Camberley - Red Road & Maultway speed reduction proposals
Discussion
Here we go again !
Just spotted the notice on a lamppost as I went for my morning walk.
https://www.surreysays.co.uk/environment-and-infra...
In summary, 40mph for the whole length of Red Road and 40mph for the Maultway all the way from Deepcut to the Jolly Farmer/A30, parts of which are already 40mph..
Consultation closes 19th March but no doubt this will go ahead despite any objections just like the recent A217 Sutton Banstead Mad Mile one.
I'll be objecting as I have for other recent ones but increasingly it feels like there is little point, sigh !
Just spotted the notice on a lamppost as I went for my morning walk.
https://www.surreysays.co.uk/environment-and-infra...
In summary, 40mph for the whole length of Red Road and 40mph for the Maultway all the way from Deepcut to the Jolly Farmer/A30, parts of which are already 40mph..
Consultation closes 19th March but no doubt this will go ahead despite any objections just like the recent A217 Sutton Banstead Mad Mile one.
I'll be objecting as I have for other recent ones but increasingly it feels like there is little point, sigh !
It's worth noting that those proposals were originally drawn up / suggested when the Conservatives still controlled Surrey Heath, were attached to the drops that were brought in on the A30, and before they were kicked out by the Lib Dems at the last local elections, so it's not surprising to see them now being pushed through by Surrey County Council (still Tory) as SCC now have full control of all road / maintenance / cleaning / planning, etc having taken them away from local borough / parish councils as part of the devolved regional powers they were granted by Sunak after doing so badly in the local elections and barely holding on to Surrey council as a whole too.
As expected, reasoning for the Red Road classed as "safety" because of the small number of people that still crash there over the last 6 years - although they've once again ignored the fact that most of those accidents listed on Red Road were because they're still speeding well past the current 50 anyway, or not paying attention to the road, so another drop makes no difference. The bit from Deepcut was always going to happen at some point as that was tied to the planning sign off on the massive housing development covering the barracks land so more traffic = lower speeds required, etc.
The Lib Dems briefly managed to halt the A30 / Maultway speed limit for review when they got in (as a couple of the Lib Dems didn't agree with it) and it transpired that the Conservatives had already fully (over)paid for all the signage, work, contractor, etc, in advance before the consultation had even been done meaning if they tried to cancel it they'd be accused of wasting local money. Not that it mattered anyway because SCC used the devolved powers to ensure the changes went through - and of course the bonus was a number of moronic locals then complained it was all the fault of the Lib Dems despite it being Conservative decision
At this stage, the local borough / parish councils have very little power to challenge / ammend these even if they don't fully agree with them so if SCC have decided they want lower limits, then they'll be brought in regardless of how anyone responds (as shown by the recent Reigate / Banstead one - and numerous previous ones).
As expected, reasoning for the Red Road classed as "safety" because of the small number of people that still crash there over the last 6 years - although they've once again ignored the fact that most of those accidents listed on Red Road were because they're still speeding well past the current 50 anyway, or not paying attention to the road, so another drop makes no difference. The bit from Deepcut was always going to happen at some point as that was tied to the planning sign off on the massive housing development covering the barracks land so more traffic = lower speeds required, etc.
The Lib Dems briefly managed to halt the A30 / Maultway speed limit for review when they got in (as a couple of the Lib Dems didn't agree with it) and it transpired that the Conservatives had already fully (over)paid for all the signage, work, contractor, etc, in advance before the consultation had even been done meaning if they tried to cancel it they'd be accused of wasting local money. Not that it mattered anyway because SCC used the devolved powers to ensure the changes went through - and of course the bonus was a number of moronic locals then complained it was all the fault of the Lib Dems despite it being Conservative decision
At this stage, the local borough / parish councils have very little power to challenge / ammend these even if they don't fully agree with them so if SCC have decided they want lower limits, then they'll be brought in regardless of how anyone responds (as shown by the recent Reigate / Banstead one - and numerous previous ones).
Edited by AlexRS2782 on Wednesday 5th March 00:05
So, The Maultway has had 2 accidents a year. Jeez, it's a death trap (no-one killed amazingly). 4 accidents per year on the Red Road (2 deaths in 5 years).
Dropping the speed limits by 10mph will do nothing, just make it easier to overtake cars and, as said above, the people really speeding on these roads ignored the current limits anyway..
It's obviously important to reduce injuries but unless the limits are all 10mph where does this stop? Where is the balance between it being quicker to walk because speed limits are so low and spending more money lowering speed limits continually? How long before these are dropped another 10mph?
And given the council have next to no money, is there really not a better use of public money?
/pointlessrantover
PS Also objected to it, even though it's pointless
Dropping the speed limits by 10mph will do nothing, just make it easier to overtake cars and, as said above, the people really speeding on these roads ignored the current limits anyway..
