Free Traffic Legal Advice
General discussion => The Flame Pit => Topic started by: cp8759 on April 06, 2024, 12:47:43 pm
-
It only had a couple of weeks to run anyway so wasnt going to reach 100,000 in any case. The Government gave it's initial response in late May, saying pretty much what should have been expected.
In context the petition supporters equate to around 0.09% of the adult population.
or 0.0675% of those holding a driving licence.
-
It only had a couple of weeks to run anyway so wasnt going to reach 100,000 in any case. The Government gave it's initial response in late May, saying pretty much what should have been expected.
In context the petition supporters equate to around 0.09% of the adult population.
-
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/drivers-furious-after-parliament-shuts-down-petitions-on-motoring-rule-changes/ar-BB1ntwLn?ocid=BingNewsSearch
-
I believe it was the same limit. I imagine there was a certain amount of hyperbole with the licensed trade predicting its imminent demise.
-
DD limits were a lot higher in those days1 Not that I was driving then, I was too young.
As far as I recall blood tests for alcohol were introduced at the same time as the breathalyser so if you failed the breathalyser you got a blood test. The blood alcohol limit for drivers has always been 80mg/100mL. Previously they would have tested drunk drivers by getting them to walk a straight line or recite "The Leith police dismisseth us".
-
DD limits were a lot higher in those days1 Not that I was driving then, I was too young.
-
Dad mentiond Mrs C as the introductress of the breathalyser. He has a recollection from the time of her saying (on telly) "it won't affect anybody who is simply having 5 pints with their friends".
-
1965, the minister of Transport, Tom Fraser, announced a 70mph limit on all unrestricted roads for a trial period of four months. The limit was extended by Barbara Castle in 1966, and made permanent in 1967.
-
And presumably that's the trial that is still in force today? Beofre the M1 was widened it was 2 lanes from about Hemel Hempstead to it's then junction with the a41 at Mill Hill, the exit slip using the former railway track alignment under the A41. I was taught to drive in a friend's Rover 3600 auto, quit e a quick motor. I remember going down the A41 one night past Aldenham going south and my supervisor saying "better brake now, there's a roundabout ahead and you're doing 120!!" The things we got away with in those days, no speed cameras around in 1969 or 1970. When I did get nicked (see post above) I was doing 70. That was during the emergency seed restriction due to the Israeli conflict and petrol rationing. Nothing much changed politically since then, they're still at it.
-
On 11 June 1964 a team from AC Cars met at 4am at the Blue Boar Services (Watford Gap) on the M1. They were there to speed-test a Cobra Coupe GT in preparation for Le Mans.
They didn’t have a long enough stretch of straight test track to check the top speed of the car, so they opted to use a section of the motorway instead. The driver, Jack Sears, registered speeds of 185 mph during the run, which is the highest speed ever recorded on a British motorway. The absence of any speed limit meant their test run was perfectly legal.
Two policemen approached the team at the services afterwards, but only to get a closer look at the car!
A number of car crashes during the foggy autumn of 1965 led the government to hold consultations with the police and the National Road Safety Advisory Council. They concluded that the crashes were caused by vehicles travelling too fast for the conditions.
It was suggested that a speed limit be used during periods when the road was affected by fog, ice or snow, and that an overall maximum speed limit of 70 mph should be tested out. The four-month trial began at midday on 22 December 1965.
-
I always thought that motorway speed limits were brought in because AC was road testing the Cobra at 180mph+ on the M1.
Indeed, the matter was raised in Parliament, and it was felt something had to be done to prevent sportscar testing on the public roads. It wasn't an ordinary Cobra, but a Le Mans special (the only one made with as a GT car rather than a sports car and a metal roof).
I've seen the car in the flesh, as I used to own an AC and it was at a couple of the club meets.
-
https://www.oxforddiecast.co.uk/products/sets-3-piece-mgb-roadster-lancashire-police-76set11
As an MGB owner about that time I can assure you that their top speed was only about 108 mph.
Was on a speed reduction course a couple of weeks ago. :-[
Freewheeling down a hill on a country road, said to the missus look I am getting 300mpg. That's not all you're getting says she you've just gone past a speed camera.
Anyhow the instructor noted that the safest place to drive nowadays was a motorway because the investment in infrastructure had reduced fatalities by 60%.
Not convinced that raising the limit to 100mph would be wise.
I dread the thought of being tailgated at that speed.
Besides which, if Liz Truss is in favour of derestriction like German autobahns I'm agin it.
Mike
(Clean Licence!)
-
It was a long time ago, I know I got speeding ticket for exceeding the limit on the M1 going to work one Sunday. mine was the only car in the middle lane, nothing in the outside lane, all obediently doing whatever the limit was. Caught by an "unmarked" police MGB!!
-
It was further lowered in the winter of 1973 to 50mph during the Israeli conflict of that time, when we saw petrol rationing introduced.
Mway limit was 60, it was DCs that had a limit of 50 imposed.
-
Is it true that motorways originally had no speed limit?
Yes, I'm told that coaches used to travel at 90 mph and it wasn't uncommon for cars to travel at 100 mph, that all came to an end when a temporary speed limit was introduced in winter owing to bad fog causing many crashes (as if anyone would do such speeds in heavy fog anyway). That "temporary" speed limit is still with us today.
I live one mile from the M1 and when it opened I used it every day for over ten years to commute to work for a major car and truck maker. Later, I commuted into central London on it.
In the early years Midland Red coaches were often seen travelling at 80+ mph. I drove company cars, including police demonstrators and executive models at up to 100 mph on many occasions and an occasional truck at 70+. However, there was much less traffic on the M1 in the 60s and, generally, most vehicles travelled at 55-60 mpg as cars were much less powerful than later models.
.
-
and Jaguar testing the E type
-
I always thought that motorway speed limits were brought in because AC was road testing the Cobra at 180mph+ on the M1.
-
cp8759 isn't quite right about when the limit was introduced.
I didn't say when it was introduced, I know it was winter but I did not specify the year.
It is still a temporary limit on non-motorway roads, it just doesn't have an end date.
