Author |
Message |
Guest |
Posted: Fri, Jan 7 2011, 11:25 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury: Man objects to condemnation |
|
speed? wrote: | Guest wrote: | speed? wrote: | What is the speed limit on Plainsboro road once you pass the "End 25" sign? |
50 until you get to Plainsboro, then it is 45. |
Why?
Why not 55? 45? 40? |
Because rural roads are designated at 50 mph that's why. Residential at 25 mph and OTR at 35 mph for some awful reason. |
|
 |
speed? |
Posted: Fri, Jan 7 2011, 6:07 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury: Man objects to condemnation |
|
Guest wrote: | speed? wrote: | What is the speed limit on Plainsboro road once you pass the "End 25" sign? |
50 until you get to Plainsboro, then it is 45. |
Why?
Why not 55? 45? 40? |
|
 |
Guest |
Posted: Fri, Jan 7 2011, 3:39 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury: Man objects to condemnation |
|
speed? wrote: | What is the speed limit on Plainsboro road once you pass the "End 25" sign? |
50 until you get to Plainsboro, then it is 45. |
|
 |
Guest |
Posted: Fri, Jan 7 2011, 3:39 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury: Man objects to condemnation |
|
50 |
|
 |
speed? |
Posted: Fri, Jan 7 2011, 2:29 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury: Man objects to condemnation |
|
What is the speed limit on Plainsboro road once you pass the "End 25" sign? |
|
 |
Guest |
Posted: Wed, Jan 5 2011, 6:53 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury: Man objects to condemnation |
|
Guest wrote: | Guest wrote: | I suspect the 35 MPH is just a temporary way to get to the 40 MPH that most people want and that is the prevailing speed limit in the sections before and after this part of Old Trenton. But the rules didn't let them go straight to 40 MPH. So they went to 35 MPH then will test the speed after some time, find that at least 85% of people are doing 40 MPH, because people tend to hovor about 5 MPH over the posted limit, and change it. So 35 MPH is a way to force people down to 40 MPH.
You gotta love the silly ways government works.
Cranbury Neck is even more of a mess now. It goes from 25 near Main Street, technically goes to 50 after that, but they intentionally took all the signs down so there's no way to know that which means everyone makes up their own speed, then Plainsboro is enoforcing 45 MPH, again with no signs, before West Windsor now starts by reducing you to 40, then 30, then 25. Of course with no signs for the 45 or 50, many people falsely assume the speed is still 40. |
What signs were taken down? For the last 8 years there have been no speed limit signs on Cranbury Neck except where it is 25mph. Your statement does not make sense to me. I believe it is 40mph after the 25 mph zone but I am not 100% sure. |
No it's 50. |
|
 |
Guest |
Posted: Sat, Dec 4 2010, 6:33 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury: Man objects to condemnation |
|
Guest wrote: | I didn't say Old Trenton Rd. was unmarked. |
You said: "And then you get the Old Trenton Rd. scenario. It's been unmarked for a while..." |
|
 |
Guest |
Posted: Sat, Dec 4 2010, 10:51 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury: Man objects to condemnation |
|
Guest wrote: | Guest wrote: | Guest wrote: | Guest wrote: | Except then the residents who don't like 50 mph would complain. Not having signage does lead to some slower speeds for those residents. |
So the logic is if we don't let people know what the legal speed is they may accidentally drive slower than the appropriate speed so if we want that let's intentionally have poor signage? If the residents want it slower they should work to get it set lower. In the mean time they should just post the legal limit. |
And then you get the Old Trenton Rd. scenario. It's been unmarked for a while it's not worth the issue. Most people know it goes to 50 and if it slows down some cars that's fine with me. I'd rather have that then have to do speed traps. |
What are you talking about? Your second sentence doesn't even make sense grammatically. And what do you mean about it being unmarked? Old Trenton has a ton of marked speed signs compared to Cranbury Neck. It goes from 40 to 35, with multipple signs reminding you, to 40 again to 50 to 40 to 35 back to 45, etc. |
People asked for Old Trenton Rd to be lowered to 40. Because they asked they went from 50-35. Residents complaining about Cranbury Neck Rd being too fast could cause a similar drop in speed.
Cranbury Neck Rd. has been unmarked for a long time regarding the 50 mph section. I didn't say Old Trenton Rd. was unmarked. |
|
 |
Guest |
Posted: Sat, Dec 4 2010, 9:29 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury: Man objects to condemnation |
|
Guest wrote: | Guest wrote: | Guest wrote: | Except then the residents who don't like 50 mph would complain. Not having signage does lead to some slower speeds for those residents. |
So the logic is if we don't let people know what the legal speed is they may accidentally drive slower than the appropriate speed so if we want that let's intentionally have poor signage? If the residents want it slower they should work to get it set lower. In the mean time they should just post the legal limit. |
And then you get the Old Trenton Rd. scenario. It's been unmarked for a while it's not worth the issue. Most people know it goes to 50 and if it slows down some cars that's fine with me. I'd rather have that then have to do speed traps. |
What are you talking about? Your second sentence doesn't even make sense grammatically. And what do you mean about it being unmarked? Old Trenton has a ton of marked speed signs compared to Cranbury Neck. It goes from 40 to 35, with multipple signs reminding you, to 40 again to 50 to 40 to 35 back to 45, etc. |
|
 |
Guest |
Posted: Sat, Dec 4 2010, 8:56 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury: Man objects to condemnation |
|
Guest wrote: | Guest wrote: | Except then the residents who don't like 50 mph would complain. Not having signage does lead to some slower speeds for those residents. |
So the logic is if we don't let people know what the legal speed is they may accidentally drive slower than the appropriate speed so if we want that let's intentionally have poor signage? If the residents want it slower they should work to get it set lower. In the mean time they should just post the legal limit. |
And then you get the Old Trenton Rd. scenario. It's been unmarked for a while it's not worth the issue. Most people know it goes to 50 and if it slows down some cars that's fine with me. I'd rather have that then have to do speed traps. |
|
 |
Guest |
Posted: Fri, Dec 3 2010, 9:55 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury: Man objects to condemnation |
|
Guest wrote: | Except then the residents who don't like 50 mph would complain. Not having signage does lead to some slower speeds for those residents. |
So the logic is if we don't let people know what the legal speed is they may accidentally drive slower than the appropriate speed so if we want that let's intentionally have poor signage? If the residents want it slower they should work to get it set lower. In the mean time they should just post the legal limit. |
|
 |
Guest |
Posted: Fri, Dec 3 2010, 9:54 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury: Man objects to condemnation |
|
guests wrote: | Seems like a considerate thing to do would be for the township in conjunction with the Cranbury Police should arrange for proper posting to avoid any confusion. That should be a simple thing to accomplish in a small town like Cranbury. Sinage similar to Plainsboro Road where it states "END 25 MPH". |
I have always found those "End XX MPH" or "End Speed Zone" to be a great example of NJ stupidity. What possible logic did they have in wasting the resources and money to put up a sign that is intentionally vague when for exactly the same time and money they could have put up a sign that just told you what the speed limit should be? It's just dumb.
But I agree they should have a sign on Cranbury Neck that says when the speed changes and tell syou what it now is. |
|
 |
Guest |
Posted: Fri, Dec 3 2010, 8:18 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury: Man objects to condemnation |
|
Except then the residents who don't like 50 mph would complain. Not having signage does lead to some slower speeds for those residents. |
|
 |
guests |
Posted: Fri, Dec 3 2010, 7:10 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury: Man objects to condemnation |
|
Seems like a considerate thing to do would be for the township in conjunction with the Cranbury Police should arrange for proper posting to avoid any confusion. That should be a simple thing to accomplish in a small town like Cranbury. Sinage similar to Plainsboro Road where it states "END 25 MPH". |
|
 |
Guest |
Posted: Fri, Dec 3 2010, 12:27 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury: Man objects to condemnation |
|
Guest wrote: | But Plainsboro should not be enforcing 45 mph on that part of Cranbury Neck. |
I agree. |
|
 |
Guest |
Posted: Fri, Dec 3 2010, 10:32 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury: Man objects to condemnation |
|
But Plainsboro should not be enforcing 45 mph on that part of Cranbury Neck. |
|
 |