed limits to 60 in places like that? Safety certainly not in mind? So claimed safety concerns is nonsense in my opinion. But lowering speed limits would help EV's improve battery milage??? And given of the bad driving standards that seem to exist today perhaps returning to 30 mph in these areas would be the wizer course of action, in my opinion.
They make a small fortune in taxes from cars, driving people off the road will cost them billions, its madness, or are only the rich allowed to own or drive a car?
The result of the so called consultation has probably already been decided in favour of lowering the limit to cash in on the speeding fine revenue that such a reduction would inevitably cause. Many of Scotlands road lend themselves to much higher speeds than is currently in place
The question about reducing casualties for kids under 16 is an odd one. Why pick 60%? Not 50. Not two-thirds. But 60%. That is a weird number to pick. This is what happens when a bunch of politicians who get chauffeur driven to work, or have tax payers paying for the taxi to their train between Glasgow and Edinburgh, think A roads are the roads in cities, rather than being the roads connecting the cities and towns. SNP need to stop tinkering around the edges and distracting us with a problem that doesn't exist. It would be quite nice if we could have some form of health care
I live in Scotland and suspect that the govt wants to change the national speed limit, instead of just specific roads is because the govt will not have to spend money on new speed limit signs. They are being cheap. Having lived in the countryside with the roads outside the house being snow roads I would support some of these roads being changed to a lower speed. The racing Kevs used to whistle past my house at 80mph despite the road being in a poor state, blind corners, horse riders, dog walkers, flooding on the road, the road trashed by tractors or lorries taking shortcuts. Can we just promote common sense, and encouraging people to acknowledge the responsibility they have as a driver, when behind the wheel? Re: 20mph in Wales. I worked in South Wales for nearly a decade and my little 1L Yaris struggled with some of those hills. 20mph is an annoying speed for small engined cars. My Yaris (albeit this is 20y ago) would struggle to handle 3rd gear at 20, and driving for prolonged length if time in 2nd gear is frustrating and unpleasant. For smallercars that don't have all the fancy driving assistance tech these low speed limits just mean the driver is looking too much, and has too much attention focused, at the speedometer and not enough at the road.
yes i totally agrree.. and i hadnt concidered that.. i think it is likely that blanket change is another reason, to save money on new signs when they already have natspeed ones in play
Good call - I'll just get on with that! It's a bit long winded and some of the questions are daft - horses on motorways? - but I guess these things are designed to bore people into not being bothered to fill the whole thing in so that the dopy legislation gets through. In any case, with the exception of Urban motorways and maybe the A9, there is no way that there will be the finance to police this - there isn't at the moment! Some of the best A roads in 'my' area share one radar unit in a van for hundreds of miles: if everyone would just stay under the posted limits through small towns and villages, and drive to the conditions on the rest of the roads, there'd be no need for this silliness even to surface!
I visited the Scottish government website and after a bit of searching I found the consultation form. 20 minutes later I gave up trying to complete it. I didn’t reach the end and perhaps that is the sole purpose of it. What we think won’t matter. SNP at their best. The whole idea is just stupid.
Speed limit reduction leads to less serious injuries in the event of collisions. Also , if that doesn't convince you then average speed is likely less than 17mph in town, 45 rural. Why do you need to be doing 60mph at any point? Makes no logical sense. Hgv speed is too high currently, other road users including car drivers are intimidated by it. Any intimidation in a public space is unacceptable, look at the row going on about in cities about ebikes and scooters. Roads are actually for everyone including children riding their bike to school.
With respect, what a sham of a consultation. It was nice to hear some of your thoughts, but nothing was backed up by data, just feelings. Is this how we do vehicle safety data? Let me just explain myself. I worked in accident and recovery a long time, and while speed was always a factor in an accident, it was rarely the sole or dominant reason for cause of death. Here, we have citizens asked about important issues with zero data being provided. Will slowing the traffic by 10mph reduce the death toll by 50%? Who knows, are the deaths caused by drivers doing 60mph or slower/faster speeds. Last time I looked 50% of pedestrians killed were drunk and in cities, so how will reducing the speed limit prevent a drunk person being killed who isn't where the speed limit is reduced? Why are we asking everyone about HGV safety, the majority who have never driven one, has no idea about the rules for driving them, and often over estimate the actual risk that they "feel" they were put in. I used to drive for Tesco with the old 0800 how's my driving. We often had crazy stories about how drivers were wasting company time, holding up traffic, or slacking off because we were following the rules of the roads, doing 40mph on a 60mph single carriageway road. They started off trying to educate the callers, but that was too hard, so we just had a laugh at each "complaint" and got a pat on the back and told to keep up the good work. Trucks have got the tech cars have and are now safer than ever, that's what you said about cars, so why support the lower speed limit. But more to the point how many people are killed by trucks vs cars, even though the impact is greater. When working with police recoveries, something like 90% of accidents involving an HGV was the car drivers fault. So why are we asking them how they "feel" verses reality. I know this is long, but I think you missed the whole point of this. This is about climate change, pollution, and reducing travel. If it's all about safety, why are they asking these questions? Once again, if cars take longer to get to the destination, what is the data about fuel consumption when vehicles are travelling lower. I know we reduced a fleet of trucks by 2mph and they saved millions on diesel, then another, and another, but at 50mph the fuel consumption shot up. Why? Because they never shifted into the higher gear and so they were less efficient using higher engine revs, burning more fuel. These questions oversimplify the situation and let people make assumptions. Slower trucks burn less fuel, wrong, slower speeds will kill less drunk pedestrians, wrong, a reduction in speeds in roads that are already safe at higher speeds will reduce the road toll, wrong. The fact that this will either be used to justify widespread change where the publishers have no data on prove for their proposals is ludicrous. It will either be used for justification or ignored. But given the way the questions are structured and the lack of knowledge most people have on any of these topics, it will probably be returned favourable even if it may or may not solve any of the suggested topics. Road safety should not be decided by public feeling, it should be researched, backed up by serious, localised data, then targeted at the roads, or driver campaign in a way that will actually save lives, not assume.
