UK Citizenship Test

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 7:20 pm

Having had Charlie point me at the online UK Citizenship Test the other day (well, week), it occurred to me it might prove interesting to people on here who may have not come across it yet.

I look forward to seeing how people do, but shall withhold my own comments until later, in case you read them now and then get spoilered for the test. (Although I'll say here that I got a rather awesome 10.)

The poll options are somewhat arbitrary, but I have deliberately put a break at 18+, since this is (I think) the pass mark (they say the pass mark is "around" 75%, which on a 24 question test means it's "around" 18, apologies if it turns out to be 17 or 19, or something else altogether). Obviously I could've put an option for every possible score, but that would have been a bit gay, so just report your precise score here if you feel hard done by/so inclined.

Edit: Just checked, the pass mark is indeed 18.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 7:23 pm

We did this in my office and the only person who got close to passing is Serbian.

Ben Wilson · Post by **Ben Wilson** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 7:38 pm

13/24. Simply staggering how irrelevant some of the questions seem to be.

Darren Carter · Post by **Darren Carter** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 7:40 pm

I got 8 but did it in about 2 minutes.

Paul Howe · Post by **Paul Howe** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 7:51 pm

13 for me.

To be fair the test has correctly diagnosed me as unhip.

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 7:57 pm

Darren Carter wrote:I got 8 but did it in about 2 minutes.

How much do you think spending more time on it would have helped? (I would presume most of us spent about that long on it)

Paul Howe wrote:To be fair the test has correctly diagnosed me as unhip.

It's true, all the cool kids know how many muslims there are in the country.

JimBentley · Post by **JimBentley** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:02 pm

I got 16, but that's still not the pass mark. If only I'd studied Life in the United Kingdom: A Journey to Citizenship before taking the test!

Darren Carter · Post by **Darren Carter** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:09 pm

Michael Wallace wrote:
Darren Carter wrote:I got 8 but did it in about 2 minutes.
How much do you think spending more time on it would have helped? (I would presume most of us spent about that long on it)

Probably not a great deal, I would have perhaps got another couple right if I'd have thought about them properly.

Ben Hunter · Post by **Ben Hunter** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:11 pm

I scored nine. You can't egghead questions like "how many under 18s are there in the country, 13m, 14m, 15m or 16m?"

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:49 pm

Gay question alert:

17. Which TWO of the following can vote in all UK public elections?
a) Citizens of the Irish Republic resident in the UK
b) Citizens of EU states resident in the UK
c) Citizens of the Commonwealth resident in the UK
d) Anyone resident in the UK

it can't really be d) and then one other, can it?

I got 8 !

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:58 pm

I pissed all over it.

I got 9.

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:59 pm

I got 14 but a fair number of the correct answers were random guesses. I'd never heard of the "Ulster Scots" dialect so that's a useful one to squirrel away for future quizzes.

Heterosexual question alert: "Which of the following TWO types of people get their prescriptions free of charge?" (followed by four options).

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 9:12 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote:Heterosexual question alert: "Which of the following TWO types of people get their prescriptions free of charge?" (followed by four options).

I had to read that several times to figure out what you're getting at. Yet another reason to employ this man as a proofreader ^.

Phil Collinge · Post by **Phil Collinge** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:16 pm

After getting the first two questions wrong I ended up on 19/24 (79%), although there were a few guesses and this is a subject quite close to my heart due to its absurdity and, in our case, necessity.

As someone who needs to get through this within the next 12 months Supee got 7/24 (29%), which is rather worrying, both due to the consequences of her impending failure, and the fact that she appears to have learned fuck all since we started looking at this.

It may well have helped my score that this is something we have looked at on a few occasions but it's an inescapable fact that this is a whole load of bollocks and bears no relation at all to whether someone has integrated themselves into this community or not.

Clive Brooker · Post by **Clive Brooker** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:35 pm

I managed 14, possibly helped by having had a few more years to accumulate useless knowledge than most on this forum, and by taking a whole 5m 33s over it.

I am deeply shocked by what I have just seen.

David Roe · Post by **David Roe** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:07 am

There's at least 2 questions where the answer given is plain wrong.

You can't attend a hospital for a non-emergency? Do they have scouts on all the approach roads cutting off the freeloaders? If you sneak past them, does the doctor say "I can't see you, you're a non-emergency, so you aren't here"?

You can't ask you're MP for employment advice - is it illegal? Would he refuse to answer if you asked?

I got 19 when I first did this test, though some of the questions were different. This time I got 16. If I'd only known my great-great-great grandmother could have got that divorce, I could have become a citizen.

