Given that it's the A836, it's worth constrasting this with the fact that in 2025 many of the people committing traffic offences on the coastal part of that road just to the north were locals, not "townies" unfamiliar with the area.

* https://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/news/vast-majority-of-s...

And then, of course, there's the part of the A836 further south known as the Balblair Straight.

* https://news.stv.tv/highlands-islands/death-of-pensioner-ang...

▲

closewith 6 days ago | parent [-]

Yeah. I do think 15mi/h or 24km/h is appropriate speed for that road if you want it to be usable by vulnerable road users.

I just wondered what hdgvhicv considered appropriate.

▲

Dylan16807 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Any slow speed can be appropriate for those vulnerable users, if they let other people pass them where appropriate. (On roads that don't have a speed minimum.)

That doesn't make it appropriate in general. 15mph is not appropriate for a paved line through nothing with gentle curves and great visibility.

▲

hdgvhicv 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

50-60 is fine on that road, indeed given the traffic and sight lines it’s far better than the majority of roads, far safer than 20 in a typical town.

That you think 15mph is appropiate tells me you need to hand back your license.

▲

closewith 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

> 50-60 is fine on that road, indeed given the traffic and sight lines it’s far better than the majority of roads,

Well, given its current speed limit is 60mi/h and its current situation, both in terms of road safety and use by vulnerable road users, is abysmal, I think it's safe to safe you're incorrect.

A competent driver should be able to navigate that road at 60 or 80 km/h if it was a closed or private road, but we now have ample research that road speed limits affect motor vehicle speed, and motor vehicle speed is the number one factor in:

* road traffic accidents,

* road traffic deaths,

* road traffic injuries,

* deaths and injuries of vulnerable road users,

* and road use by vulnerable road users,

* overtaking speed.

So 60 km/h is a safe speed only if you close the road to non-motor traffic (and even then that will encourage speeding, leading to more accidents and deaths).

> far safer than 20 in a typical town.

This just shows that you are unable to adequately gauge risk.

> That you think 15mph is appropiate tells me you need to hand back your license.

This also shows that you are unable to adequately gauge risk.

In addition, it tells you that I don't think that cars should be prioritised at the cost of other road users. Personally, I'd set the limit at 30 km/h with Dutch style road markings and watch the number of road users explode while the number of motor vehicles plummets.

▲

hdgvhicv 5 days ago | parent [-]

Total nonsense, the problem int got road is people speeding. Ie doing 80, 90, 100, and people doing g 69 when the limits do decrease.

You should stick to trains and buses. You do 20mph along there and quite rightly the police would have your license.

	▲	closewith 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		No, it's fact-based. But it doesn't conform to your preferences, so you'll not be convinced without more life experience.

▲

robertlagrant 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

This is again a problem of familiarity, or perhaps of naïveté. Roads can have hard to spot potholes, particularly slightly rough roads like that, and people might not be comfortable zipping along them without the knowledge of that.

	▲	hdgvhicv 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		Far fewer potholes on that than on a typical two lane 60mph road. Not that it’s hard to spot potholes at 60mph. Familiarity shouldn’t come into it, you should be able to see the road is clear. That road has brilliant sight lines, you can see anything larger than a rabbit from 20 seconds away, far safer Doug 69 along there than 40 along many country roads which aren’t single track, let alone doing 30 in towns.