The A9 has had HGV speeds of 50 MPH on normal bits of the road for a number of years. Not sure of the results. Most roads in Scotland are narrow and have lots of caravans motorhomes etc that only travel at 50 MPH anyway so making the actual limit 50 would not make much difference to most people. I have driven most roads in Scotland for decades, there are very few that do not have sections that it is not safe to drive at 60 MPH all the time. I have used motorcycles and cars and cars towing both large caravans and heavy trailers.
Absolutely spot on, the loaded questions in the "consultation " are a joke. The snpee and greens have already committed to drastically altering private vehicle use at the beginning of their grubby deal. This exercise is just smoke and mirrors to give people the illusions choice " it's for your safety ".
@scottyfive4319 thanks Scotty, some useful insights. I did always think the no limit was drive as you see fit to the conditions. 60 on straight, 40 on allow corners, 30 muttering under my breath because I can't get past a caravan. The real question here is, where is the data, if it's about saving lives where is the analysis and prophecy savings and assumptions based upon various actions. This seems ideological rather than evidence based, just seems wrong to ask how people feel or think about a topic which they have no information.
@@AllInVehicleInspections My understanding is that allowing HGV's to do 50 on the A9 has helped certainly the reporting of serious accidents have dropped, this is however an anecdotal observation. There are lots of new "overtaking lanes" so these will also have helped. Very difficult as you say to asses without the data that the roads authority has. Hey Ho since most of my driving is local or "Towing" changing the speed limit will not affect me much.
There's an important difference between dual carriageways and motorways which many don't appreciate and surveys like this (where they haven't mentioned motorways) exaggerate the confusion. Dual carriageways have no requirement for a hard shoulder, crash barriers or controlled access, and they have narrower lanes, making them potentially more dangerous than motorways. For this reason, I don't think the limit for cars should be raised from 70. On the motorway however, I think it should be raised to 80 for cars - like you said, all cars can comfortably achieve it and it would make overtaking slow lorries and vans easier. However, on dual carriageways in England, particularly the A34, I see "elephant races" where lorries are overtaking each other because one is 1-2 mph faster than the other, and even, in 50 mph average speed check zones, overtaking cars above the speed limit. I think putting the limits the same for cars and trucks will be more dangerous, as lorries, which have a longer stopping distance, less manouvrability and bigger blind spots, will be more tempted to adopt an overtaking position. I envision it becoming like eastern Europe where the overtaking lane is only for cowboys.
The slow trucks in Scotland are a huge killer. I have had some of the closest shaves in my life with cars overtaking these 40 mph trucks on blind courners. Modern trucks have safety systems that mean they can be driven safely at higher speeds.
Be careful what you say about seeing the white circle with the diagonal black line through it. On a single carriageway it means the speed limit is 60mph BUT it means 70mph on a dual carriageway. This, I can tell you as an experienced Driving Instructor, is widely misunderstood by the majority of so called Full Licence Holders.
When will they learn dangerous driving and accidents are not all about speed but the standards of driving. The standards now are at an all time low.. I do 1500 miles a week and what I see is frightening and it's not people driving fast. Reducing the limit will be good for speed taxation though. Are modern safe cars going to sit behind a hgv all the journey. Another crazy idea by government
I am against the reduction, but you are right saying they have beautiful driving roads, so why not slow down to enjoy the view a bit more. Trouble is when you do that there is always someone on your bumper who wants to go fast. I always pull over and let them go past, but maybe a reduction on some of these roads (not all) will take the pressure off and prevent an accident. How many times have you been down a bendy country 60mph road that really doesn’t warrant the 60 speed because you can’t see round the bend the cyclist or the big pot hole.
Some locals do sit far too close if you're being careful or at the limit. However, as a highlander it is enormously frustrating being sat behind selfish idiots that do 40 in a 60 because they want to enjoy the view with 0 regards to people who live locally and need to get to work etc. Many accidents in the Highlands have been caused by tourists on the wrong side of the road. Other tourists forget the our limits are mph not kmh.
People dont know what the national speed limit is. Most sit at 50mph in a 60 zone, then proceed to do 45mph when the limit drops to 40. some do 85mph on a motorway inches away from the car in front.
At the same time as doing this they are also introducing mandatory life sentences for anyone who kills someone while speeding so it'll become harder to speed and just ignore them.
Road rage is bound to increase if too many cars get stuck behind a lorry which will slow down going up hills and speed up over the brow. Only idiots in government could come up with such a stupid dangerous idea.
Scotland is already on its way to changing 30mph village speed limits to 20mph speed limits even if the accident data does not support it. some of the great roads already have average speed cameras on them set to 50mph. it says consolation but i doubt the will take any of that on board, most likely the government has made its mind up using safety and road deaths as the reason to lower the speed limit. i agree that the HGV speed limit sohuld be increased to 50mph, that would improve safety as drivers feel less held up and try a risky overtake. but i disagree with reducing the national speed limit, it will increase journey times and not stop drivers from speeding and making overtakes that are risky, if anything a driver doing 40mph or 50mph currently on the roads is creating a situation where a driver that wants to go at the speed limit is planning how to overtake them. reducing the limit will put more dirvers in this situation. train drivers how to drive in the first place, not just pass a test of minimum skill to drive unsupervised, and overall skill will improve and accident rates will drop. thats the solution, not lowering the speed limits.
