Please protest.

[hilldweller]

Please spend a couple of minutes to try and stop "them" ruining one of the best biking roads in the area. A 40 mph limit on this road is just a direct pop at bikers. It may be justified for some but not all. To be honest it is enjoyable at 40 but that is not the point.

I put "There can be no justification for such a low limit on a high quality rural road, it will greatly inconvenience many people". See, I can be dip[diplomatic.

You need to scroll down to the third item......

https://countyconversation.denbighshire ... ublicDMart

[Horse]

Sorry to pee on your chips, etc., but that response probably emphasises their thoughts

They're stating it's for road safety. If that's the justification, then that's what you need to prove incorrect. What are the stats for the road, what were the locations and causes of crashes, etc.? Then identify better - and, ideally, cheaper- mitigations.

If you find that a lot of KSI crashes occur, involving bikes, and they are due to ... how should I put this ... enthusiastic riding, then what's your solution?

And I'm being diplomatic too, I didn't poo in your pie

[Dodgy69]

Tbh...it ain't a very good road. Imo. It's just a short U shaped run up to the Ponderosa cafe from Llangollen. There's a fast stretch where a few have got in trouble. Plenty better.

[hilldweller]

Tbh...it ain't a very good road. Imo.

Well you're a hard man to please.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.01718 ... 384!8i8192

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.02296 ... 384!8i8192

[Dodgy69]

Ye, but that's it... First photo is fast stretch. You ain't got 10 miles of it, about 1or 2 max.

But I do agree, 40 limit is ridiculous.

[ogri]

But I do agree, 40 limit is ridiculous

^^ aye, make it 20 so the peddlers can keep up

[kendo57]

Tbh...it ain't a very good road. Imo. It's just a short U shaped run up to the Ponderosa cafe from Llangollen. There's a fast stretch where a few have got in trouble. Plenty better.

Yes but once you allow one road to become 40 then the 'plenty better' will follow

[hilldweller]

They're stating it's for road safety. If that's the justification, then that's what you need to prove incorrect

I don't mind objecting but I'm not up for digging up statistics.

I live near the Cat n Fiddle, at least they set a 50 on that and with some justification due the accidents but even there the accidents were often slower than 50, it's the sneaky bends that catches them out.

Here is one of the killers, in the picture it looks a nice sweeper but roll down the road a bit !

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.25670 ... 312!8i6656

[Horse]

They're stating it's for road safety. If that's the justification, then that's what you need to prove incorrect

I don't mind objecting but I'm not up for digging up statistics.

I live near the Cat n Fiddle, at least they set a 50 on that and with some justification due the accidents but even there the accidents were often slower than 50, it's the sneaky bends that catches them out.

You might not want to, but knowing what evidence supports the plan may be the only way to stop it.

Bends are neither sneaky nor dangerous. If you think they are (or hidden entrances, adverse cambers, complicated junctions with poor sightlines), then perhaps a lower speed limit is appropriate? Or other mitigations.

But objecting just because it's a good road? You may be helping their case.

[Horse]

If you're serious about it, here's a start:

https://www.crashmap.co.uk/

[hilldweller]

Bends are neither sneaky nor dangerous.

So why so many accidents on them ? The one I posted, in a 50 now ( was 60 of course ) looks like a nice gentle bend but at the last minute tightens up. The topography means you cannot see the tight part untill it is too late. It's caught many out over the years.

If you can't agree "sneaky and dangerous" then I'm not bothered, I'm chatting on a bike forum not writing a crash investigation.

But objecting just because it's a good road? You may be helping their case.

You may well be right. I am objecting on the basis of the currant nanny state methods. Instead of fixing the problem properly they just take the simple option. If bikes are being a danger to themselves and other road users then book them, but no, they are happy to inconvenience all responsible road users instead and it's not going to make any difference to the nutters exceeding their abilities. Not far from this proposed limit they already have average speed cameras.

The same applies all over the place in cities. "Twenty is plenty". Their logic is cut speed down to a level that might save a child running into the road. The child does not understand speed limits, it will run into a 30/40 road just the same unless it is trained and supervised properly. Around here 20 is very often more than plenty, so I apply that.

[hilldweller]

If you're serious about it, here's a start:

https://www.crashmap.co.uk/

Thank you. It does throw up cause for concern for that section of road. One fatality.

But still I think it's wrong to inconvenience many instead of fixing the few.

[Dodgy69]

I know this road very well. Don't know any details but would imagine the fatality was something to do with a sheep or the lay by. The 2 sharper corners are not bad at all, both see thru so probably stone or fluid on the road.
What does surprise me is the r/hander coming back down towards the school. Fast with a barrier you dont want to go through. Care and attention definitely required.

[Couchy]

TBH motorcyclists are their own worst enemy with this, living near the Peak District the amount of nobbers who can’t take corners and have accidents is the reason we get lower limits and safety measures. One trip through the peaks on a bank holiday will have even the biggest biking fan thinking bikers are twats. The days of being able to ride how you want where you want aren’t as frequent as they used to be, you can still find places and times it just isn’t as easy and the law is pretty harsh when they do catch you having fun.

[Horse]

Bends are neither sneaky nor dangerous.

So why so many accidents on them ? The one I posted, in a 50 now ( was 60 of course ) looks like a nice gentle bend but at the last minute tightens up. The topography means you cannot see the tight part untill it is too late. It's caught many out over the years.

If you can't agree "sneaky and dangerous" then I'm not bothered, I'm chatting on a bike forum not writing a crash investigation.

Some roads have evolved from trackways into drove roads, some are based on paved roads the Romans built. Others are more recent.

But none were designed to catch riders out.

A bend doesn't 'tighten', it's just the shape it is, often following terrain or a field boundary. As for "Topography means you cannot see the tight part untill it is too late." Bollox, its quite simple: be able to stop within the distance, within your lane, that you can expect to remain clear. Then factor in 'surprise horizon' . Not being able to cope means either you're riding too fast, not able to read the road (or both).
It's the rider that gets it wrong, whether by poor assessment, misjudgment, simple mistakes, over-enthsiasm or optimism. Or, perhaps, unable to cope, whether lacking control skills or being unable to implement them.

And give up on the bike forum cr@p. It's the rider that gets hurt,so the rider that has to take responsibility. If you can't accept that, then you are agreeing to someone else taking responsibility, so say hello to lower speed limits.

[Dodgy69]

The blind L/ handers that tighten can catch you out on unfamiliar roads. Popular biking/scenic roads are not where the fun is had. Those quieter B roads are best for fun. Less cars ,twisty so 60/70 is fast. Just got to watch out for tractors n stuff.

Biking is about fun and if they dropped all limits to 50, my bike would be gone.

[Skub]

Biking is about fun and if they dropped all limits to 50, my bike would be gone.

I'm a good boy in built up areas,but on country roads it has never mattered to me what the posted limit is,I ride to have fun and within my limitations,balancing the fun/fear factor as much toward fun as possible,so if they dropped the limit from 60 to 50 it's pretty irrelevant unless it all becomes electronically monitored.

I'd be joining you on the retired bench then too.

[Beancounter]

Here is one of the killers, in the picture it looks a nice sweeper but roll down the road a bit !

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.25670 ... 312!8i6656

You say it looks like a nice sweeper but the chevron board suggests otherwise.

[Horse]

Here is one of the killers, in the picture it looks a nice sweeper but roll down the road a bit !

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.25670 ... 312!8i6656

You say it looks like a nice sweeper but the chevron board suggests otherwise.

Councils don't have money to waste. Usually that means someone - or several- has gone off there.

[The Spin Doctor]

So why so many accidents on them ? The one I posted, in a 50 now ( was 60 of course ) looks like a nice gentle bend but at the last minute tightens up. The topography means you cannot see the tight part untill it is too late. It's caught many out over the years.

If you can't agree "sneaky and dangerous" then I'm not bothered, I'm chatting on a bike forum not writing a crash investigation.

"I'm not writing a crash investigations" pretty much sums up why bikers have been crashing on the same bends since Gottfried Daimler first stuck a motor between two wheels.

They don't ask why someone else got it wrong.

Bends aren't sneaky. They just are what they are.

A bend can only do three things... stay the same, open up and get easier... or tighten up and get trickier. You don't need to be able to see what the bend does to understand that...

And that means that if "the topography means you cannot see the tight part" then it would be wise to assume the final option, that' it will get tighter... and then it's easy to enough to understand that the best course of action is that you go in with a bit of speed and lean angle in hand, just in case it gets worse.

[EDIT] I've just seen that Horse said much the same before I read it [/EDIT]