-
There was no national speed limit when I started driving in the late 1960s. cp8759 isn't quite right about when the limit was introduced. ISTR it was late 1968 as a temporary measure supposedly for a year. It was further lowered in the winter of 1973 to 50mph during the Israeli conflict of that time, when we saw petrol rationing introduced. When that 50 limit was eventually lifted, the government of the day conveniently forgot to lift the temporary 70 limit as well.
Yes, coaches could and did travel at up to 90 mph. the Midland Red C5 motorway coaches were built with speed in mind to compete with the newly-electrified railway from Euston to the north. I started driving coaches in late 1973 and the Bedords I drove for an independent company outside Northampton could do over 70 with a struggle. the brand new Ford R series with turbo and the even newer Volvo coaches were a lot quicker.
-
Is it true that motorways originally had no speed limit?
Yes, I'm told that coaches used to travel at 90 mph and it wasn't uncommon for cars to travel at 100 mph, that all came to an end when a temporary speed limit was introduced in winter owing to bad fog causing many crashes (as if anyone would do such speeds in heavy fog anyway). That "temporary" speed limit is still with us today.
-
Is it true that motorways originally had no speed limit?
-
And the Theory Test should include knowledge of ftla as well as The Highway Code. ;)
And the practical test should include the use of the "lifesaver" - what motorcyclists have to show when they do their tests on turning right i.e. turning one's head to the right before performing a right hand turn. It has ensured my safety many a time in the car!
-
I'd be all for mandatory re-testing.
-
Roy, if you're going to apply the 3 point rule, you might as well drive at 95mph - although I don't know what your reactions are like. If they are as good as your retention of facts, I would suggest that we would all be far safer if you sat closer to the back of the bus.
For 75 in a 70 limit, there will be no enforcement.
For 79 to 86 (10%+2 - 10%+9) you would expect to be offered a course if eligible, otherwise
For 79 to 95, you would expect a fixed penalty
For 96 and above, go see the beak.
N.B. the above are based on recorded speed - if the camera over-reads slightly and you can prove you were only doing 95, the beak will not be impressed.
There are many, many ways that the driving test(s) could be improved - but as long as it is a pass once and then do what you like afterwards, driving standards will not significantly improve. As a side-rant (although it doesn't affect me as I passed my bike test pre-direct access), there is no point having multiple tests to ride larger capacity bikes, if they are all the same test, assessed on the same criteria, but taken on larger capacity bikes.
-
The trouble is that drivers in the UK can use motorways without ever having driven on one. Take those in Scotland for instance, no motorway for hundreds of miles, how would they ever get experience?
The only times I ever seem to get nicked for a speeding ticket is after midnight when there's little or no traffic around and the cameras can actually take a photo of a single car! Even then, it's never been more than 10 mph over the limit. I tend to take the view I may as well drive at about 86mph on motorways as the threshold for 3 points is the same for 75 as it is for 86 or whatever the limit is. I've got a mystery ticket coming soon in a hire car last week, I'm not aware of being flashed anywhere, I only drove the car at night.
-
Some interesting views. Mine, increasing the speed limit for those who believe they have the skill does not account for the fact that the still have to share the roads with skill less numpties.
The driving test needs be far more difficult to pass and people need to understand driving is a privilege not a right, If you do not have the skill nor the inclination to follow the rules then you should not be allowed to drive.
I do not mean every little peccadillo should cost you your licence, mistakes happen, but blatant disregard should.
I would propose a two tiered licence, the second tier allowing motorway driving. Middle lane hogging, tailgating,etc should result in the loss of the privilege of being able to drive on a motorway,for a period of time
Once you educate drivers on the proper way to drive on a motorway then you can experiment with the speed limits.
-
Ah yes, endorsements, I've had a few of those over the last 54 years! Including one for driving a bus down a buses only road in 1973!! That is what made me take more than a passing interest in motoring law.
-
There was totting (and it was referred to as such colloquially). A similar system.
After 3 endorsements (these were hand written on your paper licence and recorded centrally, so printed on a replacement) you got a 6 month ban. However you could argue hardship. At that point (at least in '83) a simple "we'll fire them" letter would usually do the trick.
You could repeat this process until the bench eventually disqualified. (I survived 4, but not my 5th).
When you reapplied for your licence it came back with the same XX99 code.
-
As they couldn't prove how fast he was going it was a nominal fine. I can't remember if they done penalty points in those days.
They did, a relative of mine tells me they were called endorsements as they were physically put onto your paper licence at the time. He proudly tells me how his licence was extended with a number of supplementary pages that were attached in a concertina pattern that would roll out when he opened it up. They didn't ban him because his garage had a maintenance contract with the police and it would have caused real problems if they had.
They're still called endorsements, but it's only since the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 that they've had points attached.
Before that there was no totting, but a court could simply take a view that your record merited a ban.
-
As they couldn't prove how fast he was going it was a nominal fine. I can't remember if they done penalty points in those days.
They did, a relative of mine tells me they were called endorsements as they were physically put onto your paper licence at the time. He proudly tells me how his licence was extended with a number of supplementary pages that were attached in a concertina pattern that would roll out when he opened it up. They didn't ban him because his garage had a maintenance contract with the police and it would have caused real problems if they had.
-
In a similar vein back in the 1980s a workmate who lived in Farnham and worked at Waterloo (train drivers) used to ride a very quick Italian motorcycle and used to use its full capacity in the early hours along the M3. He told that one early morning on the empty M3 a set of headlights followed him at about 110 then dropped back. A bit further another set of headlamps caught up with him so he accelerated a bit more. The bike had been tested by a magazine at about 140 mph. The headlights dropped back. He carried on along the Chertsey Road at a slower pace (pre-speed camera days) and found a police road block on the roundabout at Twickenham. He asked the officers what was the problem, "you". He was asked how fast he thought he was going on the M3. "Don't know" he replied I was busy watching the road". He was told it had taken the officers of 3 police forces to catch him, they didn't have anything fast enough to record his speed so the road block was their way of stopping him. Fearing the worse when he got the court papers through he was charged with exceeding the 70mph limit on the motorway. As they couldn't prove how fast he was going it was a nominal fine. I can't remember if they done penalty points in those days.