The reason i think that the think tank wants to lower spped for cars and up the speedon 7.5 and above... is so there is a uniform 50mph for all vehicles.. this would be to stop cars overtaking lorries and trucks on single carrageways, wich is one cause of many accidents, where car drivers and other try to overtake a slower moving vehicle, but without enough experience of understanding overall travelling distance and also overtaking in areas where there are bends.. wich i see everyday. going to work. i think its quite easy to see what the motive is, .. im not saying its good or bad, im just saying this is what it is. i think this will reduce many more people from buying faster cars.. even electric.. i mean, why buy a top range electric car if your max speed is 50 lol, even a 125cc moped could keep up with you lol imagine.. you cant overtake a 125cc moped doing 50mph... lol who would want a porche or audi then? may as well buy a gocart
At 60 you'll have an audi up your ... at 70 you'll have an audi up your ..... at 80 you'll have an audi.up your..... so what difference will 50 make > you'll still have an audi waiting for the first blind bend or solid white line to over take .
All because of the EV'S, because if you drive the EV with speed up to 50mph the battery carry further, so they want to put another artificial measuring to say how much the EV'S are better.
They already have it on meany roads with average speed cameras, I go to Scotland a couple of time a year & must say their roads are full of pot holes , just a heads up Glasgow really bad .is question air is loaded every questionis will it make it worse , will it cause more damage will it will it . Any questions on will make journeys quicker etc , its all aimed at the car driver , not cyclists holding up traffic & causing more pollution .
There is a loads of evidence that without a speed differential between Lorries and cars on the road more accidents happen........ It why we have had a speed differential on the roads for decades I think a blanket limit smells of political ideology (Dogma) - so they should be brave enough to call it what it is in the survey and not dress it up. I am sure there are some roads that were designated national that have poor sighting, are too narrow and/or ice up or flood badly in bad weather where case by case lower limits make a lot of sense Suffolk over covid spent a lot of the money they got redesignating many 60 limits to 40 (with cameras) mostly major routes and were surprised when journey times , frustration and accidents increased - yea some scientist had told them lower the limits and the traffic travels faster........ probably the same one that told Wales the same for 20 limits. Flow studies don't consider how stupid people are and the silly things they do when frustrated or in the case of Wales when badly behaved cyclists can outpace them on the road..... I would point out economics with tourism would bite - but they'll just a get a bigger hand out from Whitehall - i.e. more tax to pay for it. There are many possible solutions to particular stretches or road or areas (Variable weather limits like France anyone?) On average for a blanket application Journey times will go up, as will emissions (direct and indirect) and accidents I feel for people in Scotland here as many live in places where not having personal transport isn't an option, there are no alternatives to get food, go to work etc. I suspsect this is just the start of it - get a friend with a red flag ready, soon they will have to walk in front of you with it if you need to drive anywhere.......
Nah... they don't want blocked or tinted windows, because that would hinder a nice clean shot of the driver's face for the camera...for no hassle fine delivery to the responsible person....
Go to Scotland before they put a speed limit on ? Think you will find it’s 60 mph on ordinary roads for cars so why go all the way to Scotland to do 10 mph more ? Think you just like the sound of your own voice
For goodness sake. On the 8th December 1973 the UK government introduced a blanket 50mph limit ( due to the fuel crisis at the time). We all survived and being a new driver at the time, I found it to be no problem at all. Get a grip people
Awesome, some of these national speed limit roads are so dangerous. Lets be safer. Not a lot of crashes on some roads but they usally fatal at high speed.
Just drive safer. Higher speeds can be perfectly safe if the conditions allow whereas even 20mph can be dangerous in the rush hour. It ALWAYS depends on the conditions on the road.. Busy and crowded, go slow, Straight wide road with few other road users and good visibility, go fast...
It WILL NOT stop "all those mad speed idiots" because they are mad and pay no heed to speed limits or situational awareness. Instead all other drivers will be greatly hindered....
Thing is if we all add to the Scottish survey it gives it greater validity by sample size. Not necessarily the values of the data but even how they pitch each question. Example: Do you think we should reduce the speed on road that little orphan puppies use…. ?Ahhh 😳 Remember this a country that voted for Brexit. Just like when they asked Christmas turkeys it the preferred gas mark 4 or gas mark 6 🤔
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
Most accidents on single carriageways are caused by dangerous overtaking, caused by frustration, caused by being stuck behind a proud member of 40 on a 60 brigade.
HGV and PSV in Scotland don't have a choice at the moment, over 40 and they're inviting a ticket and interview with the traffic commissioner...
@alancampbell1008 I appreciate that mate, I'm not talking about HGVs. I'm talking about the honda jazz, that the HGV is stuck behind.
So true that
I am a proud member of the 40 brigade when it is very clear that it would be dangerous to drive any faster. Anyway there are a lot around who think it is their right to drive around at just above the speed limit.
@@rogerphelps9939 very clear to you? You write the rules for everyone else and their specific vehicle at any one specific time?
You should put that on your cv.
They'd know what kind of person you are right of the bat.
I bet you have the cheapest tires you could get fitted too...and drive a kia.
I know the A9 from Perth to Inverness has speed cameras everywhere and most drivers stick to the 60mph speed limit. So if it was reduced to 50 they would probabley keep to that or risk a big fine. But as I've said in the previous comment the slower I drive the drowsier I get and that is DANGEROUS!!
Utter rubbish. You do realise, don't you, that increased speed increases both reaction distance and stopping distance? If you get drowsy driving at 50mph you are a definite danger at any speed and I suggest you take a rest and see a doctor. Reducing speed limits from 60mph to 50mph has hardly any effect on overall journey times anyway.
@@rogerphelps9939Ok pal. If you say so.
Be careful when filling out consultation forms,in this case they are looking to reduce speed limits,some answers will work in their favour and some opose.
What would people answer if they said limit down from 60 to 40mph on open roads.
Pedestrians now have right of way over cars at junctions.
Cyclists can now take up the whole road.
If someone either blocks a driveway or parks on your driveway without asking there is nothing you can do about it,you are not allowed to block them in.
Councils won't remove abandoned cars taking up valuable parking spaces for residential properties if the space is not on the actual road.
Some road rules are there to keep traffic flowing and reduce accidents as long as people all follow them,other rules are a joke.
Traffic lights in some cases actually cause more congestion.
Your future your choice.
It's a drip drip effect by suggestion. A two lane A road nearby has had multiple speed changes introduced over the years and it works. Collisions and injuries have reduced. Over 12 rural miles the limit is 30,40,50 and 60 depending on the driving environment.
But it is still annoying when you have a good open road with minimum traffic and a prevailing time interest. If those speed limits were reduced by 10MPH there may well be more 'chancers' making overtaking moves which caused the original limits to be put in
the first place. There have been some horrendous crashes on that stretch of road. If it works is there anything to change?.
Agree with everything except, on consultations. They don’t give a flying one what any of us think or want.
If someone blocks your driveway and you cannot get out then you can call the police to remove them. If they are blocking your driveway and you cannot drive in then I suggest one of their tyres gets mysteriously deflated. Regarding cars abandoned in parking spaces, how do you know they are abandoned? If you suspec that a car is abandoned you can call he police who will run a tax, MOT and insurance check on it. If has no MOT, no insurance or no tax the owner is in deep shit. If the car is clean the owner has every right to park it there as long as it is not causing an obstrucion. These parking spaces are not your personal property.
Surely there are more important things they should be concentrating on.
Such as fix potholes which cause suspensions to fail and cars to career of course and crash into property or into pedestrians...
@@JasonKing-m6mor the fact that Scotland has more drug deaths than anywhere in the western world.
So you think that there are things more important than the safety of pedestrians and travellers. Geting somewhere a couple of minutes earlier is of prime imporance in your book, is it? Pathetic.
@@rogerphelps9939 Why are there pedestrians on the motorway? And you think that because people die we should slow everything down? Why don't we just ban the car all together then nobody will die and we can go back to the stone age. You are absolutely pathetic.
Thanks very much for producing this video and highlighting this consultation. It’s great that you’ve taken the time to go through it in real time on the video. I’m interested to note that several of the consultation questions now include a ‘No change’ option, which I am sure was missing when I attempted to fill it in myself a few weeks ago but put a hold on my response to get better info.
I would like to be able to source researched data to support my views that the proposed reduction in speed limit is a bad idea. Another RUclipsr, (Scottish Car Clan) mentioned a study in Denmark which showed some negative safety impacts of a similar speed limit reduction.
Any suggestions from viewers on back up info to support keeping existing limits would be helpful.
Another aspect of this issue is that out with the central belt (where power is located of course), many people have long commutes on single carriageway roads, and this limit reduction would be a considerable inconvenience for many road users. My view is that existing arrangements where local speed reductions are imposed on higher risk roads is the right way to go, and a reasonable approach.
Worth noting also that increasing LGV speed limit would significantly increase pollution as air resistance increases with square of speed and lorries are inherently unaerodynamic, plus they will continue to use fossil fuels for many years, due to their weight.
Thanks again for highlighting this consultation and the need to participate.
Much appreciated - thanks for letting me know about this. And hopefully this will encourage a few more people to fill in the consultation. If you find additional info or data on negative impacts of speed reduction, do share! 🙏🏽☺️
@ Will do
Scotland is a rural area and relies on its roads and has long journeys for lots of people the proposal is unnecessary interference in our lives.
Ultimately "Thou shalt relinquish your car and cycle"....or bus or train those long journeys...
As far as I’m aware anyone in UK can fill this out so it would be brilliant if more people than actually live in Scotland responded negatively. Scotland could well be the test case for a full UK roll out
Just filled in they have seen what wales have done and through we can do that here, a friend of a friend who works for a courier company has said they are thinking of increasing there fees for delivery's to wales due to the fact that they have to work longer to make the same amount of money for a given length of time.
What Wales might have to pay more? Been like that here in Nothern Scotland for years...oh and 48hr delivery that takes 5 days.
They tried to reduce the speed on the A92 on the coast to 40mph and all it did was cause a tailback on the road so they had to put the speed limit up to 60 mph and then there was no problems
We had a motorhome which at 50mph felt slow, so dawdling along in a car at 50mph would be yawn inducing and people could nod off. That could be dangerous. The faster I drive, the more awake I remain.
Local enablers of the agenda will not go away, if this is rejected they will be back.
Yeah maybe until thet're fatally rear ended by 2.5 tonne EV on auto pilot.
Another impact that it could have would be to reduce the number of tourists visiting the North of Scotland. A lot of people who enjoy driving their cars or motorbikes on twisty open roads at a moderate speed like 60mph, visit Scotland for driving adventures, to enjoy the scenery and also, more importantly, to enjoy the twists and turns of the awesome open roads. If the limit were reduced to 50, assuming it's enforced with extra speed cameras, etc, it would take quite a lot of the enjoyment out of it for those spirited drivers, negatively affecting business for shops / cafes / hotels / etc. I'm not talking about boy racers, who drive at 70 to 100mph and bikers who often do well over that, they will probably just keep doing the crazy speeds they usually do, regardless of the limit, but law abiding people who enjoy the open roads and lack of traffic found in the North will probably need to look elsewhere for their driving holidays if the national speed limit is reduced to 50!