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:12 am

David Roe wrote:You can't ask you're MP for employment advice - is it illegal? Would he refuse to answer if you asked?

Haha yeah, I was amused by that. It reminded me of an argument I had with my GCSE geography teacher about why the rivers in east anglia were useful for farmers. He claimed I couldn't get any marks for "the farmers could use the water to wash their clothes".

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:16 am

David Roe wrote:There's at least 2 questions where the answer given is plain wrong.

I think you might find this test more illuminating...

Marc Meakin · Post by **Marc Meakin** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:25 am

I thought 13 was bad, but it seems I'm in good company.
What a shite test anyway.

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:26 am

Hang on, so Phil passed it, but who was the other 18+? Come on, own up.

Lesley Hines · Post by **Lesley Hines** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:28 am

Are you deported if you fail? Can I please be deported to somewhere warm and sunny?

David O'Donnell · Post by **David O'Donnell** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:43 am

I got 14 but I don't consider myself a UK citizen until, that is, I need to milk the UK for something: bloody immigrants!

Alec Rivers · Post by **Alec Rivers** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:47 am

Lesley Hines wrote:Are you deported if you fail? Can I please be deported to somewhere warm and sunny?

Looks like I'll be tagging along, if that's okay. I only got 11/24, possibly because I've only lived here for 32 years. No, wait, maybe it's because I don't give a monkey's that the church is Episcrotal not Mentalist (or whatever) or about any of that other tosh.

David O'Donnell · Post by **David O'Donnell** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:54 am

Alec Rivers wrote:
Lesley Hines wrote:Are you deported if you fail? Can I please be deported to somewhere warm and sunny?
Looks like I'll be tagging along, if that's okay. I only got 11/24, possibly because I've only lived here for 32 years. No, wait, maybe it's because I don't give a monkey's that the church is Episcrotal not Mentalist (or whatever) or about any of that other tosh.

Even I got that one right and I'm Catholic.

Marc Meakin · Post by **Marc Meakin** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 1:09 am

Alec Rivers wrote:
Lesley Hines wrote:Are you deported if you fail? Can I please be deported to somewhere warm and sunny?
Looks like I'll be tagging along, if that's okay. I only got 11/24, possibly because I've only lived here for 32 years. No, wait, maybe it's because I don't give a monkey's that the church is Episcrotal not Mentalist (or whatever) or about any of that other tosh.

My Father was a Methodist and my mother was a Spirtualist, you don't get many of us Methylated Spirits.

Sue Sanders · Post by **Sue Sanders** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:22 am

David Roe wrote:

You can't attend a hospital for a non-emergency? Do they have scouts on all the approach roads cutting off the freeloaders? If you sneak past them, does the doctor say "I can't see you, you're a non-emergency, so you aren't here"?

When you go to hospital for a non-emergency, you've been refered by your doctor (or optician). Normally you'll be required to attend a clinic run by the out-patients department - for which you're given a date and time to attend an appointment. Or you might need to stay overnight. But it'll still be at an appointed time. So yeah, if you turn up without an appointment for a non-emergency they'll tell you to sling your hook. That's part of the whole arguement about the waiting list lengths.

13 for me, but I do feel I answered mainly the relevant ones correctly.

Karen Pearson · Post by **Karen Pearson** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:45 am

14 for me but what a load of shite. As a market researcher, I managed to get my census and electoral register publication stuff mixed up!! Very embarrassing!

Fancy, not a single question about tea, cricket, queuing, saying please and thank you more than virtually any other nation, the weather and the fact that it can still be regarded as an act of treason to put a stamp on a letter upside down. Surely these are the things GREAT Britain (& Northern Ireland) is made of!!!

David Roe · Post by **David Roe** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:30 am

Sue Sanders wrote:When you go to hospital for a non-emergency, you've been refered by your doctor (or optician). Normally you'll be required to attend a clinic run by the out-patients department - for which you're given a date and time to attend an appointment. Or you might need to stay overnight. But it'll still be at an appointed time. So yeah, if you turn up without an appointment for a non-emergency they'll tell you to sling your hook. That's part of the whole arguement about the waiting list lengths.

Not quite that simple, Sue. My nearest hospital (not strictly true to call it local any more) is Burnley, which closed its A&E unit a couple of years ago - I now have to go to Blackburn for emergency treatment. But, Burnley still has a department open for urgent (but non-emergency) issues.

Besides, if I may be pedantic (not unusual for this place

), you have still attended the hospital in your scenario. In a 24 question quiz, they should have time to make all questions precise.

(I ticked 18+ on the strength of my previous effort, before re-taking the test. So I'm the second "pass".)