-
Admittedly, a single incident is not statistically significant, but my experience of traffic police and addressing bad driving is not promising.
Some years ago, the M4 westbound unusually had a large number of vehicles in lanes 1 and 2, travelling at a reasonable speed but far too close together, so much so, that I felt uncomfortable driving in said lanes, and pretty much no traffic in lane 3 - which was far more comfortable due to the lack of an apparent 5 mile pile-up if anyone happened to sneeze. Obviously, it is rude to sit in lane 3 without overtaking the vehicles in the lower lanes, and my car at the time (a 2.9 Granada) effortlessly picked up speed.
Cutting a long story short, after a marked traffic car stopped coming to a stop on an overbridge (junction) when he saw me "making progress" in lane 3, sat on my outside as if the passenger was trying to syphon petrol out of my tank for about half a mile at 65mph (having seen the marked traffic car react to my progress, I had ceased making progress) before shooting off at 140+mph because he was pissed off that he couldn't follow check me at ~120, I got pulled by an unmarked car, which had only managed to record my speed at 96 (which was too low for their internal rules to process) and was majorly p*ssed off at the at least 6 cars that had pulled out in front of me causing me to brake sharply when the unmarked car was hoping to clock me at ~120.
TL;DR - real (unmarked) traffic police's opinion of lemmings dangerously pulling out in front of a car travelling at a far higher speed is that this was a problem because it prevented them catching me for a worthwhile speed.
Also had a few choice quotes. Opening gambit was "If it wasn't for that traffic car, you'd be getting a ticket now", followed by "stop smirking", and (considering that it was an unmarked car) "we're surprised you didn't see us".
-
To be honest I don't think 100 mph needs an advance driving test, though if you're going to let people drive at 130+ then it might be a good idea.
I do think we need a lot more enforcement of all the things other than excess speed that causes all the problems, and that requires traffic cops, a whole load of them.
-
The amount of skill necessary to safely drive at 100mph on a quiet motorway is perhaps less than some might assume.
The amount of skill demonstrated by many drivers, unfortunately is less still.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the biggest danger from driving at high speed on a quiet motorway is that no matter how good your reactions and car control, you have no control over the f**ktards that pull out in front of you without looking. The solution to make 100mph variable motorway speed limits workable is not an advanced test for those that will be doing 100, but regular re-testing for all drivers, and bad driving penalised (as opposed to the current fetish for blaming speed for everything and persecuting speeders because speed is much easier to measure/prove).
As the saying goes, when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.
-
Going back many years to the early 1980s, I remember a conversation on Capital Radio when they had chat shows, Alan Hargreaves talking to a Swedish road safety lady, she made the point that to drive at a certain speed, say 50 mph would cost you say 6 hours work. If you drove at 70 mph it would cost you 7 hours work. So the save half an hour's drive time, you'd have to work an extra hour to pay for it.
But then we have the scenarion I mentioned earlier, that the time saved may get you ahead of the delay at the next set of traffic lights or the one who drives through the Dartford Tunnel at 30 and delays everything for the rest of the day.
Having usually spent a day driving a bus in London traffic for a 10 hour shift at a top speed of 20mph if I'm lucky, it's a pleasure to drive home late at night with an almost empty motorway. Last weekend's bus was Canning Town to Tower Gateway, 4 miles each way
according to google maps. A round trip took five hours fifty minutes. Blackwall tunnel South closed, Limehouse Link tunnel partially closed, Rotherhithe Tunnel traffic blocking back 2 miles, then demonstrators blocked Tower Bridge for most of the day. One bus took 2 and a half hours to get round the block at Tower Gateway!
-
I've no issue raising the limit but 100mph with drivers having taken a test some 30-40-50 years prior is a bit concerning, especially since some can't even use their indicators properly... Perhaps this will be feasible when the majority of cars on the road have some kind of active front protection and lane assist, so as to reduce the risk of forward collisions and lane deviation at speed.
Having a different rule for those with an "enhanced licence" seems like a LOT of extra admin work for the ticket offices, what with sending out routine s172's, and a pain in the arris for those who want to drive faster.
-
Variable speed limits seem to be coming everywhere anyway.
You could well be correct. I think I've pretty much only seen variable limits as part of the "smart motorway" thing which is a huge amount of work. But no reason why variable limits couldn't be implemented without all the other stuff.
-
Speed certainly tends to increase severity of injuries etc. It also tends to increase frequency of incidents. Largely as a result of less time to react to the original cause (usually someone's poor judgement). It's the inappropriate use of speed that is often an issue.
There has been research on lower speed limits increasing crash rates, particularly on dual carriageways etc. The thought was that where limits were low(er) drivers didn't properly take account of conditions because of complacency. As conditions changed with rain, or gradually increasing traffic for example folk often just carried on regardless.
There is also evidence that increasing safety features encourages certain amounts of risk taking. A belief that the various driver aids will help maintain control and if they don't it's going to be ok with all those airbags.
I doubt there will be an upwards change, but on modern duals and motorways more variable limits based on loadings (both up and down) seems reasonable.
-
we are edging back to the old argument that "speed
doesntkills"
idiots and poor driving kills. and as we know speed cameras aren't very clever at detecting poor driving alone. and the chances of more plod on motorways isn't likely, hopefully more will contribute to operation snap to eradicate to$$ers from our roads. then higher speeds on motorways will be achievable.
-
I don't think there is that much of a fetish about it. It is enforced to a modest extent.
There are only a million odd nips produced a year and around 10% of licences have points. That seems to suggest that people in the main are reasonable obedient.
I generally see far more enforcement in other parts of Europe than here.
-
As one who frequently drives on the continent (or did until the B word put paid to my work abroad), I didn't have a problem with driving with what I considered a comfortable cruising speed of 85-90 mph. The standards of driving do vary between the Benelux countries as indeed they do in France and Germany, where learner drivers aren't allowed to drive on a public road until they've had tuition on private roads. There's no 20 minute drive to see if you can make a car go forwards (don't bother with reverse these days), and 20 minutes how to use a satnav.
A friend moved to Stuttgart about 20 years ago and his daily commute into town was done at 120 mph. In the UK you'd be lucky to commute at 20 mph!!
Also the European police and authorities don't have the same fetish about exceeding the speed limit as the UK does.
-
There must be lots of families and couples who share cars, or just one car. Do they need to do this if they swap drivers during a long journey, or when the husband/wife is using the car?
The rules could only apply if a car is being driven at more than the "normal" limit, problem solved. Of course if both drivers have a high-speed licence, then it doesn't matter. If a driver gets pulled over doing 100 in a suitable car but they've not done the high-speed test, they get dealt with as any speeding driver is dealt with today.
Together with the requirement for variable speed limits on all motorways, it looks like a lot of extra infrastructure and bureaucracy to benefit a relatively few drivers who do over 50,000 miles per year on motorways at night.
Variable speed limits seem to be coming everywhere anyway. Maybe it is too complicated, the simple solution is to say drive as fast as you like and the vast majority of people will settle for 80 - 85. Relatively few drivers in Germany actually do 100+, I doubt it would be different here. Just because the maximum limit is higher (or removed altogether) doesn't mean everyone is compelled to driver any faster than they did before.
-
You could even introduce an online account so that if you've lent your car to a normal licence holder you can pause the high-speed registration of the car, and make it an offence to fail to do so unless your friend also has a high-speed licence which you've taken a photo of.
There must be lots of families and couples who share cars, or just one car. Do they need to do this if they swap drivers during a long journey, or when the husband/wife is using the car?
Together with the requirement for variable speed limits on all motorways, it looks like a lot of extra infrastructure and bureaucracy to benefit a relatively few drivers who do over 50,000 miles per year on motorways at night.
-
If some drivers are allowed to do 100mph, and a car is observed doing 96, how do you ascertain whether the driver of that vehicle on that occasion is allowed to do 100? Not as a one off, but as widespread enforcement. There are many, many potential ways to do this, some far less flawed than others.
It's not 100% effective, but one way would be to require your vehicle to be tested to the same standards as a police traffic car (which is obviously a much higher standard than a normal MOT), put the number plates on an online register, and require that you can only exceed 70 mph if you've got a high speed licence and your car is on the high speed register. Speed cameras obviously read number plates so it would be easy to pursue anyone who didn't have an approved high speed vehicle, which you can only register as such if you've done your high speed licence test.
You could even introduce an online account so that if you've lent your car to a normal licence holder you can pause the high-speed registration of the car, and make it an offence to fail to do so unless your friend also has a high-speed licence which you've taken a photo of.
This would also eliminate the problem of someone having a high-speed licence and then trying to see how fast some old banger can go.
In any even most people would not pass the high speed test even if they tried, so scope for abuse would be quite limited.
-
In principle, and as an IAM member, I find the idea of higher speed limits for drivers who have passed an appropriate advanced driving test to be appealing. However, unless/until we have cars that require a personalised key and biometrics to drive (at which point they will be self-driving and this discussion will be moot), there would appear to be significant hurdles to effective and efficient enforcement of such a scheme.
I realise that this is apples to oranges, as "push bikes" don't have VRMs or RK's and therefore are harder to monetise enforcement of, but the availability of exempt electrically assisted pushbikes has resulted in a vast number of illegal electric motorcycles that are indistinguishable from the legal assisted pushbikes (until they whizz past you at 40mph, uphill, without peddling, at night without lights, or any other legal or safety requirement). Riding a conventional mostly road legal motorcycle with a small number plate, you stand a fair chance of getting pulled for your crime. Riding a completely illegal electric motorcycle that looks like a road legal assisted bike (there are probably at least 2 in the country that are road legal), chances of getting pulled are next to zero.
If some drivers are allowed to do 100mph, and a car is observed doing 96, how do you ascertain whether the driver of that vehicle on that occasion is allowed to do 100? Not as a one off, but as widespread enforcement. There are many, many potential ways to do this, some far less flawed than others.
edit: Obviously we are all missing the real point - the country's richest Roland Rat impersonator needs to do or say something to appeal to the man in the street who voted Tory last time after Labour told him (as a key part of their election campaign) that he voted for Brexit because he was variously stupid and/or racist.
-
Could the average UK driver deal with increased speeds?
Where there's three lanes, you wouldn't expect the average driver to be in lane 3 though. The limit is a maximum limit and not a target, I've seen plenty of UK plated cars in Germany drive at 55 in lane 1, and that doesn't seem to cause any problems. I've also seen many cruise at a sensible 100, and a few go at 120+, never been the cause of any problems. Many people I've spoken to have told me they'd be doing 55 - 65 in lane one and that's absolutely fine.
I also don't see why we shouldn't allow drivers to take a test to allow them to drive at higher speeds. Of course nobody should let me drive any faster than anyone else based on my say-so, but if I pass a test and demonstrate that I have the same level of skill as a police response driver then why shouldn't I be allowed to drive faster?
-
Given that the source of the "news" is GB News, I'd take it with a pinch of salt. I live near ashford Kent and have to use the M20 regularly. when they installed the brexit barriers and contra-flow systems over the last few years between j9 and j 8 with single line traffic, the limit was lowered fro 70 to 50. In practice because of the dawdlers, traffic rarely reached 45. I forget my exact calculations but it took about 7 minutes longer to cover that section. 7 minutes x 2 for the 2 of us in the car, x number of time a year we have to use that section of road meant something like an additional 48 hours travelling over the course of a year.
I also drive on the continent fairly regularly where the motorway speeds are higher than in the UK. I occasionally see the aftermath of an RTC, I have witnessed a couple actually happen. Over there the authorities are much quicker at clearing up, the idea being to deal with the casualties first, then get the road open and traffic flowing again. In the UK the road is often closed for hours while police make their investigations purely for Home Office statistics. Abroad the policy seems to be "it's an insurance matter", clear the mess and let them deal with it.
Could the average UK driver deal with increased speeds? I doubt it, one only has to see how long it takes a UK driver to adopt to the higher speeds in France and Belgium on the motorway from Calais. It's not until I get to Lille that the UK plated cars seem to dissipate from dawdling along at 65 mph and lane discipline is restored.