What happens with a bad law is people ignore it - squeeze too tightly and well get more people driving idiotically quickly at the wrong time, place and weather
What's missed in the entire conversation is that in of itself a given speed in a vehicle is not dangerous in of itself - it is when its inappropriate for the vehicles, road and prevailing conditions and hazards that it becomes a factor......
This will affect road users in the south and north of Scotland more than the central belt because the central belt has less national speed limit single carriageway roads. It also makes the journey from Edinburgh to England slower using roads like the A70 and A7 and A68. Not that I'm suggesting the Nationalist might want this.
Thats my visit to scotland cancelled. It takes long enough to get their as it is but this is a step too far.
Wait till you watch the video!
Your loss Scotland's gain.
Aye, less tourist revenue. Engage your brain next time. 😂@@scottyfive4319
@@scottyfive4319 Reduced speed limits except around schools and hospitals are not a gain...
@@JasonKing-m6m Depends on how low you go, I have found with my current car I can get 40+ Mpg when not towing sitting between 50 and 55 Mph. When towing I am lucky to get 24 Mpg at 50 Mph and often 20 Mpg especially if driving into a head wind. It is what it is. In most towns even with the 20 Mph limit you will be lucky to get 15 Mph average especially around rush hour, put one set of lights on a street and hey ho things get very slow in fact there re several small villages on the A75 where they have done that very thing, triggered by a speeding "over 30 Mph" driver.
I don't know if you're aware but the Scottish government has introduced 20 mph limits in the majority of towns and villages. These limits are on the whole are not policed. But what they do have is lots of council run speed vans, just another cash grab. Regarding lorries speed limits was raised to 60 mph unless otherwise indicated on roads such as the A75, specified 40mph.
Not another cash grab. It is for safety because the evidence says so. Speed vans are not free either.
I would love to know where these 'amazing roads' are in Scotland. I'm in Fife and the road surfaces are a nightmare. To travel 50 mph on some around here wouldn't be possible due to constantly avoiding potholes.
It's always the case were the SNP wants to distance themselves away from the UK.
The A9 has had HGV speeds of 50 MPH on normal bits of the road for a number of years. Not sure of the results. Most roads in Scotland are narrow and have lots of caravans motorhomes etc that only travel at 50 MPH anyway so making the actual limit 50 would not make much difference to most people. As for distancing themselves from England that is why they exist.
@@scottyfive4319 That’s simply not the case: there are plenty A class roads in Scotland which are not narrow and do not have lots of caravan and motorhomes using them. A 50mph limit would be a significant inconvenience, particularly to commuters who use these routes.
@@JohnCIronside M8 the vast majority of roads in Scotland can be at times unsafe at 60 MPH and certainly now a lot of them have motorhomes and caravans on them in much greater numbers that just a decade ago. I know I use them, yes there are dual carriageways where you can put the foot down but many normal A road where you cannot. The A75 M6 to Stranraer road was filled with HGV's now not so many but there are many places specifically to the west of Dumfries where safe at 50 not so much at 60. Too many roads in Scotland do not have the width, much better than it was in most places but still too many narrow with twisty bit. Great on a motorbike not so great towing a 2 ton 27ft caravan. Been there still doing it, sadly no bike these days.
@@scottyfive4319I’ve been driving in Scotland since 1978, mainly East coast. Not a huge amount of caravans etc, except perhaps in summer. There are plenty sections of road here that in my view are safe to drive at between 50 and 60mph, which I guess is what’s in question here. That’s my experience anyway.
@@JohnCIronside The new dual carriageways/bypasses are fine, inland not so much and the A96 is still a death trap for the unwary, but hey I have not been up that way for a couple of years and mostly towing and limited to 50Mph. 55Mph I have found is the optimum for fuel even with my beast I can get 40+Mpg when not towing.
Ah the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island that is becoming less and less united as days and weeks go by. 🤦♂️
In Australia there are speed cameras everywhere with drivers constantly checking their speed instead of watching where they are going.
I have been riding motorcycles and driving cars for nearly 55 years all around the UK. And at a time when the up-keep of road surfaces was higher than it is today. I remember a time when tight twisty country roads were 30 mph! And for good reasons!! No pavements by the road side for pedestrians to walk safely along in some areas especially where no street lighting existed. Horse riders and animals getting onto the roads. And being in farming community's tractors often appeared at a corner without much notice if at all. Stopping distance at 30 mph is lower than at 60 mph despite of car tyers and braking improvements! So just what was the reason to increase speed limits to 60 in places like that? Safety certainly not in mind? So claimed safety concerns is nonsense in my opinion. But lowering speed limits would help EV's improve battery milage??? And given of the bad driving standards that seem to exist today perhaps returning to 30 mph in these areas would be the wizer course of action, in my opinion.
They make a small fortune in taxes from cars, driving people off the road will cost them billions, its madness, or are only the rich allowed to own or drive a car?
The result of the so called consultation has probably already been decided in favour of lowering the limit to cash in on the speeding fine revenue that such a reduction would inevitably cause. Many of Scotlands road lend themselves to much higher speeds than is currently in place
The question about reducing casualties for kids under 16 is an odd one. Why pick 60%? Not 50. Not two-thirds. But 60%. That is a weird number to pick.
This is what happens when a bunch of politicians who get chauffeur driven to work, or have tax payers paying for the taxi to their train between Glasgow and Edinburgh, think A roads are the roads in cities, rather than being the roads connecting the cities and towns.