It's obviously important to reduce injuries but unless the limits are all 10mph where does this stop? Where is the balance between it being quicker to walk because speed limits are so low and spending more money lowering speed limits continually? How long before these are dropped another 10mph?
And given the council have next to no money, is there really not a better use of public money?
/pointlessrantover
PS Also objected to it, even though it's pointless
Edited by Frimley111R on Thursday 6th March 17:35
I have put my objection in on the basis that both roads had consistent speed limits until recent changes introduced extra limits where the wer previously national band then reduced to 50, now we have 40 as well. The poorly placed signs although fairly new are already green and obscured by trees in some spots. Driver education about suitable sped for conditions and reduction of workload by consistent use of speed limited will help, the last few crashes in the area on these roads have all been excessive speed by young drivers apparently above the old national limits let alone the 50 in force many years or they new ones.
Alistair-49qrn said:
I have put my objection in on the basis that both roads had consistent speed limits until recent changes introduced extra limits where the wer previously national band then reduced to 50, now we have 40 as well. The poorly placed signs although fairly new are already green and obscured by trees in some spots. Driver education about suitable sped for conditions and reduction of workload by consistent use of speed limited will help, the last few crashes in the area on these roads have all been excessive speed by young drivers apparently above the old national limits let alone the 50 in force many years or they new ones.
Exactly, they are slowing everyone down because they think that that is the way to do things. If I was young and loved speed, changing signs wouldn't make any difference to me. If I am going to drive at, say 70mph on those roads, the speed limit can be anything it likes, it can't stop me speeding.I have put my objection in on the basis that both roads had consistent speed limits until recent changes introduced extra limits where the wer previously national band then reduced to 50, now we have 40 as well. The poorly placed signs although fairly new are already green and obscured by trees in some spots. Driver education about suitable sped for conditions and reduction of workload by consistent use of speed limited will help, the last few crashes in the area on these roads have all been excessive speed by young drivers apparently above the old national limits let alone the 50 in force many years or they new ones.
TheRainMaker said:
There is no information in relation to the reasons why this is being put in place. No break down of the figures on who crashed and why.
There never is because if you did that you'd see it is a pointless expenditure. I had an online argument with the bellend local politician who spent £330k on average speed cameras on the Pirbright bends. He just kept going on about "How would you feel if one of your family died on the Pirbright bends?". It was one woman, a passenger, in 5 years on a motorbike! From the report they overshot a bend and went into a vehicle coming the other way. All the other accidents were relatively minor, just cars sliding off the road at low speeds.
Frimley111R said:
There never is because if you did that you'd see it is a pointless expenditure.
I had an online argument with the bellend local politician who spent £330k on average speed cameras on the Pirbright bends. He just kept going on about "How would you feel if one of your family died on the Pirbright bends?". It was one woman, a passenger, in 5 years on a motorbike! From the report they overshot a bend and went into a vehicle coming the other way. All the other accidents were relatively minor, just cars sliding off the road at low speeds.
Indeed, but the trouble is you just can't argue with these bell-ends, because its not about applying common sense, its about applying political dogma.I had an online argument with the bellend local politician who spent £330k on average speed cameras on the Pirbright bends. He just kept going on about "How would you feel if one of your family died on the Pirbright bends?". It was one woman, a passenger, in 5 years on a motorbike! From the report they overshot a bend and went into a vehicle coming the other way. All the other accidents were relatively minor, just cars sliding off the road at low speeds.
You will do as we say, and be happy.
Control of the population.
aeropilot said:
Frimley111R said:
There never is because if you did that you'd see it is a pointless expenditure.
I had an online argument with the bellend local politician who spent £330k on average speed cameras on the Pirbright bends. He just kept going on about "How would you feel if one of your family died on the Pirbright bends?". It was one woman, a passenger, in 5 years on a motorbike! From the report they overshot a bend and went into a vehicle coming the other way. All the other accidents were relatively minor, just cars sliding off the road at low speeds.
Indeed, but the trouble is you just can't argue with these bell-ends, because its not about applying common sense, its about applying political dogma.I had an online argument with the bellend local politician who spent £330k on average speed cameras on the Pirbright bends. He just kept going on about "How would you feel if one of your family died on the Pirbright bends?". It was one woman, a passenger, in 5 years on a motorbike! From the report they overshot a bend and went into a vehicle coming the other way. All the other accidents were relatively minor, just cars sliding off the road at low speeds.
You will do as we say, and be happy.
Control of the population.
I just read that Surrey Council is so flush with money that they are spending £3m on improving road safety outside schools. Doesn't mention any issues with road safety in these places currently, sounds like it is a case of 'Well you can never be too careful (and you should vote for us next time)'.
Gassing Station | Thames Valley & Surrey | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff