Please object! More speed reductions proposed on V6, H4, H5 & H7

Posted by indafradianish@reddit | miltonkeynes | View on Reddit | 52 comments

Please follow the instructions (copied below) and object to more proposed speed restrictions!

This time there is no evidence based approach, e.g. serious accidents mentioned or surveys.

"The Council is now carrying out statutory consultation on the proposed Order. Any comments or objections to the above proposal, together with the grounds upon which they are made, must be made in writing and sent to the Council’s Traffic Regulation Order Team at Milton Keynes Council, Civic Offices, 1 Saxon Gate East, Central Milton Keynes MK9 3EJ, or by email to TROteam@milton-keynes.gov.uk quoting reference TRO-474. "

Deadline 11th July 2026

[-]

EmptyRestaurant2410@reddit

Haven't there been several nasty accidents along the V6 by Heelands? And the restriction on the southbound part next to Bradwell Common kind of makes sense as one of the lanes is a part-time bus lane.

Downvote me to hell, idc. Looking at the maps they've provided I would support this proposal.

[-]

indafradianish@reddit (OP)

Previous proposals have had supporting evidence, this time the nothing has been provided.

Tbh I wouldn't object to single carriage ways of 50 and double cartridges of 60 but 40 is unnecessary.

This is a driving city with many long straight main roads and importantly no pedestrians on them.

[-]

connleth@reddit

Why is the prevalence or lack thereof, of pedestrians factor into your argument? Do motor vehicle crash deaths not count?

[-]

SnooDogs6068@reddit

Darwin awards exist for a reason.

[-]

indafradianish@reddit (OP)

Pedestrians have safe ways to cross provided to them in bridges and underpasses. They should not be anywhere near the main roads.

Regardless of that, one of my main issues is the council have not provided any evidence.

A previous proposal for blockikg right turns on one of the main roads gave clear reasoning with accident statistics and traffic flow surveys and I had no issues with the proposal.

Like I said, I get it, we are going to reduce speeds eventually but my proposal would be: Single carriagways at 50, Double cartridgways of 60, Double carriageways no right turns.

Lastly, I believe it's less safe to slowly make changes road by road, inconsistent speeds from roundabout to roundabout leads to inconsistent driving patterns which is more dangerous.

[-]

dickripple@reddit

I've already sent an email opposed to this TRO. It is excessive for the sake of laziness, contradicting the original ethos of the city in the same way increasing building height limits and building on green spaces does.

For the single carriageways, 50mph limits are more appropriate for the flow rate of traffic in this city, 40 is too low.

For sections of dual carriageway with multiple estate junctions and/or poor visiblity, I agree with reductions to 50 or 60 but otherwise it is unnecessary when drivers are competent, attentive and patient.

As others have stated, even if there is evidence of an increase in accidents, I'd confidently assume it is mainly caused not by a greater population but rather by a reduced standard of driving in the population, worsening road maintenance/condition and how blinding modern headlights are. I don't think reducing speed limits will have the expected impact of reducing accidents.

Regarding any arguements involving pedestrians, as a cyclist myself, this city (with the exception of Bletchley) has more than adequate pedestrian infrastructure that is entirely separate to the grid roads. Any limitations or issues that pedestrians have should be addressed by investing in improvements to that infrastructure system specifically, not by compromising the grid road system via excuses of cost and/or safety. I think the majority agrees the new build areas all should have had underpasses or bridges implemented for this very reason.

Lets try to keep this city as close to its original vision. Excessive deviation by tackling our problems in the same ways as everywhere else will simply result in us trading our unique issues with the same issues as everywhere else.

[-]

zcapr17@reddit

What is your counter-argument? Is it that you believe our council should only act reactively after a number of serious accidents, rather than act proactively to prevent accidents?

[-]

RadicalDog@reddit

Here's what I submitted;

I do not see how this will achieve the stated goal of safety. Traffic speed management should be handled through road design rather than different numbers on signs. E.g. narrower lanes, objects closer to road edges, and of course speed cameras, which all help lower speeds naturally. Keeping the existing road design but changing the number on the sign does not have the same effect, and will mean a greater speed difference between observant drivers at 40mph, and problem drivers still travelling over 70mph.

I would support measures that help public transit or add cameras. I don't support increasing the speed difference between law abiding drivers and careless ones.

[-]

zcapr17@reddit

Thanks for the link RadicalDog. This seems like a highly relevant video on that channel: "What is the "Correct" Speed Limit?" I'd encourage everyone here to watch it.

[-]

RadicalDog@reddit

Yep. I'm fully on board with all the inner roads being 30mph, like the video argues. MK has tons of design advantages for its grid roads, but if the council wants to slow them down, it's more powerful to do it via road design like Amsterdam prior to the limit change discussed in the video.

[-]

zcapr17@reddit

No doubt, if the council had an unlimited budget then it's likely they'd be redesigning roads all over the place. Thing is, I rather suspect the council's budget is severely constrained. Would you not agree that changing speed limits if going to be far more cost-effective?

[-]

RadicalDog@reddit

I wouldn't spend any money on something that won't improve safety. That's the entire point of my text above.

[-]

zcapr17@reddit

Maybe check out this YouTube channel...