SNP need to stop tinkering around the edges and distracting us with a problem that doesn't exist. It would be quite nice if we could have some form of health care
And you are wierd to pick up on somehing that has tto be an arbittary decision. Any number would be weird in your book.
I live in Scotland and suspect that the govt wants to change the national speed limit, instead of just specific roads is because the govt will not have to spend money on new speed limit signs. They are being cheap.
Having lived in the countryside with the roads outside the house being snow roads I would support some of these roads being changed to a lower speed. The racing Kevs used to whistle past my house at 80mph despite the road being in a poor state, blind corners, horse riders, dog walkers, flooding on the road, the road trashed by tractors or lorries taking shortcuts.
Can we just promote common sense, and encouraging people to acknowledge the responsibility they have as a driver, when behind the wheel?
Re: 20mph in Wales. I worked in South Wales for nearly a decade and my little 1L Yaris struggled with some of those hills. 20mph is an annoying speed for small engined cars. My Yaris (albeit this is 20y ago) would struggle to handle 3rd gear at 20, and driving for prolonged length if time in 2nd gear is frustrating and unpleasant. For smallercars that don't have all the fancy driving assistance tech these low speed limits just mean the driver is looking too much, and has too much attention focused, at the speedometer and not enough at the road.
Instead of reducing national speed limit, why not just put a traffic calming hump where needed...
yes i totally agrree.. and i hadnt concidered that.. i think it is likely that blanket change is another reason, to save money on new signs when they already have natspeed ones in play
Good call - I'll just get on with that! It's a bit long winded and some of the questions are daft - horses on motorways? - but I guess these things are designed to bore people into not being bothered to fill the whole thing in so that the dopy legislation gets through. In any case, with the exception of Urban motorways and maybe the A9, there is no way that there will be the finance to police this - there isn't at the moment! Some of the best A roads in 'my' area share one radar unit in a van for hundreds of miles: if everyone would just stay under the posted limits through small towns and villages, and drive to the conditions on the rest of the roads, there'd be no need for this silliness even to surface!
Cameras are a local Government's best friend... and... YOU will pay to have them installed. How great is that?
I visited the Scottish government website and after a bit of searching I found the consultation form. 20 minutes later I gave up trying to complete it. I didn’t reach the end and perhaps that is the sole purpose of it. What we think won’t matter. SNP at their best. The whole idea is just stupid.
Speed limit reduction leads to less serious injuries in the event of collisions.
Also , if that doesn't convince you then average speed is likely less than 17mph in town, 45 rural. Why do you need to be doing 60mph at any point? Makes no logical sense.
Hgv speed is too high currently, other road users including car drivers are intimidated by it. Any intimidation in a public space is unacceptable, look at the row going on about in cities about ebikes and scooters.
Roads are actually for everyone including children riding their bike to school.
With respect, what a sham of a consultation. It was nice to hear some of your thoughts, but nothing was backed up by data, just feelings. Is this how we do vehicle safety data?
Let me just explain myself. I worked in accident and recovery a long time, and while speed was always a factor in an accident, it was rarely the sole or dominant reason for cause of death.
Here, we have citizens asked about important issues with zero data being provided. Will slowing the traffic by 10mph reduce the death toll by 50%? Who knows, are the deaths caused by drivers doing 60mph or slower/faster speeds. Last time I looked 50% of pedestrians killed were drunk and in cities, so how will reducing the speed limit prevent a drunk person being killed who isn't where the speed limit is reduced?
Why are we asking everyone about HGV safety, the majority who have never driven one, has no idea about the rules for driving them, and often over estimate the actual risk that they "feel" they were put in. I used to drive for Tesco with the old 0800 how's my driving. We often had crazy stories about how drivers were wasting company time, holding up traffic, or slacking off because we were following the rules of the roads, doing 40mph on a 60mph single carriageway road. They started off trying to educate the callers, but that was too hard, so we just had a laugh at each "complaint" and got a pat on the back and told to keep up the good work.
Trucks have got the tech cars have and are now safer than ever, that's what you said about cars, so why support the lower speed limit. But more to the point how many people are killed by trucks vs cars, even though the impact is greater. When working with police recoveries, something like 90% of accidents involving an HGV was the car drivers fault. So why are we asking them how they "feel" verses reality.
I know this is long, but I think you missed the whole point of this. This is about climate change, pollution, and reducing travel. If it's all about safety, why are they asking these questions?
Once again, if cars take longer to get to the destination, what is the data about fuel consumption when vehicles are travelling lower. I know we reduced a fleet of trucks by 2mph and they saved millions on diesel, then another, and another, but at 50mph the fuel consumption shot up. Why? Because they never shifted into the higher gear and so they were less efficient using higher engine revs, burning more fuel.
These questions oversimplify the situation and let people make assumptions. Slower trucks burn less fuel, wrong, slower speeds will kill less drunk pedestrians, wrong, a reduction in speeds in roads that are already safe at higher speeds will reduce the road toll, wrong.
The fact that this will either be used to justify widespread change where the publishers have no data on prove for their proposals is ludicrous. It will either be used for justification or ignored. But given the way the questions are structured and the lack of knowledge most people have on any of these topics, it will probably be returned favourable even if it may or may not solve any of the suggested topics.
Road safety should not be decided by public feeling, it should be researched, backed up by serious, localised data, then targeted at the roads, or driver campaign in a way that will actually save lives, not assume.
Fair points, useful info. Thank you! 🙏🏽
The A9 has had HGV speeds of 50 MPH on normal bits of the road for a number of years. Not sure of the results. Most roads in Scotland are narrow and have lots of caravans motorhomes etc that only travel at 50 MPH anyway so making the actual limit 50 would not make much difference to most people. I have driven most roads in Scotland for decades, there are very few that do not have sections that it is not safe to drive at 60 MPH all the time. I have used motorcycles and cars and cars towing both large caravans and heavy trailers.
