What effect has the 80 limit had in your area?

(Roger Bruton) #46

It does not apply around here ;-D:grin:

(Chris Lawton) #47

None visibly. Most small roads have too many bends to go more than 80 in any case (and lack radars or gendarmes to monitor). On the major roads, I have not noticed that drivers are going more slowly - so, typically, between 85 and 95. Since the radars have now all been vandalised, a noticeable increase in spedd on the two major east-west routes here (southern Tarn), the N126 and the D112. Fortunately, however, no increase in accidents, except on roundabouts inhabited by gilets jaunes.

(stella wood) #48

Anyone seen new speed cameras going in to replace the trashed/damages ones ??? just wondering…

(Simon Armstrong) #49

I see 49 departments (so far!) will be reverting to the 90km/h speed limits - complete waste of public money - what a shambles :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the upcoming European elections…could it ? :roll_eyes:

(stella wood) #50

I do hope that the damaged speed cameras will be replaced/mended… whatever… at the same time… :upside_down_face:

(Simon Armstrong) #51

Yep and the bill sent to the Jilly Joneses rather than being paid for using my taxes!

(stella wood) #52

Sadly… IMO…it will be all of US who end up paying for the damage and degradation across France … some of the perpetrators may be fined, but very few… :zipper_mouth_face:

1 Like
(Ian Horswell) #53

See loads of speed cameras on main roads monitoring the 80 limit but, if they put more in towns where the limit is 30 or 50, they’d catch a lot more people and raise enough money to replace the damaged cameras!

(Timothy Cole) #54

Here in 17 they’ve decided ‘prudence’, what does that mean?

(stella wood) #55

Isn’t that the polite way of saying “don’t be a plonker”… :upside_down_face::wink:

or perhaps “use your common sense, if you have any”… :rofl:

“be careful” is, perhaps, the most likely… :hugs:

(Paul Flinders) #56

Morbihan also- I’m not quite clear what the article means by this “undecided” perhaps.

(stella wood) #57

I must admit… I thought this was only being mooted and had yet to be presented to the Assembly for their nod…

and, quite reasonably… Departments are seeking guidance from the Experts… since no-one wishes to be sued if speed causes a death…

(Paul Flinders) #58

Not even that - merely that the departments are “favourable” to the idea now that Phillipe has apparently given a green light to the limits being decided at local level, which is why I read “prudence” as “undecided” - (i.e translating prudence as “caution” and assuming that those departments wish to approach the issue cautiously, i.e see what everyone else does :slight_smile: )

(stella wood) #59

Ha ha… Paul… prudence = careful! definitely not “undecided” :upside_down_face:

(Paul Flinders) #60

See above for the logic :slight_smile:

(stella wood) #61

Paul… (I can see why you might think “undecided”… but no…)

Certains présidents de départements se montrent toutefois prudents, refusant d’assumer la responsabilité d’une hausse potentielle de la mortalité routière.

The word means the same in English… be prudent…

It might not be “prudent” for these Dept Heads to take on the responsibility for a speed increase… (which is what they are worrying about… getting sued by a grieving family)

when one sees “prudence” on a road-sign… it is warning you to be wise/cautious … not to be undecided… :upside_down_face::rofl:

there’s logic… and there’s logic… depends on the language and the weather forecast…:rofl::upside_down_face::wink:

(Paul Flinders) #62

It would have helped had I read all the way to the bottom of the page, I suppose :slight_smile:

OK, I guess “cautious” it is. Not sure it is the best translation as the sense is “unwilling to take this responsibility” but I can’t think of a better single word.

(stella wood) #63

The point is… Govt are willing to thrust the decision onto Dept Heads. Some of whom are yelling… yes, yes…

While others “are being cautious” (se montrent toutefois prudents) and refusing to assume the responsibility of a potential hike in deaths on the roads…

Can’t say I blame them… as they could be held personally liable… for future disasters…and which of us would want that hanging over us… :zipper_mouth_face:

(Paul Flinders) #64

I can’t see that councils would be held to blame if there is an accident after they put the limit back up to 90kph. It would be a very tricky thing to show that they were liable, you’d have to be certain all vehicles was travelling between 80 and 90kph, that they would have been travelling more slowly had the limit been lower and that the incident would not have taken place had they been doing so.

And there’s hardly a huge number of councils been held liable for accidents where everyone was doing 79kph (or 89kph before the limit was reduced) on the grounds the département should have posted a lower limit.

The present situation - some in favour of putting it back up and some not could lead to the distinctly daft situation where there is a patchwork of limits and no-on is sure what speed they are supposed to stay below (I presume that, as the national limit would still be 80, individual roads would have to have a “90” sign posted - I’d have thought the expense alone would put most départements off the idea).

1 Like
(Simon Armstrong) #65

Nahhhhh I don’t buy any of it - it’s all about votes in the European elections. Transparent.