As for fuel consumption, my Range Rover TDV8 was giving 31 mpg on my usual run to work until last week when the engine failed, probably due to old age! At under 65 it was doing about 27 mpg. The average speed shown on the trip meter for the last 6 months has been around 35mph, quite high according to my local Land Rover garage.
But back to the OP, on my "slow" journeys to work that extra 7 minutes it took from j9 to j8 could make the difference between avoiding an incident at the Dartford Crossing and a long wait. As for road casualties, the death rate is about 1800 per year on UK roads and has been fairly static for the last 5years. The majority of thos deaths have been on NSL country lanes, the rest on "normal" roads with very few in 30 and slower limits. I forget the exact amount but posted them on Pepipoo a few weeks ago.
-
It’s about as much use as anyone else’s contributions on this thread.
-
I drove at 125 a few weeks ago, perfectly legally. Nobody died.
So?
That's an anecdote. Not an argument, or evidence.
Plenty of drunk drivers have driven home, when nobody died.
My journey was seconds shorter.
So no real benefit then.
Arguments against raising the speed limit on motorways don’t hold much water.
That's just an assertion.
It's for the proposer of changes to argue the benefits, if any.
-
I drove at 125 a few weeks ago, perfectly legally. Nobody died. My journey was seconds shorter. Arguments against raising the speed limit on motorways don’t hold much water.
-
Additionally ICE Engines are not as efficient at 100mph. So it is more expensive to drive faster. The driver may be happy to offset the cost against convenience, but it is only a zero sum game for the driver. For everyone else there is more pollution, more noise and more risk.
I wouldn't be averse to the speed limit being 100 mph for EVs only, and 70 mph remaining the limit for ICE. Would give me a good reason to invest in an EV.
-
Personally I think 70 mph is plenty fast enough - given that enforcement is 79mph. And in reality you can cruise at 85 or so if you are mindful of cameras.
UK is a relatively small country, so most journeys are < 50 miles. So the savings in time are inconsequential.
For drivers who do longer distances regularly - I would posit that allowing higher speeds for long journeys will inevitably lead to more accidents due to tiredness, or moments of inattentiveness, as less time to react. The consequences of a crash at 100mph v 70mph are vast.
I have no figures to back this up. But I would wager that the number of deaths from crashes etc to "victims of car crashes", in which I include any non-fault drivers, increment at a higher rate than the speed of accidents. [ e.g. More that twice as many people die from accidents at 60mph than same number of accidents at 30mph]. Also any accidents at 100mph would inevitably lead to motorways being closed for longer after any accidents due to damage to infrastructure, and preservation of scene of crime in case of fatalities.
Additionally ICE Engines are not as efficient at 100mph. So it is more expensive to drive faster. The driver may be happy to offset the cost against convenience, but it is only a zero sum game for the driver. For everyone else there is more pollution, more noise and more risk.
-
A completely new driving test would need to be introduced.
Police drivers can go a lot faster because they have extra training, which isn't actually that expensive it's less than the cost of a racing licence.
As a "high speed licence test" is plainly a premium service, the government could introduce a test fee of £5k and I still think they'd have people queing round the block for it. It would certainly help the public finances.
-
A completely new driving test would need to be introduced.
-
By the way would this requested 100mph limit apply when it's raining, or reduce like they do in France?
-
And my, what an EV carrot that could be - EVs allowed to go at 120, or 150, petrol/diesel kept at 70.
Electricity produces emissions as well. Gas is the only source that can be quickly scaled up or down, so any incremental increase in electricity use is effectively wholly gas generated.
The idea being pushed seems to be "it doesn't matter how much energy is used as long as it's electricity". I guess it's politically easier to encourage people to buy a new car than encourage energy saving.
-
Source?
Here https://www.statista.com/chart/25098/fatality-rate-and-speed-limit-on-european-motorways/ and their link to an article in Der Spiegel https://www.spiegel.de/auto/aktuell/tempolimit-koennte-jaehrlich-bis-zu-140-todesfaelle-verhindern-a-1254504.html
I'm not one of those who has an unthinking "speed kills" position, and the Statista table shows that there really is no link like like that - all sorts of other factors are involved. Which is why the German experience is interesting, as it removes all the factors like vehicle condition, driver training/skills, roadway quality etc. Even though there are fewer accidents on the unrestricted sections, because only the safest stretches are unrestricted, the casualty rates are higher.
Does that mean we shouldn't have a higher limit on our motorways? Not necessarily. I'm not ideologically opposed to it, and I've long thought that if we are going to vary speed limits for traffic management purposes there'd probably be better buy-in from drivers for lower limits when necessary if they also saw the same electronic signs showing higher limits when possible.
Should that higher limit top out at 100? Possibly. 80? Why not - it's common enough in other countries. 120? Possibly. Unlimited? Hmmm. Driver skills start to become a problem,
(a) for the fast driver, although different training and testing could perhaps be introduced. Could even be a money-spinner - I can envisage that someone able to afford a super/hypercar would happily pay a couple of K (to the police?) for advanced training and the right to have a numberplate showing the speed he's rated for.
But there's the (b) of all the dozy half-wits out there who don't pay attention, and the consequences of one of them pulling in front of someone doing 150 vs 70 are a lot more gripping.
None of the issues I brought up in my earlier replies were meant to be "no we shouldn't cos...", but they are things which should be considered when balancing competing interests. Is there actually any practical point to a 100 limit (other than a psychological sense of fair play)? We already tolerate a certain casualty rate, knowing it could be lowered if we lower speed limits, which is happening in urban areas, but we would need to decide to risk higher rates if we raise the limit. And of course it's not just the occupants of a fast car who face a higher risk, it's also anybody they hit.
The extra fuel consumption isn't just a matter for the driver's wallet - it means extra emissions. And my, what an EV carrot that could be - EVs allowed to go at 120, or 150, petrol/diesel kept at 70.
Things are often never as simple as at first they may appear, but the implications of a higher speed limit could be properly examined, and made a subject of public debate, if there was political will.