Absolutely spot on, the loaded questions in the "consultation " are a joke. The snpee and greens have already committed to drastically altering private vehicle use at the beginning of their grubby deal. This exercise is just smoke and mirrors to give people the illusions choice " it's for your safety ".
@scottyfive4319 thanks Scotty, some useful insights. I did always think the no limit was drive as you see fit to the conditions. 60 on straight, 40 on allow corners, 30 muttering under my breath because I can't get past a caravan. The real question here is, where is the data, if it's about saving lives where is the analysis and prophecy savings and assumptions based upon various actions. This seems ideological rather than evidence based, just seems wrong to ask how people feel or think about a topic which they have no information.
@@AllInVehicleInspections My understanding is that allowing HGV's to do 50 on the A9 has helped certainly the reporting of serious accidents have dropped, this is however an anecdotal observation. There are lots of new "overtaking lanes" so these will also have helped. Very difficult as you say to asses without the data that the roads authority has. Hey Ho since most of my driving is local or "Towing" changing the speed limit will not affect me much.
There's an important difference between dual carriageways and motorways which many don't appreciate and surveys like this (where they haven't mentioned motorways) exaggerate the confusion. Dual carriageways have no requirement for a hard shoulder, crash barriers or controlled access, and they have narrower lanes, making them potentially more dangerous than motorways. For this reason, I don't think the limit for cars should be raised from 70. On the motorway however, I think it should be raised to 80 for cars - like you said, all cars can comfortably achieve it and it would make overtaking slow lorries and vans easier.
However, on dual carriageways in England, particularly the A34, I see "elephant races" where lorries are overtaking each other because one is 1-2 mph faster than the other, and even, in 50 mph average speed check zones, overtaking cars above the speed limit. I think putting the limits the same for cars and trucks will be more dangerous, as lorries, which have a longer stopping distance, less manouvrability and bigger blind spots, will be more tempted to adopt an overtaking position. I envision it becoming like eastern Europe where the overtaking lane is only for cowboys.
If Scotland government are having a consultation on reducing the speed limits, its already been decided .Its going to happen.
The slow trucks in Scotland are a huge killer. I have had some of the closest shaves in my life with cars overtaking these 40 mph trucks on blind courners. Modern trucks have safety systems that mean they can be driven safely at higher speeds.
Be careful what you say about seeing the white circle with the diagonal black line through it. On a single carriageway it means the speed limit is 60mph BUT it means 70mph on a dual carriageway. This, I can tell you as an experienced Driving Instructor, is widely misunderstood by the majority of so called Full Licence Holders.
Hey, i was listening to that.... I'll tune in later!
Will watch this premiere with interest.
When will they learn dangerous driving and accidents are not all about speed but the standards of driving. The standards now are at an all time low.. I do 1500 miles a week and what I see is frightening and it's not people driving fast. Reducing the limit will be good for speed taxation though. Are modern safe cars going to sit behind a hgv all the journey. Another crazy idea by government
Reduction in Speed Limit + Average Speed Cameras = Increased Revenue for Scottish Government. Simple!
I am against the reduction, but you are right saying they have beautiful driving roads, so why not slow down to enjoy the view a bit more. Trouble is when you do that there is always someone on your bumper who wants to go fast. I always pull over and let them go past, but maybe a reduction on some of these roads (not all) will take the pressure off and prevent an accident. How many times have you been down a bendy country 60mph road that really doesn’t warrant the 60 speed because you can’t see round the bend the cyclist or the big pot hole.
Some locals do sit far too close if you're being careful or at the limit. However, as a highlander it is enormously frustrating being sat behind selfish idiots that do 40 in a 60 because they want to enjoy the view with 0 regards to people who live locally and need to get to work etc. Many accidents in the Highlands have been caused by tourists on the wrong side of the road. Other tourists forget the our limits are mph not kmh.
They will clamp down more and more until they take away all your rights
This is just going to make business more expensive by increasing the journey time and hence cost.
60 mph is far too slow for the 2 lane sections A9 between Perth and Inverness. However on most other 2 lane roads 60 is OK as a maximum
People dont know what the national speed limit is. Most sit at 50mph in a 60 zone, then proceed to do 45mph when the limit drops to 40.
some do 85mph on a motorway inches away from the car in front.
As a Scottish lad i ll say ..... catch me if ye can 😂😂
Road safety is no longer as important as it used to be. I consider the mental health of our youth a far more serious issue.
It’s all about control - electric cars, speed limits, pay per mile, tax tax and more tax
At the same time as doing this they are also introducing mandatory life sentences for anyone who kills someone while speeding so it'll become harder to speed and just ignore them.
You aren't going to stop accidents by lowering the speed limit, sacrificing the local economy and there is no need for it.
Road rage is bound to increase if too many cars get stuck behind a lorry which will slow down going up hills and speed up over the brow. Only idiots in government could come up with such a stupid dangerous idea.
Scotland is already on its way to changing 30mph village speed limits to 20mph speed limits even if the accident data does not support it. some of the great roads already have average speed cameras on them set to 50mph. it says consolation but i doubt the will take any of that on board, most likely the government has made its mind up using safety and road deaths as the reason to lower the speed limit.
i agree that the HGV speed limit sohuld be increased to 50mph, that would improve safety as drivers feel less held up and try a risky overtake. but i disagree with reducing the national speed limit, it will increase journey times and not stop drivers from speeding and making overtakes that are risky, if anything a driver doing 40mph or 50mph currently on the roads is creating a situation where a driver that wants to go at the speed limit is planning how to overtake them. reducing the limit will put more dirvers in this situation.
train drivers how to drive in the first place, not just pass a test of minimum skill to drive unsupervised, and overall skill will improve and accident rates will drop. thats the solution, not lowering the speed limits.