Lesley Hines · Post by **Lesley Hines** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:51 am

David Roe wrote:
Sue Sanders wrote:When you go to hospital for a non-emergency...
Not quite that simple, Sue. ...

That one is a funny one. It really does depend on the hospital, and the consultant. I've got 'open appointments' with Worcester and Birmingham Women's in different departments, where they very kindly say 'feel free to turn up while we're having a clinic and we'll fit you in somewhere'. At Worcester if you need bloods you just turn up at the Phlebotomy department and take a number, although I guess the path and haem forms could be considered an appointment? Kidderminster I've only ever been seen by appointment, but the QE are amazingly flexible with me. I also have a brilliant GP (fortunately). All these places know me well enough to know I wouldn't abuse it.

Having said that I'm an incredibly peculiar case (insert your own jokes here...), and they do look after me incredibly well

I shouldn't even be in the country! (16)

Sue Sanders · Post by **Sue Sanders** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 10:17 am

Is the statement below TRUE or FALSE?
'You can attend a hospital without a GP's letter only in the case of an emergency.'

If there are departments at hospitals that allow you to deal with 'urgent' issues in a similar as you do at the doctors -i.e a same day appointment or a 'sit and wait' approach, then I'd say they've set up an in-house surgery, which isn't the same as going to the hospital to be treated, surely? And anything that needs dealing with further as a result of that visit may involve you being given pretty immediate treatment - but the system of giving you that treatment is generated by the fact that a doctor has referred you. If you turn up at a hospital and tell them you reckon you need your tonsils out or you think you might have osteoporosis, then you will be told by the hospital staff to go and see your doctor for a referral. The front desk staff are effectively 'scouts' who will cut you off at the pass if you've misunderstood the procedure for being treated for non-emergency cases on the NHS. In Lesley's case, she is someone who was diagnosed as having a liver problem.....Lesley, would I be right in saying that you were originally diagnosed by your doctor who would then have referred you to a hospital consultant? And if it wasn't by that route, it would have been because it was considered to be an emergency? And surely you can attend the 'open appointments' now because you're already 'in the system'.

I'm sticking with saying the answer to the above question is TRUE though agree that there could be different definitions of what 'attending hospital' means

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 11:47 am

David O'Donnell wrote:I got 14 but I don't consider myself a UK citizen until, that is, I need to milk the UK for something: bloody immigrants!

Did you get the Ulster Scots question right?

Ian Volante · Post by **Ian Volante** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:04 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote:
David O'Donnell wrote:I got 14 but I don't consider myself a UK citizen until, that is, I need to milk the UK for something: bloody immigrants!
Did you get the Ulster Scots question right?

13 here. I remembered Ulster Scots getting recognised officially a few years ago which helped. I didn't go back and check what I got wrong though, but it generally seems like nonsense. Good job I don't need that knowledge to work in the government...

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:29 pm

David Roe wrote:(I ticked 18+ on the strength of my previous effort, before re-taking the test. So I'm the second "pass".)

Right...so you recorded your score based on a test you said was now (at least in part) different?

YES THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT

David Roe · Post by **David Roe** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:31 pm

Michael Wallace wrote:
David Roe wrote:(I ticked 18+ on the strength of my previous effort, before re-taking the test. So I'm the second "pass".)
Right...so you recorded your score based on a test you said was now (at least in part) different?

YES THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT

I'd change it if I knew how.

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:37 pm

David Roe wrote:I'd change it if I knew how.

I enabled re-voting just for you

Karen Pearson wrote:the fact that it can still be regarded as an act of treason to put a stamp on a letter upside down.

Can you find any actual proof of this? Wikipedia can't*, and all Google throws up is people repeating the story without any evidence.

*"It has been asserted that it is an act of treason to place a postage stamp bearing the British monarch upside down.[13] However, the newspaper that made this claim provides no source for this assertion, and none of the various Treason Acts make any mention of postage stamps." (source)

Adam Dexter · Post by **Adam Dexter** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:00 pm

Lesley Hines wrote:
I've got 'open appointments' with Worcester and Birmingham Women's in different departments, where they very kindly say 'feel free to turn up while we're having a clinic and we'll fit you in somewhere'.

I'm sure you can show up at Worcester A&E for non-urgent reasons... a few of my colleagues do so, because we work in the building next to A&E. I get to watch the comings and goings all day whoop

Julie T · Post by **Julie T** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:48 pm

JimBentley wrote:I got 16, but that's still not the pass mark. If only I'd studied Life in the United Kingdom: A Journey to Citizenship before taking the test!

Quite (only 14 for me! Horrified till I saw the poll results!), it's a test set to a book we haven't read.