In other words it aint gonna happen.
-
I don't think it would work particularly well here though, not until folk had a better idea of lane discipline. High speed differentials are difficult.
That's where variable speed limits come in. Pretty much the entire length of the M25 has variable speed limits, which would be in force most of the time if there were no maximum limit. However at 3 am when you have five empty fully lit lanes, the only real limit should be the capabilities of the vehicle and the driver.
-
That would include me. But at least I'd be in the correct lane.
-
I don't think it would work particularly well here though, not until folk had a better idea of lane discipline. High speed differentials are difficult.
Over here you'd have a bunch of drivers, eyes glued to their speedometer, making sure they maintained 111mph and didn't hit 112.
-
Frankly if it were up to me the motorways would have no limit at all, in Germany I found 110 / 115 mph brought a fair balance between making progress and fuel stops.
About 35% (and increasing) of Autobahn 130kph, Only about 10% is fully derestricted.
The balance has a variable limit based on traffic. It is often derestricted in the evenings.
It seems to work reasonably well overall. The speeds you describe would be common.
I don't think it would work particularly well here though, not until folk had a better idea of lane discipline. High speed differentials are difficult.
-
Frankly if it were up to me the motorways would have no limit at all, in Germany I found 110 / 115 mph brought a fair balance between making progress and fuel stops.
In Germany there are 75% more fatal accidents on unrestricted sections than on ones with a speed limit.
Source?
S&S may be referring to this 2019 piece in Der Spiegel (https://www.spiegel.de/auto/aktuell/tempolimit-koennte-jaehrlich-bis-zu-140-todesfaelle-verhindern-a-1254504.html).
There's also this useful article (https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/2022/06/28/autobahnen-mit-tempolimit-sind-nicht-gefaehrlicher-als-autobahnen-ohne-tempolimit/) from German fact-checking website Correktiv, that cites the Spiegel article among others. Both articles are in German so you may need to rely on Google Translate.
Having lived in Germany for a period, I did find their Autobahn network fairly good. As noted in one of the articles above, the unrestricted sections are generally only on the safer stretches of motorway, i.e. those that are generally quiet, no major junctions, away from big cities etc.
In my experience too, most people were fairly sensible on the unrestricted sections and adjusted their speed to suit the road and conditions. Partly because, just like in the UK, just because one isn't speeding, doesn't mean one isn't driving carelessly.
-
It's GB News - what do you expect?
I'd not looked at before seeing it cited here as a news source. After looking at the site I thought maybe it was just posted as a joke.
-
Frankly if it were up to me the motorways would have no limit at all, in Germany I found 110 / 115 mph brought a fair balance between making progress and fuel stops.
In Germany there are 75% more fatal accidents on unrestricted sections than on ones with a speed limit.
Source?
-
Have a nice weekend everyone. I have a couple of case to win next week.
I wish you success.
-
Frankly if it were up to me the motorways would have no limit at all, in Germany I found 110 / 115 mph brought a fair balance between making progress and fuel stops.
In Germany there are 75% more fatal accidents on unrestricted sections than on ones with a speed limit.
-
There's already a law against that. Maybe it should be subject to civil enforcement, with TFL given the relevant powers to enforce it on the M25? It would certainly help plug the recent budget hole from the 900 appeals they lost.
I've spent more hours than I wish I had on the M25. Don't think I ever once saw anybody driving so slowly in any middle/outer lanes that a convincing case could be made that they were impeding the safe forward progress of other vehicles, or driving without reasonable consideration for other road users.
-
Have a nice weekend everyone. I have a couple of case to win next week.
-
1. I do not subscribe to the view re any political bias arguments because I have met cp8759 (with whom I work closely) and Andy Foster several times. Our exchanges of views have been frank yet polite.
Without trying to re-litigate old cases, all I can do is to relate my experience.
I described people who hate Sadiq Kahn because of the colour of his skin and/or his religion as “knuckle-draggers” – removed.
A while ago I suggested (that was all) that we should be mindful that John Lyon’s campaign against Bristol’s CAZ penalties might not be entirely motivated by a purist desire for scrupulously correct legalities, and that given his track record of opposing other traffic control measures he might be one of those people who subscribes to the “war on the motorist” belief, and is simply opposed to anything which stops him driving when, where, how, and in what, he likes.
Removed, and a complaint made against me.
-
Your 100 hours saving will cost you twice as much in fuel over those 23,450 miles.
I'm fine with that (also considering that a higher limit doesn't mean one has to drive faster, it's just an option). You also have to factor in that driving at a more sensible speed is more enjoyable, and I'd rather be at my destination sooner rather than later given that I'm not getting any younger.
Frankly if it were up to me the motorways would have no limit at all, in Germany I found 110 / 115 mph brought a fair balance between making progress and fuel stops.
-
Another Petition should be made in my opinion to penalise the idiots who muck about in the overtaking and fast lanes apparently thinking they are driving a hearse. :'(
There's already a law against that. Maybe it should be subject to civil enforcement, with TFL given the relevant powers to enforce it on the M25? It would certainly help plug the recent budget hole from the 900 appeals they lost.
-
But being able to do 100 mph at 11 pm would save me hundreds of hours of slow driving per year (70 mph is slow in my book).
Yes - if each year you spend about 335 hours driving 23,450 miles at a steady 70mph (in addition to all the other hours driving further at lower speeds) then your saving if you could do that 23,450 miles at 100mph instead would just tip over 100 hours.
Once you're over 100 hours you can legitimately say you are "in the hundreds", but there is a argument that a common interpretation of "hundreds" means at least an integer multiple of hundreds, not anything over 100, so a threshold of 200 hours, i.e. 667 hours driving 46,690 miles at a steady 70mph vs 466.9 hours at a steady 100.
But however you slice it, you might like to try installing a GPS journey tracker on your phone, and gather actual data on how much of your journeys you spend at an unimpeded 70mph, and then factor in an honest appraisal of whether you could really have covered the same ground at an unimpeded 100mph, given the realities of other traffic, the weather, the fact that it's dark, etc.
You might be surprised.
Also, remember that the saving in time will cost you. In theory power required goes up with the cube of speed. 100/70 = 1.43. 1.43³ = 2.92, so it takes nearly 3 times as much power to travel at 100 compared to 70. Assuming constant efficiency, fuel consumption is proportional to power output so you'd be using 2.92 x more fuel to go 1.43 x faster, i.e. 2.92/1.43 = 2.04 times less efficient, meaning your mpg will drop to 1/2.04, so basically 50% of its figure at 70mph.
Your 100 hours saving will cost you twice as much in fuel over those 23,450 miles.
Your car may well be able to give you pretty accurate consumption figures at a steady 70, especially as it would be measuring over a period of hour(s). If so you should be able to estimate the cost of doing 100 instead of 70, and see if it is still as attractive.
-
My views for what they are worth.
1. I do not subscribe to the view re any political bias arguments because I have met cp8759 (with whom I work closely) and Andy Foster several times. Our exchanges of views have been frank yet polite. I am a musician and work in terms of the universal language of mankind (Longfellow). I do not care one iota what politics one follows. I have played in the Herodus Attica Theatre in Athens 1975 with the RPO. I have played squash (1978-1980) in Politea (north of Kifissia) from where one can see the Parthenon. Many people do not understand the root meaning of polis.
2. I have driven many thousands of miles at speed on various high-powered motorcycles. In Europe as far as Greece. 1981-1987 on the Yamaha XJ650 Turbo, Honda CX500 and Honda VF750SC, in reverse order. And in my Renault convertible and other cars thrice to Kos/Kefalonia. 2001, 2002 and 2013. The latter in three days to Thessaloniki and with one stop in Stubai Tal. (Krossbach). Near Brenner pass. The Inglorious Bastards and all that.
3. In 1997 en route to Surbiton on the Yamaha from Portsmouth (Lovedean) I had a blow out in my rear tyre (some idiot had replaced the tyre with a tubed one and had not cleaned the inside of the tyre!). Tubed tyres do not deflate so fast. I had to use all of my experience to stay alive: very little back brake, go through the gears (which many car drivers do not) and use mostly the front brake.
4. In 1981, on the Honda CX500 (which I bought having sold a rather nice Italian violin :-\ ), I had a puncture somewhere between Venice and Ferrara. Being resourceful, I carried a pump with inflatable foam, bought some chewing gum and super glue which got us to Ferrara.
5. I have driven at speed in Germany many times - nichts schneller 130 km - and have observed nutters flashing one from the back.
6. I have driven to Interlaken from Zeebrugge in 12 hours.
7. I have driven from Brindisi to Venice in 12 hours.
In light of all this experience, I am not inclined to sign at present. Also:
8. Whichever speed limit is legalised, people will always go over it!
Another Petition should be made in my opinion to penalise the idiots who muck about in the overtaking and fast lanes apparently thinking they are driving a hearse. :'(
-
It's not that long ago that an increase to 80mph was considered and rejected. At that time one of the strange arguments was that drivers currently exceeding 70 would no longer be breaking the law. In other words the supporters were suggesting people would obey the increased limit, rather than drive 11mph faster.
As for that headline "Driving law proposals could see motorway speed limits raised to 100mph to 'reduce congestion" it's written to suggest that this proposal (not proposals by the way) comes from someone actually likely to influence the law.
Then again look at their other headlines. An article about fuel price rises due to oil prices, supply chain, and exchange rate has the headline "Petrol and diesel drivers punished by supermarkets"
It's GB News - what do you expect?
-
That is a somewhat confused post - mostly correct but seemingly contradictory.
For the purposes of maximising road capacity, *if* the braking distance increases exponentially with speed as per the highway code (my opinion of which is well documented), the optimum speed is about 11mph.
If a road is below maximum capacity, journeys will be shorter at higher speeds.
However, *if* the "two second rule" is applied, rather than the highway code distances, the 'length' of a vehicle effectively becomes shorter (measured in time taken for its length to pass a point), and maximum throughput is just below whatever speed the French cars start to blow up.
HC stopping distances are not the same as the spacing between cars in moving traffic, because the expectation is that the car in front of you is not going to go from <whatever> mph to zero instantly and without warning. The expectation is that a driver will be looking as far ahead as possible and thus see anything requiring braking only a few seconds after the car in front, and that that one will take some time to stop. The HC stopping distances are the same as a 2s gap at 40mph, less below, and greater above.
Re the length of a vehicle, if you add 14.44' to the length of a 2s gap at Xmph then you have the distance between the front of one car and the front of the next, which you use to calculate how many cars will fit onto a given length of road, and the total package of [car+gap] will take a calculable amount of time to pass a point, so that tells you how many can pass a point in a given amount of time.
Suggesting that motorists who have scant regard for often arbitrary temporary speed limits are variously stupid and selfish is perhaps not the best way to ingratiate yourself with a motoring forum - although perhaps that's the idea.
Of course it's not, but I'm not trying to ingratiate myself, nor should I have to.
I'm well aware that this site has a political bias, and that it is one that I do not share, and for the avoidance of doubt, I'm happy to nail my (relevant to this site) colours to the mast.
I am in favour of congestion zones, low emission zones, low traffic neighbourhoods and 20mph speed limits in built-up areas.
I think 15-minute cities are a great idea.
I think that where beneficial to public transport, of course buses etc should be prioritised over private vehicles for road space, traffic light phasing, no entry/right-turn/left-turn/etc signs.
I think that this whole "war on the motorist" idea is complete swivel-eyed conspiracy b******s, believed by people who have swallowed the cynical self-serving lies of populist politicians and the right-wing red tops.
Does this mean that I think cp8759 is "Tory scum"? Of course not.
Does it mean that he, or others, think I'm "socialist scum" and should refuse me their help if I needed it? I would sincerely hope of course not.
[And I'd like to point out, in passing, that the introduction of congestion zones/LEZs/LTNs/etc do not follow party political alignments]
Does this mean that I think the authorities should be allowed a bit of slack in their adherence to the rules and regulations for signage, camera authorisations, notice wording and serving, etc? Of course not. And the flip-side of that is the of-course-not to whether drivers who ignore what they feel are often arbitrary temporary speed limits have right on their side.