[-]

RadicalDog@reddit

If you can't see any nuance between typical "city" roads and MK grid roads, that's on you. Now excuse me while I do a whole cycle without once crossing a road above 30mph.

[-]

EmptyRestaurant2410@reddit

Which dualed section(s) is being reduced to 40 mph? The V6 section is being proposed at 50 mph. The part of the H5 reducing to 40 mph - is that part dualed?

[-]

RadicalDog@reddit

"over 70mph" meaning drivers speeding, because straight roads with wide lanes allow it.

[-]

hamsterbasher@reddit

I agree, 20mph inside estates would much safer.

But the grid roads are supposed to be fast moving bypass roads. Cyclists aren't supposed to be on them, hence the redways.

[-]

indafradianish@reddit (OP)

Previous proposals have had supporting evidence, this time nothing has been provided. Typically they would have surveys of traffic and yes evidence of accidents.

I get it, we are going to reduce speeds eventually but my proposal would be: Single carriagways at 50 Double cartridgways of 60 Double carriageways no right turns

This is a driving city with many long straight main roads and importantly pedestrians have safe ways to cross provided to them in bridges and underpasses.

Lastly, I believe it's less safe to slowly make changes road by road, inconsistent speeds from roundabout to roundabout leads to inconsistent driving patterns which is more dangerous.

[-]

Leather_Creme_6957@reddit

I would also like to see minimum speed limits on some roads. There are quite a lot of people who insist on driving at least 10 miles/hr less than the speed limit. Ie: 40 m/hr doing 25-30m/hr.

[-]

zcapr17@reddit

Lastly, I believe it's less safe to slowly make changes road by road, inconsistent speeds from roundabout to roundabout leads to inconsistent driving patterns which is more dangerous.

I agree with you here. Perhaps they should do what Amsterdam did and put up all the signs with stickers over them and then have a well-publicised switchover date with all the stickers removed overnight across the city.

[-]

Noiisy@reddit

These accidents only happen because the idiots who pull out with bad timing

[-]

zcapr17@reddit

Please provide a link to your evidence.

[-]

Comprehensive-Job-77@reddit

where is your evidence that it’s not? not arguing, just curious

[-]

zcapr17@reddit

I've merely asked questions... I haven't made any comments which need substantiating.

[-]

Noiisy@reddit

Nobodies losing control at 70mph on a straight road, it’s people joining or crossing at bad times

[-]

Goooner1@reddit

Or the idiots that try to cross a 70mph dual carriageway because they’re too lazy to use and underpass or bridge

[-]

Bearded_monster_80@reddit

I have no objections to all single carriageways being 40 and deals being 40 or 50.

[-]

nuttydogpoo@reddit

Since moving to MK over a decade ago it now takes me an extra 6 mins to get to work, not bad eh!

6 mins each way is 12 mins a day, 12 mins a day 5 days a week is an hour a day, that’s 48 hours a year extra spent driving. Cheers MK Council 👍

I’d also like to add that’s early doors, before the busses start, so I don’t get a choice, not that busses come my way anyway.

[-]

liverpool4ever1@reddit

too many lunatics drive up my arse even when i’m going 60 (in my hatchback with a baby on board sign). fuck these cunts. id be happy with speed reductions

[-]

Psychonesss@reddit

If everyone could drive how they are supposed to there’s literally no reason to adjust speed limits. Furthermore they should be tackling the real problem and handing out fines or punishment for dangerous/lazy driving. Put up some general traffic cameras of sorts in these areas accidents always happen.

[-]

naughtiboiii@reddit

It's crazy how far safety tech etc in cars has advanced, yet they're hell bent on reducing speed limits from when we used to drive death traps with a single set of drum brakes and an optional seat belt.

[-]

Electronic_Shift5195@reddit

On one hand, I would support an enforced 50 mph limit on all roads for the sake of reducing road noise (including boy racers no longer having "fun" in the city). It would barely affect travel times but would roughly halve the noise.

On the other hand, the justification is just "safety", and we all know it's a slippery slope that eventually leads to blanket 20 mph.

[-]

Bifobe@reddit

My main concern is about noise, too, and I'm glad this is happening regardless of the official reason. I expect the effect on both travel time and safety to be minimal.

[-]

gentlepersuasion420@reddit

gif

[-]

Far-Crow-7195@reddit

Someone will be along to claim it’s for the environment and we should support it in a minute. If this carries on they will all end up reduced.

[-]

EyeAware3519@reddit

All the Facebook groups are pushing the "think of the children" narrative.

[-]

Far-Crow-7195@reddit

That’s why we have underpasses. There are always people who like to poorly round who will support this stuff and “think of the children” is always an easy tagline.

[-]

Glad-Feature-2117@reddit

Exactly. The reason the speed limits are as they are on the grid roads is that pedestrians (& cyclists) are supposed to be on the red routes and nowhere near them. That already reduces the risk of injury compared to other places where pedestrians walk on pavements by the side of major roads.

[-]

BillPayers@reddit

This is the bigger issue, allowing builders to mess up the grid and road system with every new development

[-]

threedian@reddit

The closing date is 11 June, not July

[-]

indafradianish@reddit (OP)

Thanks edited