I remember a friend (yes, I can say that as we've met IRL too!) on another forum posting her questions for her US citizenship test (which I knew all the answers to!), which was done orally. Unless she was simply lucky with who her examiner was, I reckon they aim the questions set according to the perceived intelligence of the applicant. She (perhaps viewed as brain-dead soccer mom) got easy questions, such as 'What are the the colours on the flag?, 'What was the name of the ship the pilgrims set out on?', etc, but her hubby (perhaps viewed as high-flying professional) was asked questions such as 'How many supreme courts are there, and what do they do?'. They did both pass though.

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:52 pm

Sounds like a male and a female test to me, Julie

Karen Pearson · Post by **Karen Pearson** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 5:09 pm

Did anyone else feel the question about the Council of Europe/Council of the European Union reminded them of Life of Brian (People's Front of Judea/Judean People's Front)?

Why does it matter if you get the name exactly right?

Chris Corby · Post by **Chris Corby** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 5:56 pm

14 for me too.

If I had read the sodding booklet I would have got them all right.

(Just off to get my free prescription............)

David Roe · Post by **David Roe** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:37 pm

Michael Wallace wrote: I enabled re-voting just for you

Job done. You can switch it off now. Unless anyone else wants to vote before they've done the quiz?

Ray Folwell · Post by **Ray Folwell** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:45 pm

16 for me - much of it seems pretty irrelevant.

Karen Pearson · Post by **Karen Pearson** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 10:09 pm

Michael Wallace wrote:
Karen Pearson wrote:the fact that it can still be regarded as an act of treason to put a stamp on a letter upside down.
Can you find any actual proof of this? Wikipedia can't*, and all Google throws up is people repeating the story without any evidence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7081038.stm

OK, being on the BBC website does not make it proof. Anyway, in case it escaped your notice, I was being more than a little tongue-in-cheek there. I was really implying that the topics I suggested were no more ludicrous than some of the ones they choose to test people on. I'm not usually known for my subtlety - I think this may be a first for me!

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 10:26 pm

Karen Pearson wrote:OK, being on the BBC website does not make it proof. Anyway, in case it escaped your notice, I was being more than a little tongue-in-cheek there.

Yeah, I got that - I was just trying to ask if you knew if it was actually true or not, because I was interested, rather than as some subtle way of saying "OMG YOU ARE WRONG AND LYING YOU HORRIBLE LYING WRONG PERSON".

George Jenkins · Post by **George Jenkins** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 12:49 pm

Michael Wallace wrote:
Karen Pearson wrote:OK, being on the BBC website does not make it proof. Anyway, in case it escaped your notice, I was being more than a little tongue-in-cheek there.
Yeah, I got that - I was just trying to ask if you knew if it was actually true or not, because I was interested, rather than as some subtle way of saying "OMG YOU ARE WRONG AND LYING YOU HORRIBLE LYING WRONG PERSON".

Does the death penalty still apply for people who commit treason against the state?

Lesley Hines · Post by **Lesley Hines** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 1:16 pm

George Jenkins wrote:Does the death penalty still apply for people who commit treason against the state?

Not according to QI (although that doesn't mean's it's gospel

).

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 1:17 pm

George Jenkins wrote:Does the death penalty still apply for people who commit treason against the state?

Nope.

Jeff Clayton · Post by **Jeff Clayton** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 8:21 pm

12. Rubbish. No excuses, your honour.

Jeff

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 11:54 pm

Sue Sanders wrote:13 for me, but I do feel I answered mainly the relevant ones correctly.

Which ones were they?

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 12:02 am

Charlie Reams wrote:
David Roe wrote:There's at least 2 questions where the answer given is plain wrong.
I think you might find this test more illuminating...

But seriously there are many cases where you would speak to your employer. "problem" covers such a wide range of things.

Also, having a flick through, surely (question 5) it's not impossible that you will be asked for a photo when applying for a job. And the stuff about the census - presumbly you can get general statistical information before 100 years. It doesn't mention the detailed responses from individuals.

By the way, those that answered the questions immediately without working out the answer first probably got question 20 right.

Sue Sanders · Post by **Sue Sanders** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 12:11 am

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Sue Sanders wrote:13 for me, but I do feel I answered mainly the relevant ones correctly.
Which ones were they?

I'm sure the point you're making is that they were all pretty irrelevant, but ... the relevant ones to my mind were the school uniform one, the where to get advise from one, the who's entitled to free Rx's one, the what do you include with a job application one, the who has to join the schemes aimed at getting people back to work one, the national speed limit one. We do seem to be nation that likes to keep that last one a secret - just the sign, white circle/black slash through - we're not gonna tell you how fast you can go, you'll have to read the highway code! Those are at least the topics that people need to know about even if the questions seem a bit skewed to us.