As for "stupid and selfish", I wholeheartedly stand by that. How many times do you see posts on various internet fora whinging about a speed limit being reduced when the traffic was light and flowing freely? Stupidity as that tries to deny the reality of a problem 5 miles ahead which is being tackled by reducing the arrival rate of new cars.
How many drivers expect other ones to move left into a gap under 4 seconds long so that they can overtake, and get very headlamp-flashy and aggressive if they don't? Selfish.
Does every driver consider the reality of what the 2s rule means? How long that gap actually is? Extend the principle to doubling it in adverse weather, and think of a line of HGVs doing the legal maximum of 60mpg in the left-lane of a 2-lane motorway or dual carriageway, and a car driver overtaking them at 65mph. A 70mph driver coming up behind him has to recognise that the shortest gap he can possibly pull into is 8 seconds at 60mph which is 704', over ⅛ of a mile. If he doesn't, he's stupid. If he believes that the guy in front should move over even if the gap isn't that long, he's selfish. If he doesn't allow time for the 65mph driver to close in on the vehicle then in front of him, i.e. allow an even longer gap, but expects him to drop his speed to 60 to allow him to overtake, more selfishness.
Look at all the drivers who regard 20mph speed limits, low-emission zones, low traffic neighbourhoods, congestion zones, etc as some ulterior-motive war on motorists to take away their freedoms. Stupid.
Look at all the drivers who decry all those things because they stop them driving what they want, where they want, when they want, and how they want, no matter how popular and proven the benefits are to people who are not motorists. Selfish.
Sorry, Andy, but there really are a lot of stupid, selfish motorists out there.
Temporary limits at rush hour to maximise traffic flow are largely a good idea, let down by the prevalence of arbitrary and pointless speed limit reductions 'just in case'.
Do you know that they are arbitrary and pointless, or is it just that their point is obscure to you because you don't have knowledge of all the facts?
Do you not believe that prevention is better than cure?
Today Aesop would be castigated for his portrayal of the boy on the grounds that there might have been a wolf anyway, and you can't be too careful. You can,
Every mile of road reduced to 50 from 70 because on balance it is judged to be beneficial "costs" you 21 seconds.
21 seconds.
What kind of life do you lead where that is a burden too onerous to bear?
A 10-mile stretch costs you less time than it takes to make a cup of tea.
and that is why temporary speed limits to increase traffic flow don't work.
There is a sound theoretical basis for them, and they might be more effective if there was greater observance of them.
Plus, "work" has to be viewed as the aggregate effect on tens of thousands of motorists over several miles and a time possibly measured in hours, not just one person's individual experience of a few miles at the cost of a few minutes.
-
It's not that long ago that an increase to 80mph was considered and rejected. At that time one of the strange arguments was that drivers currently exceeding 70 would no longer be breaking the law. In other words the supporters were suggesting people would obey the increased limit, rather than drive 11mph faster.
As for that headline "Driving law proposals could see motorway speed limits raised to 100mph to 'reduce congestion" it's written to suggest that this proposal (not proposals by the way) comes from someone actually likely to influence the law.
Then again look at their other headlines. An article about fuel price rises due to oil prices, supply chain, and exchange rate has the headline "Petrol and diesel drivers punished by supermarkets"
-
Forget about this rush hour nonsense, it's unlikely traffic will be able to travel on any motorway at the maximum legal limit at rush hour anyway.
But being able to do 100 mph at 11 pm would save me hundreds of hours of slow driving per year (70 mph is slow in my book).
-
That is a somewhat confused post - mostly correct but seemingly contradictory.
For the purposes of maximising road capacity, *if* the braking distance increases exponentially with speed as per the highway code (my opinion of which is well documented), the optimum speed is about 11mph.
If a road is below maximum capacity, journeys will be shorter at higher speeds.
However, *if* the "two second rule" is applied, rather than the highway code distances, the 'length' of a vehicle effectively becomes shorter (measured in time taken for its length to pass a point), and maximum throughput is just below whatever speed the French cars start to blow up.
Suggesting that motorists who have scant regard for often arbitrary temporary speed limits are variously stupid and selfish is perhaps not the best way to ingratiate yourself with a motoring forum - although perhaps that's the idea.
Temporary limits at rush hour to maximise traffic flow are largely a good idea, let down by the prevalence of arbitrary and pointless speed limit reductions 'just in case'. Today Aesop would be castigated for his portrayal of the boy on the grounds that there might have been a wolf anyway, and you can't be too careful. You can, and that is why temporary speed limits to increase traffic flow don't work.
-
Given that (on dry roads) the advice is to maintain a 2 second gap then the faster the traffic the longer the gap has to be, so as speeds increase you actually get fewer cars on a given length of road.
At any given moment in time, each lane of a road has capacity for about 24 cars per mile (assuming average car length of 14.44') at 70mph, and about 17 per mile at 100mph.
Because car lengths remain the same though, you can pass more cars down the road at higher speeds. But not by much - past any given point you can get about 1682 cars per hour at 70mph, and 1716 at 100mph.
The reality though is that you're always going to get bunching up and sudden slow-downs of traffic, particularly when volumes are high, and the faster the "free-flowing" traffic is the worse the temporary blockages get (people into queueing theory can probably explain why).
That's why during peak times temporary speed limits are used to slow traffic down, to minimise the number and severity of temporary blockages, and to allow ones which arise to clear quicker by reducing the rate at which new vehicles arrive.
And that idea would work better than it does if people stuck to the temporary limits instead of stupidly and selfishly ignoring them because they can't see why it's needed. That's the whole point - you can't see why because the why is 5 miles down the road. Thank heavens for the increased use of non-film ANPR gantry cameras which make it impossible for drivers not to follow temporary speed limits.
I suspect that upping the limit would actually make things worse, not better.
-
Did you mean to post this on the 1st, in the morning?
No? ???
-
Did you mean to post this on the 1st, in the morning?
-
https://www.gbnews.com/lifestyle/cars/driving-law-proposals-motorway-speed-limits-petition
Please sign here: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/651666