The reason i think that the think tank wants to lower spped for cars and up the speedon 7.5 and above... is so there is a uniform 50mph for all vehicles.. this would be to stop cars overtaking lorries and trucks on single carrageways, wich is one cause of many accidents, where car drivers and other try to overtake a slower moving vehicle, but without enough experience of understanding overall travelling distance and also overtaking in areas where there are bends.. wich i see everyday. going to work.
i think its quite easy to see what the motive is, .. im not saying its good or bad, im just saying this is what it is.
i think this will reduce many more people from buying faster cars.. even electric.. i mean, why buy a top range electric car if your max speed is 50 lol, even a 125cc moped could keep up with you lol imagine.. you cant overtake a 125cc moped doing 50mph... lol who would want a porche or audi then? may as well buy a gocart
7.5t is limited to 56
At 60 you'll have an audi up your ... at 70 you'll have an audi up your ..... at 80 you'll have an audi.up your..... so what difference will 50 make > you'll still have an audi waiting for the first blind bend or solid white line to over take .
Pay per mile is definitely coming along with digital IDs and social credit scores.
Ok I won't be going to Scotland anymore. Shame , I liked the tattoo and the Highlands. Oh well, Cornwall from now on.
Deths gonna go up. In Norway they Norwegistan they made the speed limits higher on the best roads. And deaths went down.
Oh yes please.
They’re mostly guidelines anyway. 😉
All because of the EV'S, because if you drive the EV with speed up to 50mph the battery carry further, so they want to put another artificial measuring to say how much the EV'S are better.
They already have it on meany roads with average speed cameras, I go to Scotland a couple of time a year & must say their roads are full of pot holes , just a heads up Glasgow really bad .is question air is loaded every questionis will it make it worse , will it cause more damage will it will it . Any questions on will make journeys quicker etc , its all aimed at the car driver , not cyclists holding up traffic & causing more pollution .
What speed limit
They probably haven't been catching enough speeding motorists. This will sort it. Don't go there
There is a loads of evidence that without a speed differential between Lorries and cars on the road more accidents happen........
It why we have had a speed differential on the roads for decades
I think a blanket limit smells of political ideology (Dogma) - so they should be brave enough to call it what it is in the survey and not dress it up.
I am sure there are some roads that were designated national that have poor sighting, are too narrow and/or ice up or flood badly in bad weather where case by case lower limits make a lot of sense
Suffolk over covid spent a lot of the money they got redesignating many 60 limits to 40 (with cameras) mostly major routes and were surprised when journey times , frustration and accidents increased - yea some scientist had told them lower the limits and the traffic travels faster........ probably the same one that told Wales the same for 20 limits.
Flow studies don't consider how stupid people are and the silly things they do when frustrated or in the case of Wales when badly behaved cyclists can outpace them on the road.....
I would point out economics with tourism would bite - but they'll just a get a bigger hand out from Whitehall - i.e. more tax to pay for it.
There are many possible solutions to particular stretches or road or areas (Variable weather limits like France anyone?)
On average for a blanket application Journey times will go up, as will emissions (direct and indirect) and accidents
I feel for people in Scotland here as many live in places where not having personal transport isn't an option, there are no alternatives to get food, go to work etc.
I suspsect this is just the start of it - get a friend with a red flag ready, soon they will have to walk in front of you with it if you need to drive anywhere.......
Likely they exist, but ive NEVER seen National Speed Limit sign while driving in Scotland..
ANyone told you that you look like Mr Been ?
You don't live in Scotland. It's nothing to do with you..Also parking on pavements is now illegal in Scotland. Are you also protesting about that
This is becoming stupid.
Just plain no no no 🤬
You are joking....
They’re be telling the women to block up their windows next 🤔
Nah... they don't want blocked or tinted windows, because that would hinder a nice clean shot of the driver's face for the camera...for no hassle fine delivery to the responsible person....
So, is this consultation designed to align the speed limit for all road users? That would make sense.
Go to Scotland before they put a speed limit on ? Think you will find it’s 60 mph on ordinary roads for cars so why go all the way to Scotland to do 10 mph more ? Think you just like the sound of your own voice
For goodness sake.
On the 8th December 1973 the UK government introduced a blanket 50mph limit ( due to the fuel crisis at the time). We all survived and being a new driver at the time, I found it to be no problem at all.
Get a grip people
And you, being a new driver, were experienced enough as a driver to have an opinion at the time? Don't think so...
Awesome, some of these national speed limit roads are so dangerous. Lets be safer. Not a lot of crashes on some roads but they usally fatal at high speed.
Bet you have had your booster 🤡🥳😂
Just drive safer. Higher speeds can be perfectly safe if the conditions allow whereas even 20mph can be dangerous in the rush hour. It ALWAYS depends on the conditions on the road.. Busy and crowded, go slow, Straight wide road with few other road users and good visibility, go fast...
Brilliant, stop all those mad speed idiots. Best news I've heard in 2025. England and Wales next!
It WILL NOT stop "all those mad speed idiots" because they are mad and pay no heed to speed limits or situational awareness. Instead all other drivers will be greatly hindered....
Thing is if we all add to the Scottish survey it gives it greater validity by sample size. Not necessarily the values of the data but even how they pitch each question.
Example: Do you think we should reduce the speed on road that little orphan puppies use…. ?Ahhh 😳
Remember this a country that voted for Brexit.
Just like when they asked Christmas turkeys it the preferred gas mark 4 or gas mark 6 🤔