We started using B roads a lot more years ago due to a lack of ‘safety’ cameras as traveling at the national limit is very entertaining, I don’t think it will be to far in the future where individual vehicles become trackable so no need for the cameras. As for detectors, if you can detect them then it will be already to late as the camera would have already detected you.
Well ive found that a welll placed numberplate is the answer for me....while a 7x9" plate which is acceptable to most coppers mines tucked up under the seat so...visible from the rear but, not from an angle above...its in such a place where if someone were to look from behind (level behind me from a car) perfectly visible...but, from above (camera snapping height) good luck with that....thats on my zed...the hyper is between the 2 sc projects an sat half way down between, so visible from above (moreso) but not from the sides....so vans wont get a look in....my rsv4 still has a standard strip plate but ill be changing that this year to the same as the zed...
Maybe. All cars made since July 22 can be remotely speed controlled so they can’t exceed the posted speed limit too.
I also have a theory that all those who drive electric cars may find them locked remotely should they post something considered offensive by the wokes on Facebook
Not just Wales; https://roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/surrey-to-introduce-20mph-speed-limits-on-rural-roads/ Built up areas I get to a degree, but if it's not enforced (and previous guidance said it shouldn't be, not sure if it's changed) then it's a waste of time & signage in my opinion.
Not in keeping with the last guidelines I saw and frankly the system would melt under the number of miscreants they'd detect at that level. I think you can safely consign that to the urban myth bin.
I’d like to see the study they’ve carried out that proves 20mph is safer than 30mph. I get it possibly from the impact and possible body damage point of view, but if that’s the case, logically thinking, 10mph is even safer, better still 0mph, that way we’d do away with all accidents. And no matter what speed limits are in force, it matters not a jot to some drunk or drugged up moron.
TFL says this: Monitoring of the 20mph schemes in London shows that since they were introduced, the number of collisions has reduced by 25 per cent (from 406 to 304), and collisions resulting in death or serious injury have reduced by 25 per cent (from 94 to 71), demonstrating the huge impact of lowering speeds across London.
I took my new car there in October. Waited until there was no traffic, then had fun between the cameras.
Just a thought but I can see how average speed cameras can help reduce accidents on unrestricted roads-but I don’t see why the average goes down to 50 from 60 mph as before average cameras were installed people were traveling far in excess of 60mph and having accidents.
RoSPA think this https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/road-safety/drivers/20-mph-zone-factsheet.pdf
Probably because HGV vehicles and non car based vans are restricted to 50 mph on single carriage highways. I wouldn’t like to comment on the why’s if you’re referencing dual carriageway restrictions.
Also a vehicles speed restrictions such as HGV’s etc are implemented due to size, weight etc there’s no legitimate reason to cascade that down to other vehicles it’s bad enough motorcycles are lumped in with cars as it is when you take into account the advantages motorcycles have over them.
It is from a safety point of view, if you’ve only a single carriageway with HGV and vans doing 50 and cars wanting to travel at 60 the result from my experience is dangerous overtakes. So from a safety point of view it’s sensible to restrict motorised transport to the lower threshold, making progress becomes secondary to the safety of road users.