The stupid ones were ones you can have a sensible stab at but still be wrong - like the number of parliamentary constituancies. I knew it was in the 600s and I think that's sufficient.

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 12:19 am

Sue Sanders wrote:I'm sure the point you're making is that they were all pretty irrelevant, but ... the relevant ones to my mind were the school uniform one, the where to get advise from one, the who's entitled to free Rx's one, the what do you include with a job application one, the who has to join the schemes aimed at getting people back to work one, the national speed limit one. We do seem to be nation that likes to keep that last one a secret - just the sign, white circle/black slash through - we're not gonna tell you how fast you can go, you'll have to read the highway code! Those are at least the topics that people need to know about even if the questions seem a bit skewed to us.

The stupid ones were ones you can have a sensible stab at but still be wrong - like the number of parliamentary constituancies. I knew it was in the 600s and I think that's sufficient.

Most of these you'd find out when you needed to anyway. Knowing that you have to pay for school uniform isn't important unless you have children going to school and if you did you just would know. Yeah - the national speed limit sign is barking. Don't get that at all.

Sue Sanders · Post by **Sue Sanders** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 12:31 am

I've just been having a think about what sort of topics we might all think would be revelant, and can only come up with...if you're catching an Easy Jet flight, you really DO have to get there 20 minutes before the flight time. Study material required...one episode of 'Airline'.

You'll develop a great line in regional accents too.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 12:54 am

Sue Sanders wrote:We do seem to be nation that likes to keep that last one a secret - just the sign, white circle/black slash through

I figure the reason for this is that they might change the national speed limit in the future, and this would save them from changing all the signs. I mean, if you can't remember what it is then you probably shouldn't be driving anyway.

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 1:04 am

Charlie Reams wrote:
Sue Sanders wrote:We do seem to be nation that likes to keep that last one a secret - just the sign, white circle/black slash through
I figure the reason for this is that they might change the national speed limit in the future, and this would save them from changing all the signs. I mean, if you can't remember what it is then you probably shouldn't be driving anyway.

I thought that as well, but I don't really understand this whole "national speed limit" anyway and why that should be any more open to variation than anything else. Instead of having 30mph limits they should have a green circle with a blue wavy line going through to imply built up area (obviously), as they may want to change the limit for that at some point.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 1:31 am

Gavin Chipper wrote:I thought that as well, but I don't really understand this whole "national speed limit" anyway and why that should be any more open to variation than anything else. Instead of having 30mph limits they should have a green circle with a blue wavy line going through to imply built up area (obviously), as they may want to change the limit for that at some point.

Yeah, obviously it makes no logical sense. I was just trying to guess why they'd done it at all.

Sue Sanders · Post by **Sue Sanders** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 1:48 am

I hadn't thought much about the fact it isn't actually given as a number on signs until a Canadian comic pointed it out, having arrived in the UK with a valid driving licence only to find we keep it close to our chest. And it struck me as amusing (so, good choice of gag by the comedian then!!)

I've come across a few people who don't realise that there are two national speed limits, depending on the type of road. Is it still the case in France that it's two speed limits depending on the weather?

We also seem to have so many signs that you become a bit oblivious to them in the end (don't say I shouldn't be driving then - I've been driving for 28 years and had no accidents). I've yet to see a deer crossing where it's supposed to. Or that old couple with sticks out for a dawdle on the highway, just past the falling rocks, where it gets a bit slippery.

My favourite is just the big exclaimation mark!

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 10:00 am

Sue Sanders wrote:I've come across a few people who don't realise that there are two national speed limits, depending on the type of road. Is it still the case in France that it's two speed limits depending on the weather?

Yep - the principal difference being that the signs tell you what both limits are.

JimBentley · Post by **JimBentley** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 10:40 am

Sue Sanders wrote:My favourite is just the big exclaimation mark!

This is my favourite:

David Williams · Post by **David Williams** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:06 am

Charlie Reams wrote:
Sue Sanders wrote:We do seem to be nation that likes to keep that last one a secret - just the sign, white circle/black slash through
I figure the reason for this is that they might change the national speed limit in the future, and this would save them from changing all the signs. I mean, if you can't remember what it is then you probably shouldn't be driving anyway.

The A55 through Colwyn Bay is a dual carriageway with a 50mph limit. Between that and where it becomes de-restricted there is a signed 70mph limit. Maybe the Welsh Assembly is planning ahead.

How did you do?